June 30, 2008

6/30: Wesley Snipes

During a 6/29 appearance on "Face The Nation," Gen. Wesley Clark stirred up controversy when he seemed to downplay John McCain's Vietnam service as a qualification for the presidency.

Clark: "I certainly honor [McCain's] service as a prisoner of war. He was a hero to me and to hundreds of thousands and millions of others in the armed forces.... He has been a voice on the Senate Armed Services Committee. ... But he hasn't held executive responsibility. That large squadron in the Navy that he commanded -- that wasn't a wartime squadron. ... I don't think getting in a fighter plane and getting shot down is a qualification to become president."

Conservative bloggers were outraged over Clark's comments:

• Right Wing News's McQ: "Of all the 'ex-generals' floating around out there, perhaps the most odious is Wesley Clark. Today he decided it was his place to demean John McCain's military service. ... Clark's attempt at denigrating and minimizing McCain's service aside, McCain's service is a qualification among many. Say what you will about McCain otherwise, but his service to the country was exemplary."
• Michelle Malkin: "If Gen. Wesley Clark had vice presidential aspirations, they went out the window yesterday when he opened his mouth and removed any lingering doubt about his idiocy."
• Red State's Pejman Yousefzadeh: "One searches the news report in vain for any claims that Senator [Hillary] Clinton -- who Clark initially supported -- had executive experience, commanded 'a wartime squadron' or was responsible for ordering 'the bombs to fall.' One searches in vain as well for similar observations concerning Senator [Barack] Obama. Indeed, one cannot help but wonder why Wesley Clark would make the arguments he makes about Senator McCain, given that they apply with a hundred times more force -- at least! -- to Senator Obama."
• Wake Up America's Susan Duclos: "This is one discussion Barack Obama truly does not want to have but since his surrogate has opened the door, he doesn't have much of a choice now."
• Right Wing News's William Teach: "So, Clark goes out there as an Obama surrogate and attacks McCain and his military service. But, hey, the Obama campaign is about hope and change, a new way of doing politics. I'm betting the bus runs Clark over by 4pm Monday."

Other conservative bloggers, while insisting that Clark stepped over the line, conceded that the general made some valid points regarding McCain's military service.

• Sister Toldja: "It's one thing to say that serving in the military in a war alone doesn't necessarily make one qualified to be president, but considering the hell McCain went through for 7 years as a POW at the Hanoi Hilton, attacks of this nature -- insinuating that McCain's getting shot down was the sign of a weak fighter pilot -- are below the belt, especially coming from a fellow military man."
• Outside The Beltway's James Joyner: "On one level, Clark has a point. Commanding a training squadron isn't the same as running a wartime theater. And, as I argued when John Kerry was relying too much on his Vietnam experience, ... being a war hero only goes so far in making a case for a presidential candidate. Nor is Clark 'Swift Boating' McCain; he's not questioning his wartime accomplishments. Still, at the larger level, this strikes me as a poor argument. While 'getting in a fighter plane and getting shot down' might not be sufficient qualification to be president, it's certainly more than Barack Obama ever endured. And, while Obama has experience at the community level that McCain can't match, it's a dangerous game for him to send out surrogates to minimize McCain's service."

While reaction to Clark's comments came mostly from the right side of the blogosphere, a handful of liberal bloggers used his comments to go right for McCain's jugular.

• AMERICAblog's John Aravosis: "It's not 'nice' to ask the question, but it's actually a pretty good question. Yes, we all know that John McCain was captured and tortured in Vietnam (McCain won't let you forget). A lot of people don't know, however, that McCain made a propaganda video for the enemy while he was in captivity. Putting that bit of disloyalty aside, what exactly is McCain's military experience that prepares him for being commander in chief? It's not like McCain rose to the level of general or something. He's a vet. We get it. But simply being a vet, as laudable as it is, doesn't really tell you much about someone's qualifications for being commander in chief. If McCain is going to play the 'I was tortured' card every five minutes as a justification for electing him president, then he shouldn't throw a hissy fit any time any one asks to know more about his military experience. Getting shot down, tortured, and then doing propaganda for the enemy is not command experience."
• Brilliant At Breakfast: "But is there a candidate with a bigger sense of entitlement than John McCain? In media circles, the mere mention of McCain must be accompanied by 'war hero.' But is he? Does even five years in a Hanoi prison, succumbing to torture and making a propaganda video for one's enemy captors, however understandable, make you a hero? Or are you just a victim, one deserving of understanding and empathy -- but not the presidency?"

OBAMA: Please Don't Dis' Our Unity!

In an effort to salve the wounds of a contentious primary season (particularly among Clinton's older, white, female supporters), Obama and Clinton held a joint rally in the town of Unity, NH, on 6/27. Two of her most die-hard supporters in the blogosphere had very different reactions.

