May 20, 2008

5/20: General Election Jousting

Liberal bloggers continue to argue that John McCain is ethically compromised by the presence of lobbyists at the highest levels of his campaign. They're also stepping up their calls for the resignation of McCain's senior adviser Charlie Black due to his past lobbying work for controversial foreign leaders. Conservative bloggers are reacting to this brouhaha in different ways. Some are ridiculing the controversy, calling it "silly season on hunting lobbyists in Washington politics." Others are offering names of other lobbyists whom McCain should fire from his campaign. Still others are accusing McCain of "appeas[ing] the Left" by introducing new rules regarding lobbyists on his campaign.

Meanwhile, conservative bloggers continue to savage Barack Obama for saying that Iran "[doesn't] pose a serious threat to us the way the Soviet Union posed a threat to us." These bloggers are accusing Obama of being ignorant of the concept of "asymmetric warfare" and calling him "a 9/10 Democrat". Liberal bloggers are fighting back, arguing that Obama's assessment of the dangers posed by Iran is a lot closer to reality than conservatives' "paranoid saber-rattling".

MCCAIN: Bought And Sold?

Liberal bloggers continue to attack McCain over his lobbyist problem:

• Daily Kos' DHinMI: "The problem, according to the McCain campaign, is perception. But the problem isn't perception. Instead, it's the same old reality that McCain's candidacy, just like George Bush's, is bought and paid for by the GOP lobbying infrastructure. Last week the McCain campaign was forced to distance itself from staff who had lobbied on behalf of the military dictatorship of Burma/Myanmar. Another had to be let go because he lobbied for the governments of Serbia and Qatar. [...] Finally, there's Charlie Black, one of McCain's chief strategists. As MoveOn has documented, Black has a long history of lobbying for foreign thugs and repressive governments. [...] Does McCain currently have anyone on his campaign who's not a lobbyist?"
• Firedoglake's emptywheel: "The McCain campaign employed a number of people who were actively lobbying the Senate on subjects central to McCain's interests. That's not a perception problem, it's a real ethical problem, a stench the campaign can't cleanse simply by considering it a 'perception problem.' McCain's campaign and McCain's policies have been bought and sold by lobbyists, something that doesn't appear to be changing anytime soon."
• MyDD's Jonathan Singer: "McCain's problem isn't necessarily that he should have seen this coming yet didn't. Rather, McCain's problem is much more insidious: Believing that he is beyond reproach. Already in this nascent general election campaign (or pre-general election campaign) we've seen McCain play fast and loose with campaign finance and ethics laws and regulations, seemingly under the theory that because his name is on the law he can get away with anything. We have also seen it with McCain's lame attacks on Barack Obama regarding Hamas even though McCain himself not three years ago advocated for rapprochement with the Palestinian group. And we've seen it again and again and again and again with McCain's all-too-close relationship with lobbyists. Do Americans really want a holier-than-thou President who doesn't come close to living up to his own ideals?"
• The Carpetbagger Report's Steve Benen: "I certainly understand why the McCain campaign is starting to feel antsy. McCain benefits from a public perception that he's a 'reformer' who disdains the influence and access given to high-priced DC lobbyists. Now, people are starting to get a peek behind the curtain, finding a candidate who's surrounded himself with these same high-priced DC lobbyists, many of whom worked for some of the world's most unsavory thugs. And now it's on the front page of a major daily. With the pressure picking up on Charles Black, this may still get worse for the McCain campaign."
• AMERICAblog's John Aravosis: "This isn't the first time McCain has raised eyebrows over his troubling ties to lobbyists. Bush criticized McCain during the 2000 presidential campaign for taking campaign money from people who had business before his own Senate committee. McCain likes to talk about ethics, but his career, from the Keating Five on, has been anything but."

MCCAIN II: Mixed Messages

On the right side of the blogosphere, Michelle Malkin offers the name of another lobbyist whom she wants McCain to fire: "Five McCain campaign staffers and volunteers have now been shown the door over their lobbying activities and/or status as foreign agents. [...] But not a word from either the MSM or the lefties about McCain Hispanic outreach advisor Juan Hernandez, the former Mexican cabinet official who lobbied aggressively for illegal alien rights and benefits in the US on behalf of a foreign government. He still serves as a fellow at the conflict-of-interest-clouded Reform Institute funded with money from George Soros while continuing to advance Mexico's open-borders agenda and drumming up campaign cash for McCain, most recently, as I reported earlier this month, for Cinco de Mayo. So: What about Juan?"

