October 26, 2007

10/26: Say No To Amnesty: The Sequel

When historians look back on the major political battles of 2007, "amnesty" may be the word that stands out the most. First wielded by conservatives as they sought to kill the comprehensive immigration bill, the term is now being used by the netroots as they seek to stop the Senate from granting retroactive immunity to telecom companies.

CLINTON: Where Do You Stand On Telecom Immunity?

Yesterday, the leading liberal bloggers sent a letter to Sen. Harry Reid and the Senate Judiciary Committee in which they encouraged them to "join Sen. [Chris] Dodd's leadership efforts to stop legislation that would allow [telecommunications] companies to escape liability." Dodd, who has seen his popularity among the netroots skyrocket after declaring that he would filibuster the bill, also launched a whip count on his website.

Hillary Clinton is taking heat from the netroots for failing to join Dodd in forcefully condemning the bill. When asked about the bill, Clinton said:

"I haven't seen it, so I can't express an opinion about it, but I don't trust the Bush administration with our civil rights and liberties, so I'm going to study it very hard, and as matters stand now, I could not support it and I would support a filibuster absent additional information coming forth that would convince me differently."

• Open Left's Matt Stoller: "Clinton's ridiculous statement on amnesty for telecom companies is generating mockery and disdain from all sides."
• Firedoglake's Jane Hamsher: "Is it a coincidence we haven't heard anything convincing from Hillary Clinton, who took in $87,130 in telecom contributions in the 2006 cycle -- more than anyone else currently in the Senate?... By making an unquivocal statement and bring attention to the matter, she could create a groundswell of public support that puts pressure on other Senate Democrats to respect the rule of law. Then again, maybe that's the problem."

AMERICAblog's John Aravosis took a break from bashing Barack Obama over his ties to Rev. McClurkin in order to praise him for supporting Dodd's filibuster: "In the 'good' Obama news category, he announced that he's supporting Senator Dodd's filibuster of the telecom immunity bill (the bill that would give Verizon, AT&T and other companies immunity for having helped the government illegally spy on innocent Americans). And that's good. Hillary, on the other hand, is being less good, and folks are being urged to contact her and urge her support for the filibuster."

OBAMA: Stuck In A Moment He Can't Get Out Of

The firestorm in the blogosphere surrounding Obama's decision to campaign with gospel singer Donnie McClurkin continues unabated. Yesterday, The Huffington Post's Michael Roston published "an open letter signed by 16 LGBT and black religious leaders [that] says that Obama is reaching out to bring blacks and homosexuals together." The letter states that "Barack Obama is constructing a tent big enough for LGBT Americans who know that their sexual orientation is an innate and treasured part of their being, and for African American ministers and citizens who believe that their religion prevents them from fully embracing their gay brothers and sisters."

Aravosis immediately criticized the letter and repeated his call for Obama to fire McClurkin. He cited the following passage in the letter as "the most important":

At the same time, while Obama has said that he 'strongly disagrees' with Pastor McClurkin's comments, he will not exclude from his campaign the many Americans including many in the African American community who believe the same as Pastor McClurkin.

Aravosis: "Great, so we're to believe Obama would not exclude anti-Semites or racists from his campaign either? Well, would he? Someone needs to ask him that question - Senator, are you saying that you would welcome anti-Semites and racists into your campaign, even though you strongly disagree with them, because you believe in some kind of big tent of bigotry?"

Other liberal bloggers were similarly critical of the Obama campaign's response:

• Atrios: "Because anti-gay bigots exist in the African-American community, it's okay for Obama to embrace them? Not understanding."
• Daily Kos' Markos Moulitsas: "Seriously, could Obama's campaign come off looking more inept with their handling of the McClurkin mess? It sure doesn't inspire confidence."
• Matt Stoller: "If there were a comedy of errors involving racism, homophobia, paternalism, single-issue groups and Bob Shrum, this is what it would read like."

GOP FIELD: It's Now The Big Five

NRO's Jim Geraghty explains "How Each of the Big Five Can Win The Nomination":

• Mike Huckabee: "First, he has to do very well in Iowa. Huck's got to make a heck of a splash, win outright, or place a close second or third. From there, he's got to do something to maintain that momentum in New Hampshire, even though it's not the most fertile ground for his type of appeal. By 'something,' I'm thinking a respectable double digit finish. Then move on to South Carolina and win."
• John McCain: "If the field narrows to Giuliani, Huckabee, and himself, he can probably close the deal as the consensus candidate, the man who won't infuriate social conservatives or fiscal conservatives, the man acceptable to both the Club For Growth and the Family Research Council...To get there, he needs Thompson and Romney, the two guys who can also contend for that, 'I Can Unite the Party' title, to stumble early."
• Mitt Romney: "For now, his mission is to just 'keep on truckin', although it would be nice for his national poll numbers to get up a bit...Losing either Iowa or New Hampshire will hurt him badly -- probably not enough to drive him out of the race, but blowing a longtime, and pretty significant lead will get him compared a lot to this year's New York Mets."
• Fred Thompson: "For now, he's just got to meet expectations in Iowa, which is to place a respectable second or third...I have an easy time picturing the race coming down to Rudy and Not Rudy, and the Not Rudy candidate winning in the end as Republicans conclude they're just not comfortable with a candidate with Giuliani's flaws on abortion, guns, and gays. It's in Thompson's interest that he be seen as the most viable Not Rudy candidate as quickly as possible."
• Rudy Giuliani: "When you've led all the national polls, most by quite a bit, for much of the year, you're sitting pretty...Besides sweeping his most friendly territory on [Feb. 5th] -- NY, NJ, CT, CA, Delaware, Illinois -- Giuliani needs the Not Rudy candidate to come out of the Not Rudy mini-primary bruised."