• Taylor Marsh: "I was struck by Obama's facial expressions and body language while he was watching her speak. It sure looked to me like he was humbled and moved that such an incredible candidate was backing him so completely after a rough, prolonged primary battle and narrow defeat. His admiration and respect for her was obvious in his speech as well. At one point, inspired by an enthusiastic Hillary supporter in the crowd, he went off-script to say simply that 'she rocks'. Indeed she does."
• No Quarter's Rev. Amy: "And now seeing these articles and photographs of Senator Clinton and Senator Obama together, him with his hand on her back, just makes me cringe. Frankly, it makes me almost physically ill. See, I have done a lot of work in the Domestic Violence movement. And I have seen this cycle before: the man abuses, attacks, and lashes out at the woman. The woman makes excuses for, and accepts blame from, the man for his attacks. Not unlike Senator Clinton saying now that they are friends, respect each other, and support each other. I know what respect looks and feels like -- Senator Obama has shown NONE for Senator Clinton. Senator McCain has, but Obama? No. Seeing these photos of her with him now reminds me of battered women wearing sunglasses to hide the bruises, and saying, 'Oh, he didn't really mean it. It was my fault, really, I shouldn't have made him mad. He really does love me, in his own way, really! Don't be mad at him!'"

MCCAIN II: Story Full Of Hot Gas

During a fundraising tour in southern CA on 6/24, McCain was interviewed by a reporter from the Orange County Register.

Martin Wisckol: "I'd like to ask you a couple questions suggested by voters here. They're not reporter-type questions."

McCain: "Sure. It'd be a pleasure."

Wisckol: "When was the last time you pumped your own gas and how much did it cost?"

McCain: "Oh, I don't remember. Now there's Secret Service protection. But I've done it for many, many years. I don't recall and frankly, I don't see how it matters. I've had hundreds and hundreds of town hall meetings, many as short a time ago as yesterday. I communicate with the people and they communicate with me very effectively."

Liberal bloggers erupted with indignation (which was additionally fueled by a Newsweek expose last week that uncovered unpaid property taxes on one of the McCain's seven homes):

• DownWithTyranny: "It does matter. It matters to good hard-working people -- the ones, unlike the McCains, who pay their taxes -- who are being ruined financially by the Bush-McCain-GOP-Blue Dog economic policies that are fine for multimillionaires and terrible for everyone else."
• Atrios: "Unlike milk and similar, the price of gas is pretty much a staple of the news these days. Glance at a newspaper or flip on teevee news (local, cable, network, whatever), and you'll get the daily update of the price. This isn't just about a presidential candidate who obviously and understandably doesn't fill up his gas tank very often, it's about a presidential candidate who just isn't paying any attention to what's going on in the world."
• BooMan: "I thought John McCain was pushing a summer gas tax holiday. I guess someone just told him to propose that without informing him that gasoline is edging towards $5 a gallon. Who's the out of touch elitist now, Karl Rove?"

Carpetbagger Report's Steve Benen was a bit more forgiving, but critical nonetheless. Benen: "Substantively, a story like this one is fairly low on the priority list. ... In all candor, I'm inclined to cut McCain at least some slack on this one. McCain hasn't been in a position to pump his own gas for a while, by virtue of his candidacy. ... And while he probably should have a general sense of the price of a gallon of gas -- he couldn't say, 'About four bucks"'? -- McCain almost certainly knows that it's gone up quite a bit lately, and consumers/voters aren't happy about it. ... Whether McCain knows the price of a gallon of gas or not is trivia compared to his humiliating incoherence on energy policy. That said, voters seem to care about whether a presidential candidate is out of touch, especially in a political environment in which the word 'elitist' is being thrown around. And on this, McCain might be in trouble."

Some liberal bloggers, convinced of a media bias favoring McCain, predicted that their outrage would not be reflected in the MSM:

• Comments From Left Field's tas: "Just think: if any Democrat said this, the calls that he or she is 'elitist' and 'out of touch' would be screamed 24/7. But when McCain says it? Feh, the dude's a maverick! He could boink Monica Lewinsky on live television and the media would still kiss his feet."
• Balloon Juice's John Cole: "In the past, this is the sort of thing that has helped to put away candidates -- we all remember the silly assertion that George [H.W.] Bush was surprised by a grocery scanner or [Rudy] Giuliani didn't know the cost of a loaf of bread. While false, the story did help the Clinton team portray Bush as out of touch and unaware of what people were going through economically. The real question is whether or not the media will dump their mancrush to savage McMavericky straight talk over his lack of awareness the way they would if this were, well, anyone else. I doubt it, in fact, I bet they defend him."

Ironically, McCain's "GasGate" should probably be included among those "false" stories mentioned by Cole; any fair reading of the Register interview clearly shows that McCain was not responding to the current price of gasoline, but rather the price of gasoline at the time he last filled up his own tank. (That false impression is a prime example of how stories are often distorted in the echo chamber of the blogosphere.)

Patterico appeared to be the first blogger to point out the inaccuracy: "But McCain isn't saying he doesn't know the price of gas. He is saying that he doesn't remember the last time he pumped his own gas, and how much it cost then. ... At best, the story is that McCain doesn't remember the last time he pumped his own gas. Even that is a non-story, since nobody pumps their own gas while on the campaign trail. Someone ask Obama when he last pumped his own gas."