Meanwhile, Hot Air's Ed Morrissey criticizes the controversy: "I'm not saying that having lobbyists in campaigns is a good idea, but they would be at worst an indirect indicator of the nature of the candidate. Checking the client list only goes so far, too, since most lobbyists have diverse clientele, and lawyers -- especially criminal defense attorneys -- exist to represent all sides in any dispute. If people want to see fewer lobbyists and less opportunity for corruption, then the only solution is to reduce the power and reach of the federal government in order to eliminate the spoils for which lobbyists pay big money."

Townhall's Matt Lewis criticizes "McCain's campaign to appease the Left": "It's almost as if John McCain's campaign simply decided they will not allow anyone to cause McCain one minute's trouble...Say something about Obama's middle name -- sayonara. Twitter a YouTube clip about Rev. Wright -- you're gone. Be a lobbyist at a time when that's a liability -- adios! By quickly dispensing of any unwanted baggage, McCain's campaign hopes to frustrate Obama's ability to attack him. Of course, this strategy isn't all that different from Bill Clinton's triangulation. In both cases, the principal frustrates his opponents by making unorthodox moves. While triangulation seeks to co-opt opponents' ideas, McCainulation seeks to root-out -- like a cancer -- any potential internal weakness -- before they can be exploited by your opponent. [...] The problem with appeasement, of course, is that it doesn't appease -- it actually emboldens your opponents and rewards them for their aggression. In the instance of McCain's new rules regarding lobbyists on his campaign, McCain is finding out that he has not, in fact, pacified his opponents by introducing these new 'rules' about lobbyists. Instead, he has opened the door to a slew of new problems."

MCCAIN III: The House Of Black

Liberal bloggers are stepping up their calls for the resignation of McCain's senior adviser Charlie Black, who has lobbied for several controversial foreign leaders:

• Daily Kos' DarkSyde: "Charlie Black has the right to work for whomever he sees fit, but that just begs the question. Given Mr. Black's many divided loyalties to a multitude of wealthy patrons, clear conflicts of interest, and his self professed penchant for cutting lobbying deals on a cell phone from the back of the 'Straight Talk Express,' it's reasonable to ask just who the hell this guy is working for now. More importantly, can we trust the judgment of a Presidential candidate who casually places such grave responsibility for the welfare of our nation during a time of war, in the hands of a man who looks eager to open a lobby franchise in the Oval Office on behalf of everyone from revolting foreign operatives to extremist anti-American clerics at the expense, literally, of legitimate, taxpaying citizens?"
• emptywheel: "McCain has shown a real inconsistency about what kind of lobbying ties compromise his campaign. With [Tom] Loeffler and Eric Burgeson, there seem to have been two problems. First, both were active lobbyists, who lobbied the Senate for clients whose issues fell squarely in the purview of the Commerce, Armed Services, and Indian Affairs Committees on which McCain serves. In addition, both represented foreign 'countries,' Loeffler Saudi Arabia and Burgeson the Kurds. Of course, that's true of Charlie Black, as well. For example, Black lobbied the Senate on FISA, and has had an affinity for representing evil dictators throughout his career. So why is okay for Charlie Black to stick around while Loeffler and Burgeson take their blackberries and go home?"

Meanwhile, Think Progress' Matt Corley accuses Black of making misleading statements in his attempt to downplay the lobbying backgrounds of certain McCain staffers: "McCain is still refusing to fire certain top aides, like campaign manager Rick Davis, who is a former lobbyist. Charlie Black, another former lobbyist who is McCain's senior adviser, told reporters today that 'Rick Davis and nobody else at his firm either has been a registered lobbyist in five years.' CNN's Dana Bash reports today, however, that Davis's old firm 'can still use his name to recruit business since it's still on the letterhead.' [...] Additionally, Black's claim that neither Davis nor anyone at his firm have been registered as lobbyists in five years appears to be false. Here's an image of a lobbying report from 2005 that has Davis listed as an 'individual who acted as a lobbyist.'"

MCCAIN IV: McBush Comes To Phoenix

Liberal bloggers are mocking McCain after it was reported that President Bush will help McCain raise money by joining him at a Phoenix fundraiser:

• Singer: "How is it possible that the Republican's presumptive presidential nominee, a man who has represented Arizona in the Senate and the House for 25 years, needs George W. Bush to headline a fundraiser in Phoenix? [...] I could understand if George W. Bush were raising money for McCain in Texas or in a place like New York City, squeezing out money from donors to the Bush-Cheney campaigns in 2000 and 2004 who have yet to contribute to McCain's presidential efforts. [...] But McCain needing Bush to get money out of Arizona? That's something else entirely. [...] Apparently Arizona Republicans are so blase about McCain that they won't contribute to his campaign committee -- or even evidently to the RNC -- without George W. Bush himself being trotted out. It's tough to be a Republican..."
• AMERICAblog's Joe Sudbay: "Confirming once again that Bush and McCain are inextricably linked, it's Bush who will be raising the bulk of money for McCain's campaign effort. McCain can't raise it for his own campaign, so he has Bush raising dough for the RNC. [...] Bush wants a third-term. McCain is so desperate, he's tied himself to Bush."
• Firedoglake's Attaturk: "John McCain will not be allowed to separate himself from Bush, even if the former had the inclination to do so. If McCain runs for President, he'll do it on the Decider's terms."