MCCAIN: Let's Chat

McCain participated in a conference call with a number of conservative bloggers yesterday in which he discussed torture, Iran, Judge Southwick, and the DREAM Act. Reactions were respectful, if not overwhelmingly positive, although Power Line's Paul Mirengoff declared that McCain's comments "left me thinking that maybe I supported the right guy in 2000 after all."

Soren Dayton writes: "The theme of the call really seemed to be communication. John McCain has made clear repeatedly that he would do more than the Bush administration to communicate. He would talk more about Iraq. About the deficit. About immigration. About global warming. About judges. He believes that he would be able to get through to people if he just explained. In that sense, he seems much more like Reagan or (Bill, but not Hillary) Clinton."

During the call, McCain criticized Giuliani's statement that he wasn't sure whether waterboarding was torture. Townhall's Matt Lewis reported that McCain "compared this statement to Mitt Romney's saying he would consult lawyers before striking an Iranian nuclear facility as both examples of 'inexperience'."

Captain's Quarters' Ed Morrissey adds: "McCain says that waterboarding is opposed by most of the retired military generals, and he considers it torture. It's a matter of keeping the moral high ground and understanding what kind of country we have."

Although McCain left for Iowa before the DREAM Act vote took place, Mirengoff reports that "McCain told us that he would have voted against cloture (i.e., in favor of preventing a vote) because he 'got the message' this summer that Americans want the border secured before we 'go on to the rest.' McCain would deem parts of the border secure when the governor of the relevant state so certifies."

While McCain's apparent change of heart on immigration satisfied Mirengoff, Slate's Mickey Kaus was not convinced: "But if--as border fence opponents constantly remind us--nearly half of illegal immigrants are here because they overstay visas, not because they sneak cross the border, why should the governors of border states be the ones who decide if the borders are secure?...I'm continually amazed by the Cheap Date Conservatives I run into who think McCain has somehow convincingly changed on immigration."

McCain also defended his participation in the "Gang of 14" compromise on judicial nominations. Jim Geraghty quotes McCain: "And I'm glad we didn't use the 51 vote standard that we would have had under the nuclear option, now that we see the obvious consequences for a Democratic president and a Democratic majority."

MCCAIN: Digging Up The 60s

McCain's new Woodstock ad has spurred an interesting blog conversation about the cultural divide that has helped define modern American politics. Soren Dayton calls the ad "clever" and writes, "Is John McCain signaling sympathy and awareness of the cultural DNA of the culture wars? Is this a way to get past the seeming divide between McCain and social conservatives?"

On the left, Matt Stoller notes that the ad "is generating good buzz among Republicans because it combines Hillary Clinton, Woodstock, drug use, the culture wars of the 1960s, and Vietnam...The GOP has lived off of the fumes of the civil rights backlash for a decade or so, and their whole mythology is built around fighting a liberal establishment that transparently doesn't exist."

Atrios links to the ad and writes, "I really don't understand that generation. I cannot imagine that 40 years from now I'll view every single political issue through the lens of some brief period in my youth. I don't even do that now."

Matthew Yglesias responds: "The real reason people of a certain age see everything through the prism of the Baby Boom Youth Experience is, obviously, that there are just so damn many baby boomers that they're able to get away with it. The cohorts right before and right after the baby boomers are just too small to form an insular and self-referential circle. My generation is really big, and someday we'll be as annoying as the boomers are today, but for now too many of us are too young and obscure to inflict it on others."

THOMPSON: Growing On Andrew?

It's been clear for a while now that Andrew Sullivan favors Barack Obama and Ron Paul in their respective primaries, but is Fred Thompson beginning to win him over? Andrew quotes a statement by Thompson in which the candidate appears to break with Cheney's view of executive power:

Thompson agreed that he didn't share the views of Vice President Cheney when it comes to the supremacy of the executive branch.

"No, I think the constitution in times of war, especially, is very definitive about that," he said. "The president is the commander in chief, but the Congress has the power of the budget. The power of the purse. So everything has to go through that prism. So it's divided power in the constitution. Our founding fathers divided that up. Divided it up at the federal level, the idea being that things like Watergate should be made very difficult to happen. So no one branch of the government can misuse power."

Sullivan: "I have to say: he's growing on me."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: The Power of the Press

Matthew Yglesias points to a Noam Scheiber post on the influence of press coverage and observes:

"...[If] Huckabee finishes a reasonably close second to Mitt Romney in the Iowa caucus...[w]ill that be covered as 'Romney wins, on to New Hampshire!' or will it be covered as 'Huckabee Surging, Chaos on the Religious Right!'? The choice of narratives could have a big impact on the ultimate outcome, and it will be made by a fairly small number of reporters and editors who mostly refuse to even acknowledge that they're actors in the process and not just observers of it."

LEST WE FORGET: NY Times, Moving Up In The World

Mickey Kaus reports: "In a desperate bid for respectability, the struggling New York Times has begun an association with the prestigious bloggingheads.tv start-up. David Corn puts on a jacket and tie for the occasion."

Posted by Conn Carroll at October 26, 2007 01:01 PM