While many bloggers corrected their posts, several stood by their charges of cultural cluelessness:

• Cole: "Patterico unearths a piece from June 18th in which McCain clearly knew gas was over four dollars a gallon. So why didn't he just say this in the OC Register interview?"
• Joyner: "It stands to reason, then, that McCain knew the price at the time of the interview. It would seem, then, that he's guilty merely of giving an irritated and dismissive answer to what he perceived as a 'gotcha' question rather than being out of touch."
• Andrew Sullivan: "Update: I misread the quote. ... He was being asked how much it used to cost. So his answer isn't so dumb -- just the prickly attitude to the populist question."
• Matthew Yglesias: "John McCain doesn't know how to use a computer. John McCain doesn't know when he last pumped gas or what it cost. John McCain owns seven homes and forgot to pay taxes on one of them for the past four years. But at least he's not an elitist like Barack Obama. He earned his money the old-fashioned way -- marrying an heiress."

Obama II: Get Off My Backlash!

While liberal bloggers continue to fulminate over Obama's recent shift to the political center, an air of resignation seems to have set in.

• Open Left's Mike Lux: "In the last week, Barack Obama has handed progressives a string of stinging rebukes. First, he all but capitulated on the issue of retroactive immunity for lawbreaking telecom companies by endorsing the FISA 'compromise.' Next came his disagreement with the Supreme Court ruling that the death penalty shouldn't be imposed for rape. And then his flip on the heels of the Supreme Court ruling allowing the sale of handguns in DC. ... The harsh reality is, Barack Obama can and will tack towards the center on issues that are important to progressives during the general election. We can argue until we're blue in the face that this is not a smart thing to do, ... but Obama will do what he wants to do. Unless we are willing to actively work against him, we have no leverage."
• HuffPo's Jason Rosenbaum: "For most of us, given the alternative of four more years of deadlocked government and a stubborn, hyper-aggressive President McCain, [opposing Obama] is not an acceptable option. I see occasional commenters writing about not lifting a finger to help Obama now that he's screwed us on FISA or other issues, but I don't think very many of us in the progressive movement are there. Am I bummed, am I pissed that Obama and most of our Democratic leaders caved in on FISA? Absolutely, and there's nothing wrong with saying so. But am I going to 'hold Obama accountable' for this action? Well, no, frankly."

The bloggers at First Read ruminated on the political risk to Obama: "Going back to the RNC labeling Obama a 'typical politician,' it's worth remembering that Clinton tried this, too. The problem with trying to use this line with Obama is that the historical nature of his candidacy makes it harder for the voter to think the word 'typical' when they see him. ... That said, Obama continues to fuel this line of attack by making conventional decisions like ducking the town hall idea, flipping on campaign finance, trying to straddle the fence on guns, etc. And unlike McCain, Obama doesn't have years of good will with his brand; he only really has about 18 months. McCain has made a lot of subtle shifts away from his so-called maverick independent streak. But because his brand was cemented over years, he's been given more of a benefit of the doubt with the public. Obama's brand reservoir isn't as deep, and he should be much more sensitive to this collecting narrative that he isn't what he claims."

The Stump's Noam Scheiber doesn't perceive any risk at all: "There seems to be a lot of hand-wringing this morning about whether the sum total of Obama's recent pronouncements and maneuvering ... is turning him into a typical Washington pol and undercutting his appeal. [But] I don't think there's a real political risk for Obama here. ... Obama has such a strong tail-wind behind him that he'll win if 'typical pol' is the worst thing you can call him. ... The only way he loses, I think, is if voters get the impression he's somehow un-American, un-patriotic, out of the political mainstream, or unable to keep them safe. To the extent that it draws attention from these insinuations, the 'typical pol' charge may even help him somewhat. Thanks to his race, his eloquence, and his relative youth, Obama's just never going to come across as completely typical. In some sense the bigger risk is not being typical enough."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Cyber-Cheating?

The Atlantic's Ross Douthat: "Is there any similarity between 'having an actual affair' and having sex with a prostitute while you're married? I think most people would answer yes. Then consider: Is there any similarity between having sex with a prostitute while you're married and paying to watch a prostitute perform sexual acts for your voyeuristic gratification? Again, I think a lot of people would say yes: There's a distinction, obviously, but I don't think all that many spouses would be inclined to forgive their husbands (or wives) if they explained that they only liked to watch the prostitute they'd hired. And hard-core porn, in turn, is nothing more than an indirect way of paying someone to fulfill the same sort of voyeuristic fantasies: It's prostitution in all but name, filtered through middlemen, magazine editors, and high-speed internet connections. Is it as grave a betrayal as cheating on your spouse with a co-worker? Not at all. But is it on a moral continuum with adultery? I don't think it's insane to say yes."

LEST WE FORGET: Raining On Their Love Parade

The Plank's Michelle Cottle: "Not to rain on anyone's grand reconciliation, but someone in the Obama camp should have seen to it that today's public love-in got stuck with a better label than Unity Day. Ick. So cheesy. Makes the party sound like a bunch of hand-holdling, kumbaya-singing peaceniks -- hardly the image the Dems need to be fostering. Next thing you know both camps will wind up out into the woods on one of those ghastly trust-building retreats where everyone swings from trees and falls backward into each other's arms. I personally would have preferred something more along the lines of Reluctantly-joining-forces-to-kick-the-GOP's-ass Day, but I realize that truth in advertising has its limitations."

Posted by Chris Bodenner at 01:09 PM

June 27, 2008

6/27: Let Freedom Cling!