OBAMA: A 9/10 Democrat?

Conservative bloggers continue to criticize Obama for making the following statement:

"Iran, Cuba, Venezuela -- these countries are tiny compared to the Soviet Union. They don't pose a serious threat to us the way the Soviet Union posed a threat to us. And yet we were willing to talk to the Soviet Union at the time when they were saying, 'We're going to wipe you off the planet.'"

• Malkin: "Does Barack Obama understand the concept of asymmetric warfare? Barack Obama complains that no one wants to talk about the 'issues.' Well, his abject ignorance of warfare in the 21st century is an issue that can't be emphasized enough. And the right side of the blogosphere has been all over it. [...] Barack Obama: The epitome of a 9/10 Democrat."
• Power Line's John Hinderaker: "Barack Obama, last night in Portland, on Iran: 'They don't pose a serious threat to us.' Barack Obama, today, in Billings, Montana, on Iran: 'I've made it clear for years that the threat from Iran is grave.' Can someone explain why it is, exactly, that Barack Obama is not a laughingstock?"
• RedState's Erick Erickson: "The Soviet Union certainly could have wiped us out, but we could have wiped it out too. The players were rather rational and neither wanted to be destroyed. Iran could wipe us out through proxies with dirty bombs, but President Obama would never wipe Iran out. The players are not rational*. Both Iran and Obama supporters are wrapped up in messianic zeal for their respective sides. (*Of course, Iran probably knows President Obama would turn the other cheek, so perhaps only one of the players is irrational and it's not the one you'd think.)"
• AmSpec Blog's Philip Klein: "Iran is the leading sponsor of terrorism in the world. Right now, Iranian weapons are killing Americans in Iraq via insurgents and overrunning a U.S.-supported government in Lebanon via Hezbollah. They are financing Hamas, which threatens Israel, a nation that Obama has recently taken to calling an American ally. And all of this is without them having nuclear weapons. Sure, Iran is unlikely to create a world without America or Israel. It's not likely to be able to restore the Caliphate and turn the U.S. into an Islamist state. But it sure as heck has the potential to do a lot of damage in the process of pursuing its insane goals, even if its military is puny compared to the Soviet Union."

Unlike Matthew Yglesias, Commentary's Jennifer Rubin thinks McCain, not Obama, is winning the national security debate: "Monday was another day spent on foreign policy and another one with Obama on the defensive. So score one for the McCain messaging team. If every day between now and Election Day is about appeasement, Obama's foreign policy flip flops and Iran, McCain will be delighted."

Hot Air's Allahpundit criticizes a separate aspect of Obama's remarks: "This context suggests [Obama] didn't mean last night that Iran wasn't a serious threat, just less of a serious threat than the Soviet Union -- a debatable point if you believe Iran's regime has irrational/suicidal impulses but less debatable if you don't. Rather than beat him over the head on how seriously he takes Iran, the better question would be why, if he thinks we're so vastly stronger than they are, he's prepared to offer them economic benefits, membership in the WTO, and possibly formal recognition rather than deal with them militarily."

OBAMA: More Right Than The Right?

Liberal bloggers are defending Obama's remarks about Iran:

• TPM's Josh Marshall: "This point is implicit in much of the current paranoid saber-rattling over the Middle East. But does John McCain really think that the threat posed by Iran is equal to that the United States faced from the Soviet Union -- the world's greatest land military power, with a massive strategic nuclear capacity that carried on a multi-decade ideological struggle with the US? In his speech this morning, McCain adds all the caveats that Iran is not a superpower. But at bottom he still seems to see that it is a sign of foreign policy naivite to say that the threat we face from Iran today pales in comparison to that we faced from the Soviets."
• Benen: "Does McCain really want to debate this? First, Obama didn't say the possible Iranian threat is 'tiny.' He said it's 'tiny' when compared to the Soviet Union. [...] McCain thinks it reflects poor 'judgment' to recognize the obvious difference between a nuclear superpower and Iran? [...] Finally, on the substance, Obama is so obviously right about Iran it's hard to believe this discussion is actually happening. As Newsweek's Fareed Zakaria explained a few months ago: 'Iran has an economy the size of Finland's and an annual defense budget of around $4.8 billion. It has not invaded a country since the late 18th century...Israel and every Arab country (except Syria and Iraq) are quietly or actively allied against Iran. And yet we are to believe that Tehran is about to overturn the international system and replace it with an Islamo-fascist order? What planet are we on?'"
• The Washington Monthly's Kevin Drum: "Dismissing a potentially nuclear-armed Iran as 'puny' probably wasn't a smart move by Obama, but I nonetheless continue to be amazed at the rose-colored glasses that so many conservatives use these days when they talk about the old Soviet Union. [...] I guess they have to do this because it's the only way they can make Iran look like it's the worst threat ever in history. But as dangerous and destabilizing as a nuclear Iran would be, there's simply no reason to think that Shiite theology makes them undeterrable. They've never acted suicidal in the past, and it's unlikely they will in the future. Obama has that exactly right."
• Singer: "Yitzhak Rabin once famously said about negotiation with his onetime sworn enemies, the PLO and Yassir Arafat in particular, 'You don't make peace with friends. You make it with very unsavory enemies.' Likewise, John F. Kennedy wisely said during his inaugural address, 'Let us never negotiate out of fear. But let us never fear to negotiate.' McCain apparently does not understand these key tenets of foreign policy. [...] So I wholeheartedly applaud Obama for turning it around on McCain and asking the fundamental question regarding McCain's weird unwillingness to consider negotiations with Iran. Indeed, 'what are George Bush and John McCain afraid of?'"

CLINTON: Debating Causes And Effects

Jodi Kantor's New York Times article, "Gender Issue Lives On as Clinton's Hopes Dim," has prompted a discussion among liberal bloggers about the role that gender played in Hillary Clinton's (expected) defeat:

• Arianna Huffington, who's generally been a critic of Clinton, praises the NY senator: "I have regularly criticized Clinton over the course of her campaign (and long before it, starting with her vote to authorize the war), but there is no question that she has forever altered the way women running for president will be viewed from here on out. [...] She [has] forever demolished the question mark hovering over the issue many (wrongly, in my opinion) have felt would be a woman candidate's biggest weakness: the ability to be seen as a plausible commander-in-chief. It is to her great credit that very shortly into the '08 race, when you saw Clinton on television, you didn't think, 'Oh, there's the woman running for president.' That is no small feat for a woman trying to break into a male-dominated arena. So the next time a woman -- or two or three -- runs for president, it won't be seen as a novelty act. Because Hillary certainly wasn't."
• Open Left's Matt Stoller criticizes Kantor's assertion that there is a "long-standing pattern of [American voters] finding women less plausible military commanders than men": "I'm constantly amazed how Iraq is whitewashed out of the campaign narrative. After all, at the Presidential level, there's no 'pattern' of participants 'finding women less plausible military commanders than men', since the number of serious female Presidential candidates in American history can be counted on one finger. A more plausible explanation is Democrats following the long-standing pattern of antiwar voters voting against politicians that support unpopular gratuitously unnecessary wars. The evidence suggests this is what happened. While earlier states saw split demographic trends, as the campaign wore on it's pretty clear Obama locked up the most anti-Iraq war constituency groups -- African-Americans and liberals -- whereas Clinton locked up the most pro-Iraq war constituency groups -- older white people. [...] The fact that Clinton stayed in the race for so long and nearly won despite being strongly out of step with most Democrats on Iraq, the central political issue from 2002-2006, is a testament to how much credibility Democrats were willing to accord to Clinton as a possible commander-in-chief. It's a strike against the 'gender case', not evidence for it."
• The Huffington Post's RJ Eskow urges commentators not to downplay the prejudice that Obama has faced: "As Hillary Clinton's campaign winds down, commentators are talking about sexism. Good. It's infested this race, and many of us have deplored it. But reality is multifaceted. While Sen. Clinton has faced bigotry, so has her opponent. [...] Clinton's losing for a number of reasons, including sexism. But let's not forget, she was decisively leading in Democratic polls a few months ago -- and she was a woman then, too. Is her drop in approval a sign of sexism? Are Democrats that responsive to Chris Matthews or Fox News? Or isn't it more likely that voters have responded to her political choices? As for the media, coverage of Sen. Clinton's private life has often been sexist while the Rev. [Jeremiah] Wright coverage has verged on racist. Both Clinton and Obama have struggled against prejudice during this campaign, and both of them have led the way for others that will follow. Neither is a victim, and both are pioneers."