In a landmark decision 6/26, SCOTUS (in the case of District of Columbia v. Heller) overturned DC's controversial, long-standing ban on handguns. More significantly, the 5-4 ruling held for the first time that the Second Amendment protected the right of an individual -- not just a militia -- to bear arms.

Barack Obama, in response to the ruling: "I have always believed that the Second Amendment protects the right of individuals to bear arms, but I also identify with the need for crime-ravaged communities to save their children from the violence that plagues our streets through common-sense, effective safety measures. The Supreme Court has now endorsed that view, and while it ruled that the D.C. gun ban went too far, [the court] acknowledged that this right is not absolute and subject to reasonable regulations enacted by local communities to keep their streets safe."

John McCain: "I applaud this decision.... Unlike Senator Obama, ... I was pleased to express my support and call for the ruling issued today. Today's ruling ... makes clear that other municipalities like Chicago that have banned handguns have infringed on the constitutional rights of Americans. Unlike the elitist view that believes Americans cling to guns out of bitterness, today's ruling recognizes that gun ownership is a fundamental right -- sacred, just as the right to free speech and assembly."

OBAMA: Backfire!

As a long-time advocate of gun control, Obama faced immediate criticism from across the political spectrum for his endorsement of the Heller ruling.

NRO's Yuval Levin: "The past two days of Supreme Court decisions have shed a bright light on Obama's rightward pivot for the general election. ... Today, revising a long held position on gun control, he agrees with Justice [Antonin] Scalia's reading of the Second Amendment.... If only the Court could overturn Roe before the election, Obama would become a pro-lifer."

Liberal blogger Ezra Klein thought Obama's stance was "disappointing." Klein: "[The Obama camp] flipped its position on the constitutionality of the DC handgun ban (were they once said Obama believed the ban unconstitutional, now they say he has no position on it). ... He's going to get hit for opportunism, but this is more the campaign being inartful than illiberal."

Beyond the debate over whether Obama's true stance on gun control and his sincerity regarding Heller, bloggers debated what implications the ruling might have in the fall.

Kevin Drum: "So that's that: the one-worlders at the UN can't take away your guns anymore. ... On another note, this is the latest in a whole bunch of high-profile 5-4 Supreme Court rulings this term. I wonder if that means that the composition of the court will be an even bigger campaign issue than it otherwise would be? My guess is yes."

Eugene Volokh: "[The 5-4 split] should be useful to either of the Presidential candidates who wants to make either gun control or gun rights into an election issue -- my guess is that this is more likely to be McCain. Expect McCain ads in states where there are likely many pro-gun swing voters stressing, 'your constitutional right to keep and bear arms hangs by one vote.' Also expect fundraising letters to likely pro-gun contributors stressing this at length."

On the other hand, many bloggers argued that the Heller decision actually defused the powder-keg issue of guns, particularly since the culture wars are widely expected to have a much smaller impact in this election than WH'04.

CQ's Taegan Goddard: "[The ruling] is not exactly a win for Republicans -- even though it went farther than even the Bush administration hoped. By re-affirming that Americans have a right to own guns for self-defense and hunting, the court effectively takes the gun issue out of the fall campaign. Republicans will now have a very hard time arguing that if you elect Democrats they will take away your guns."

HuffPo's Sanford Levinson: "[A]s a partisan Democrat, I confess to being relieved that the dissenters did not prevail, for the upholding of the D.C. ordinance would, in effect, have served as a massive in-kind campaign contribution to John McCain."

Chris Cillizza: "[I]t would be a mistake to assign too much political importance to today's decision. Gun rights are, by and large, a niche issue with little ability to move the political meter. In the most recent Post-ABC national poll, just one percent of voters said that guns and/or gun control were the most most important issue in the election."

MyDD's Todd Beeton: "The problem for McCain here is that rehashing bitter gate is pretty much all he has because he and Senator Obama really aren't all that far apart on this issue. ... By essentially agreeing with McCain, Obama takes gun control off the table as a wedge issue and leaves McCain with very little to point to distinguishing between their positions."

Even if McCain is able to make hay with the Heller decision, Weekly Standard's Richelieu cautions him: "The McCain campaign should be careful how they handle the Court's decision on handguns. While the Second Amendment in general is a winning GOP issue, the handgun aspects of it are more problematic with swing voters. In the end, this election will be decided by white females and ticket-splitting independents. The handgun issue is no huge winner among this group. McCain should applaud the decision, but tread carefully."

SCOTUS II: Is Obama Becoming An Obamacon?

The hoopla over Heller overshadowed the blog commentary regarding the other big SCOTUS decision this week: Kennedy v. Louisiana, which, in another 5-4 ruling, overturned a state law allowing for the execution of child rapists. Again, Obama tried to diffuse a potentially explosive issue by siding with the Court's conservatives (who had sought to uphold the statute).

Liberal bloggers were moderately disappointed with Obama, who has a long record of opposing the death penalty.

Klein: "Some disappointing legal positioning from the Obama campaign in the past few days, as Obama put out a statement disagreeing with [the Kennedy ruling] ... (if Obama's position were adopted, it would be the first time since the 60s that criminals have been put to death for crimes that don't include murder).... Child rape is horrendous, but it's actually particularly tricky from a prosecution standpoint, as the evidence is often from unreliable witnesses, pressured children, and decades-old statements, but juries are (rightly!) appalled by the very thought and tend to want to apply the maximum punishment. ... Obama could have condemned the crime in the strongest terms ('As a father, I'd want to personally gut anyone who harmed a child...') but still opposed the constitutionality and wisdom of the state widening the circumstances under which they're willing to take life."

But most bloggers tended to defend Obama. Many questioned the very premise that because he is generally a critic of the death penalty, he must defend it in all cases.

TNR's Jeffrey Rosen: "Many liberals may be inclined to view Barack Obama's [stance] as the worst kind of poll driven pandering. ... I disagree. In fact, Obama's support for the execution of child rapists wasn't invented for the presidential election; it dates back to The Audacity of Hope, where he wrote: 'While the evidence tells me that the death penalty does little to deter crime, I believe there are some crimes--mass murder, the rape and murder of a child--so heinous, so beyond the pale, that the community is justified in expressing the full measure of its outrage by meting out the ultimate punishment.' His longstanding opinion on the death penalty is a particularly nuanced one."

Even though Obama sided with the SCOTUS conservatives, some conservative bloggers remained cynical.

Goldberg: "Well, shouldn't it tell us something that the judges he wants to reinforce with like-minded colleagues, AKA the liberal wing, voted in ultimate empathy with the rapist of an 8 year-old girl, and not the girl herself? To his credit -- or to the credit of his realpolitik advisers -- Obama came out against yesterday's decision. But, that doesn't change the fact that he would appoint judges who would vote the same away and has voted against judges who voted the right way."

NORTH KOREA: Not Going South After All

On 6/27, Pres. Bush made the startling announcement that his administration is removing "Axis of Evil" North Korea from its official list of terrorist nations. The gesture was given in response to North Korea's cooperation in beginning to dismantle its nuclear program.

The blogosphere generally hailed the announcement, but the McCain and Obama camps remained relatively quiet. NRO's Jim Geraghty: "Neither candidate has a great deal to say about the recent announcement from the White House regarding North Korea; the tone of both is 'trust, but verify.'"

He then went on to tweak Obama: "I will note that McCain's seems a little clearer on what he wants to see going forward. McCain says that if the deal announced checks out, he's amenable to 'easing' sanctions on North Korea. Obama's, by comparison, has some mushy generic sentences like, 'This is a step forward, and there will be many more steps to take in the days ahead. Critical questions remain unanswered.' In the end, he too wants to verify the North Korean claims and if so, some sanctions can be removed. He warns that if the claims aren't verified, then we have go get tough by reinstating the sanctions. And then consider even more sanctions! (That'll show 'em.)"

The liberal blogosphere -- in a rare feat -- praised the Bush administration for its rapprochement with North Korea.

Joe Klein: "Congratulations to George W. Bush for finally making the correct choice--diplomatic engagement, regional talks that enabled quiet unofficial contacts with the North Koreans, which then led to direct negotiations--in resolving this dispute."

Matt Yglesias: "The excellent news out of East Asia is that Ambassador Chris Hill has not only managed to strike an okay deal with the North Koreans over their nuclear program, but also triumphed over administration hawks and gotten Bush to do the sensible thing. For a while now, Bush has been tilting in a reasonable direction with regard to the DPRK (after years-worth of screw-ups that have forced us to accept a much worse deal than we could have had years ago), a direction that John McCain has denounced in favor of the only approach he knows -- coercion, escalating conflict, and the risk of war. And, indeed, since at least 1999 McCain has been calling on us to reject pragmatism in Korea in favor of war ... But good for Bush and good for Ambassador Hill."

Many bloggers saw the diplomatic victory as a testament to Obama's own approach to diplomacy.

Steve Clemons: "Barack Obama's inclination towards engagement with problematic leaders around the world now is now buttressed by an experience of the George W. Bush administration. Too bad so much of the rest of America's foreign policy portfolio didn't get this same kind of attention."

Phillip Carter: "It's hard to find words to describe the significance of this diplomatic breakthrough -- and the irony that one of the Bush administration's greatest foreign policy successes would come via diplomacy, and not force. ... What I'm hearing through the grapevine is that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan required so much attention from senior decision makers that it allowed career diplomats and junior political appointees to do their work in East Asia. In essence, the six-party talks needed less attention to work well, so that diplomats and national leaders could get down to business without all of the posturing that goes along with highly public diplomacy. This may or may not be true, but it's an interesting view of how diplomacy can work."

Despite the bipartisan praise for Bush, some neoconservative bloggers were critical of the move towards peaceful diplomacy with North Korea.

Claudia Rosett: "It needs the talents of Stanley Kubrick to do justice to the complete Cuckoo's Nest that American policy on North Korea has become. The State Department wants a nuclear deal, President Bush wants a North Korea peace legacy. And like the hellbent bomber pilot played by Slim Pickens in Dr. Strangelove, undeterred by any last whisper of sanity, oblivious to the realities of the situation, and apparently beyond the reach of any recall code, Condi Rice just keeps barreling on, homing in on that bull's-eye moment, yeeee-hah! -- oh, criminy, that ended in mushroom clouds. Well, this could too."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Annie Get Your Gun

Atlantic's Megan McArdle: "I'm hardly the first person to make this observation, but I don't know why it isn't noted more often: guns are the only weapon that equalizes strength between attacker and attacked. It's the only time when men's greater speed, strength, and longer reach make no difference; if you pull the trigger first, you win. This is an enormous social advance. I am all for strengthening the social contract (and law enforcement) so that fewer men commit rape, assault, or robbery. But until human nature has improved so radically that grievous bodily harm has passed from living memory, I don't understand why more feminists don't push for widespread gun ownership."