CLINTON II: Would A Million Dollars Change Your Mind, Young Dems?

The Huffington Post's Nico Pitney and Sam Stein report that "Haim Saban, the billionaire entertainment magnate and longtime Clinton supporter," offered $1M to the Young Dems of America "during a phone conversation in which he also pressed for the organization's two uncommitted superdelegates to endorse [Clinton]":

"[Saban] denied the allegation. But four independent sources said that just before the North Carolina and Indiana primaries, Saban called YDA President David Hardt and offered what was perceived as a lucrative proposal: $1 million would be made available for the group if Hardt and the organization's other uncommitted superdelegate backed Clinton. [...]

Members of the Young Democrats agonized about the potential fallout of Saban's call; his financial offer represented one-third of the group's 2008 budget. Democratic officials and fundraisers were consulted about how to respond, and at times the discussions were 'emotional,' one participant said. 'It is scary for them, Haim is very powerful, he has great influence over donors who give to them.'"

Several liberal bloggers are discussing Pitney and Stein's report:

• Yglesias: "It seems that Haim Saban, a major Clinton donor and also the primary financial backer of Brookings' Middle East policy output, tried to bribe the Young Democrats of America into throwing their superdelegate support to Hillary Clinton. Sleazy, if true, and it certainly seems to be true."
• Ezra Klein: "To be honest, I'm rather surprised that we're not hearing more stories of superdelegates having their arms twisted or being bribed. Still, it's worth noting that Haim Saban, the founder of Brookings' Saban Center for the Invasion of Middle Eastern Nations, tried to bring the financial hammer down on the Young Democrats of America. They stood tall behind the pro-Obama consensus of their membership, but as Sam Stein and Nico Pitney report, they were scared shitless. Way to cultivate the youth, guys!"
• Oliver Willis: "This isn't the first time the swells have tried to hurl their money around. Just a few months ago they were purporting to tell Speaker [Nancy] Pelosi how to do her job because she stated facts unfavorable to Clinton."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Reinventing The GOP Brand

Open Left's Chris Bowers denounces "John McCain's Sham Progressive Campaign":

"Check out the last twelve posts on John McCain's campaign blog, which account for all content on McCain's blog over the past month:

1. McCain on Saturday Night Live
2. McCain launches eco-friendly store
3. McCain tackles climate change
4. McCain, his mother, and Katie Couric
5. John McCain on The Daily Show
6. McCain loves his mother
7. McCain celebrates Cinco de Mayo
8. McCain health care town hall
9. McCain offers health care solutions
10. McCain will lower health care costs, and make it available to everyone
11. John McCain visits the 9th Ward in New Orleans
12. John McCain in Selma, Alabama, honoring civil rights

These twelve articles cumulatively paint a shocking fraudulent image of John McCain as a hip progressive. He appears on cool, supposedly center-left media, like SNL and The Daily Show. He is in with Latinos and African-Americans, honoring their holidays and memorials. He loves this mother and Katie Couric. He cares about the environment and global climate change. He will lower the cost of health care and make it available to everyone. The blog messaging is 100% progressive. [...] A huge fraud is being perpetuated in this campaign, strongly reminiscent of Bush's 2000 'compassionate conservative' campaign. The inability of the nation...to recognize it as such is extremely disturbing, depressing, and frightening."

LEST WE FORGET: The New 90210

The Hater's Amelie Gillette:

"A few months ago the CW ran out of ideas and announced their plans to remake Beverly Hills: 90210, and ever since then two questions have reverberated in America's collective mind, namely: 'What?' and 'Why?' Well, today we got an answer to at least one of those questions in the form of a promo for the new 90210. According to the trailer, the CW's 90210 is going to be a choppy melange of people walking down hallways, dark rooms illuminated by solitary spotlights, shoelaces worn as headbands, pool lounging, and run-of-the-mill high school stock characters, all shot in early-90s seizure-vision.

I hope that this 90210 follows in the original 90210's footsteps and kills off at least one boring character in a trendy, hot-button issue, PSA-worthy way. Beverly Hills: 90210 had Scott accidentally shoot himself with his parents' loaded gun in order to teach teens about gun safety. Maybe 90210 can have Silver (and her headband) murdered by a guy who friended her on Facebook for a lesson about online safety, or Navid -- his iPhone in hand -- can perish after crashing his car into a wall as a warning about texting while driving, or maybe Ethan can be pummeled to death by reality television, as a lesson about watching The Real World. Only time will tell."

Posted by Ian Faerstein at May 20, 2008 01:04 PM