LEST WE FORGET: Performance Enhancing Guns

New Scientist: "When Olympic sprinters dash down the track in Beijing this August, the fastest athlete may not take home the gold medal. ... Sound from the starter's gun is known to take longer to reach athletes who start from the outside lanes than their competitors on the inside. Now a new study suggests that competitors nearest the gun have another advantage -- the loudness of the bang shocks them into starting more quickly. Together, these extra boosts may amount to more than a tenth of a second in some races, which is easily enough to make the difference between gold and silver."

Posted by Chris Bodenner at 02:25 PM

June 26, 2008

6/26: Why'd You Have To Go And Make Things So Complicated?

The events of the past 24 hours perfectly encapsulate the netroots' complicated relationship with Barack Obama. Yesterday morning, The Politico's Ben Smith reported that the Obama camp plans to "devote some resources to states it's unlikely to win, with the goal of influencing specific local contests in places such as Texas and Wyoming." The news that Obama intends to help Dems in down-ballot races thrilled the netroots, who have been advocating Howard Dean's 50-state strategy for years. Markos Moulitsas wrote:

"This is the reason I supported Obama in the primaries. For a party that has been incapable of looking past the next election (read: Terry McAuliffe), it's refreshing to have a new team in town which realizes that the presidency isn't the be-all, end-all."

All is not rosy between Obama and the netroots, however. Later in the day, Obama indicated that he will support the current FISA bill even if it includes retroactive immunity for telecoms (which constitutes a reversal of his previous position). Obama's flip-flop surprised his more devoted online supporters while confirming the suspicions of others, who haven't trusted Obama since he defended Dem senators who voted to confirm John Roberts and then endorsed Joe Lieberman over Ned Lamont. Liberal bloggers harshly criticized Obama for reversing his position on telecom immunity; Matt Stoller accused him of "waffl[ing] on a core constitutional principle."

Although the netroots overwhelmingly preferred Obama to Hillary Clinton in the Dem primary, their feelings about the IL senator are complicated. On the one hand, they're excited about his fundraising prowess and his commitment to building the Dem Party at all levels. On the other hand, they don't consider him a progressive champion a la Russ Feingold, and they're growing increasingly convinced that they need to work harder to hold him accountable. Moveon.org's Communications Director Ilyse Hogue sums it up:

"Where we see that [Obama] is consistent with the netroots is his organizing and belief in organizing. Obviously there is some policy divergence which is crystallizing this week. [...] We still have some work to do as a progressive movement to not just have candidates speak about our issues but act on our issues."

OBAMA: Party-Builder Extraordinaire

Liberal bloggers are delighted by the Obama camp's plans to "devote some resources to states it's unlikely to win, with the goal of influencing specific local contests in places such as Texas and Wyoming":

• Daily Kos' Moulitsas: "This is the reason I supported Obama in the primaries. For a party that has been incapable of looking past the next election (read: Terry McAuliffe), it's refreshing to have a new team in town which realizes that the presidency isn't the be-all, end-all. The plan apparently is to restrict television advertising to the closest states while investing in a ground operation pretty much everywhere else. That's a solid approach. Orange to Blue candidate Gary Trauner in Wyoming won't be helped so much by Obama ads in his state, but by staff working on voter registration and GOTV. And for a candidate who came within 1,000 votes of winning in 2006 and currently leads narrowly in the polls, this increased groundwork will be golden. This is party building at its finest, and what has been sorely lacking in our party for far too long."
• AMERICAblog's Joe Sudbay: "This is something I find very exciting. The Obama campaign is using its resources not only to win the presidency, but to insure more Democrats are elected. And, they're not limiting those pick ups to House and Senate seats at the federal level. [...] Obama's campaign wants to also help with state house races, which will impact re-districting. This is revolutionary thinking for Democrats."
• TAPPED's Sam Boyd: "While Obama may be doing this because he can -- his leads in some polls are reaching double digits and his cash advantage is likely to be huge -- he's also showing a remarkable degree of foresight and concern for his party. I mean, I may be wrong (please tell me if I am), but I don't think [Bill] Clinton did anything like this in 1996 when he was doing as well as Obama is now. [...] This should be reassuring news for Democrats, not just because it has the potential to help them across the country, but because it shows that Obama cares about a lot more than being elected. If he's already looking at the size of his congressional majority in 2009 and 2010 (and after, given that he's also targeting state legislatures which will control the next round of redistricting) that reflects a deep desire to push for big changes that require a big majority in Congress (something both LBJ and FDR had when they pushed through big progressive reforms)."
• Ezra Klein: "In November, the two most important questions for those interested in progressive change will be, in order, was a Democrat elected to the presidency? And if so, how big is his congressional majority? Generally, presidential candidates are so intensely focused on the first question, that they have neither the energy nor the resources to affect the answer to the second. Obama, however, is constructing a campaign strategy meant not only to win him the presidency, but build him a legislative majority and party infrastructure that will prove able to support his presidency. Could he fail? Of course. But if he succeeds, he'll have run a campaign that allows him to actually govern, rather than simply get elected."
• MyDD's Todd Beeton: "Many have questioned the wisdom of [Obama's strategy], wondering if it's a smart move to spend money in states there's no way he can win, but the Obama campaign gets that the compete everywhere ethic at the heart of the 50-state strategy isn't always about winning the state at the presidential level. It's also about making the other side expend resources to defend states they've never had to before and it's about impacting the down-ticket races where campaigning really matters. [...] While on the campaign trail Obama may avoid sharp partisan language and play up the virtue of working across the aisle with Republicans, actions do indeed speak louder, and it's become more and more clear to me that he fully understands that real change will only happen the fewer Republicans there are in office at every level."

OBAMA II: Looks Like Someone's In General Election Mode

The netroots are harshly criticizing Obama after he indicated that he will support the current FISA bill even if it includes retroactive immunity for telecoms (which constitutes a reversal of his previous position):

"The bill has changed. So I don't think the security threats have changed, I think the security threats are similar. My view on FISA has always been that the issue of the phone companies per se is not one that overrides the security interests of the American people."

TPM's Greg Sargent interprets Obama's statement: "Obama's line on national security here seems to be affirmation of something that many understood already: That he will support the bill even if telecom immunity isn't stripped from it, despite his promise to try to get immunity out of the legislation. If the issue of telecom immunity doesn't override national security, he'll of course vote for the bill with or without it."

The netroots are saddened and angered by Obama's reversal:

• Daily Kos' mcjoan: "In a reversal of previous policy statements, from October, 2007 and January, 2008, and again in February, 2008, Barack Obama now says telco amnesty just isn't that important. [...] It's disturbing, to say the least, to see that Senator Obama has adopted the talking points of [Maj. Leader] Steny Hoyer and the right on the issue."
• Salon's Glenn Greenwald: "Obama explained, in essence, that he won't jeopardize our National Security in order to hold telecoms accountable under the rule of law. [...] Apparently, we can't be safe unless we immunize telecoms. Dick Cheney couldn't have said it any better himself."
• Firedoglake's Ian Welsh: "This is a sad day, especially for those of us who believed Obama when he said he would support a filibuster against retroactive immunity."
• dday: "Obama is totally cool with the precedent of the government giving a slip of paper to a corporation allowing them to break the law. He's cool with the premise of 'we were just following orders' that was shot down at Nuremberg being revived. He's cool with if the President does it, then it isn't illegal. He's cool with a bunch of the other really dangerous aspects of the bill, including the vacuuming up of every communication that leaves or enters the United States without even the caveat that they be related to terrorism. He's cool with a national surveillance state. Just plain cool with it."
• Open Left's Stoller: "The standard-bearer for the party, Barack Obama, [has] waffled on a core constitutional principle that combines big business corruption, national security, and standing up to [George W.] Bush. [...] Obama is limiting his range of motion going forward and showing key progressive allies that he may not be a good faith operator after all unless he can be forced in that direction. And so they will dedicate more energy going forward into ensuring that they aren't embarrassed again by the person that we are all trusting as our party leader."
• Balloon Juice's John Cole: "Before, when he accepted the [FISA] compromise but promised to fight for removing immunity, it was one thing. This is a total collapse and a rapid abandonment of principle. From a voting perspective, nothing really changes. [John] McCain is for it, Hillary [Clinton] would have been, now Obama is. Obama is still the better of the three on a wider range of issues. As to whether I like it, no. [...] I will caution the Obama campaign that 'better than McCain' is not much of a rallying cry. We all remember how 'anything is better than Bush' turned out in 2004."

OBAMA III: Pay Attention To Who He Nominates, Not What He Says

Obama said yesterday that he disagreed with the Supreme Court's 5-4 decision outlawing the death penalty for child rapists:

"I have said repeatedly that I think that the death penalty should be applied in very narrow circumstances for the most egregious of crimes. I think that the rape of a small child, 6 or 8 years old, is a heinous crime and if a state makes a decision that under narrow, limited, well-defined circumstances the death penalty is at least potentially applicable, that that does not violate our Constitution."

Although conservative bloggers agree with Obama's remarks, they're arguing that the judges Obama would nominate as President would have sided with the majority in outlawing the death penalty for child rapists:

• Right Wing News' John Hawkins: "If Barack Obama were honest, he'd admit that any Supreme Court Justice that he'd appoint would come down on the pro-child rape side in the Kennedy v. Louisiana decision. [...] Back in May of 2008, when [Obama] was asked which SCOTUS justices he would 'model', he pointed to [Ruth Bader] Ginsburg and [Stephen] Breyer, both of whom are extremely liberal judges that ignored the Constitution to side with child molesters in the Kennedy v. Louisiana case. So when Obama puts on his best frowny face and says he 'disagrees with the Supreme Court's decision outlawing executions of people who rape children,' it's all election year bullflop. His 'models' supported the decision, anybody he appoints to the Court would certainly support the decision, and if he weren't running for the presidency, you can be almost certain that he'd personally support it as well."
• NRO's Jim Geraghty: "[Obama's statement is] a fine answer. Too bad all of his favorite justices disagreed with him."
• Power Line's John Hinderaker: "Even Barack Obama couldn't stomach this [ruling], in an election year. But that's only a ruse: bad as Republican appointees have often been, any Justice appointed by Obama would be selected precisely for his eagerness to impose his liberal views on 'unenlightened' voters."
• Hot Air's Allahpundit: "Shock: Obama disagrees with Court's decision in child rape case. Actually, not so shocking. Had the decision come four months ago in the heat of the primary and he responded this way, that would have been shocking. As it is, consider this the legal equivalent of his many full-throated statements of support for Israel. Maybe he means it, maybe he doesn't, but he can't afford to be on the wrong side of it politically so his disciples will just have to console themselves with the possibility that it's yet another lie concocted in the interests of getting elected."

OBAMA IV: Flip-Flopping On Guns?

Conservative bloggers are accusing Obama of flip-flopping after his campaign disavowed a statement it made last year suggesting that Obama believed that the D.C. handgun ban was constitutional:

• Townhall's Matt Lewis: "Just in time for the General Election -- and the Supreme Court's decision on the D.C. gun ban -- Obama is readying himself to reverse his position on Second Amendment rights."
• Hot Air's Ed Morrissey: "Team Obama declared the DC gun ban as 'constitutional' on November 20, 2007, during a period of time when he was busy sucking up to the hard Left and their confiscatory inclinations on the Second Amendment. Suddenly, with the general election looming, Obama discovers that his campaign's statement was inartful. This seems rather puzzling, because before he ran for public office, Barack Obama was supposed to be a Constitutional law expert. [...] One has to wonder whether Obama has any competence even in his own chosen field to have seven months go by before realizing that he got the Constitutional question wrong."

Other conservative bloggers are arguing that Obama would appoint judges who would have supported the D.C. handgun ban:

• RedState's Erick Erickson: "Though Senator Obama is today running ferociously away from his statement of last year that he supported the District of Columbia's gun ban, *all* of the Supreme Court Justices that Obama has said he respected voted against the individual right to keep and bear arms."
• Geraghty: "I expect a lot of discussion about judicial nominations on the trail in coming days, considering that four of the justices ruled that a state cannot sentence a child rapist to the death penalty, but that state can deny almost all of its citizens the right to own a gun. And when asked for his model justices, Obama listed three of those four..."

MCCAIN: A Different Kind Of Republican?

Several conservative bloggers are buzzing about reports that McCain met with the Log Cabin Republicans, the gay Republican group:

GayPatriot: "GayPatriot has exclusively learned that presumptive Republican Presidential nominee Senator John McCain held a personal meeting with the head of the national gay Republicans organization, the Log Cabin Republicans. Log Cabin President Patrick Sammon confirmed his meeting with Senator McCain earlier today. [...] According to published news reports the Sammon-McCain meeting would be the first face-to-face dialogue between a Republican Presidential standardbearer and the President of the national Log Cabin Republicans organization since the check-refund controversy between LCR and the [Bob] Dole Campaign in 1995."

Allahpundit: "One of Maverick's more appealing mavericky qualities during the campaign has been his attempt to expand the tent by reaching out to minority voters. The rift's not going to be healed anytime soon and he surely realizes it, but this gets us a tiny bit closer to healing it eventually. It's commendable that he's willing to devote resources to the task. What's especially impressive -- or insane, from the strict Machiavellian point of view -- is that meeting with the LCRs could actually cost him votes among the most strident members of a social conservative base that's not real keen on him to begin with and even less so after he dumped [John] Hagee and [Rod] Parsley. Surely there aren't so many gay Republicans and independents that winning them over will offset the potential loss in votes among evangelicals, so what's McCain's game here? Or is there no game at all and he's simply acting out of decency towards a GOP constituency?"

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: McCain As Achilles

RedState's John Evans offers an interesting metaphor:

"The Greeks in the movie [Troy] feared Achilles because he wasn't fighting for them. He fought for himself, for his own glory, and he took orders from no one. Yet he was their only hope of defeating the Trojans, and as a result they took the risk of using him to accomplish their ends.

McCain is our Achilles. Although he runs as a Republican, he is not beholden to the Party, does not run to implement the total orthodox conservative set of ideals, and swears fealty to no one. As a legislator, he has been unpredictable, sometimes aiding conservatives as with Iraq and fiscal responsibility, other times turning against them as on immigration, ANWAR drilling, and global warming. When the conservative movement says 'jump', he is as likely to say 'screw you' as 'how high?'

Yet, like Achilles, he is powerful. At a time when Republicans seem destined to lose big on all levels this election cycle, McCain holds the line against Obama. His maverick reputation, war record, and propensity for 'straight talk' give him the independent/conservative Democrat support he needs to build on a fractured Republican base and defeat Barack Obama."

LEST WE FORGET: Literary Classics In Three Lines Or Less

McSweeney's Ben Joseph (h/t Andrew Sullivan):

1984
WINSTON: Don't tell the Party, but sex is way better than totalitarianism.
EVERYONE: Surprise! We're the Party.
WINSTON: Oh, rats.

The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe
C.S. LEWIS: Finally, a utopia ruled by children and populated by talking animals.
THE WITCH: Hi, I'm a sexually mature woman of power and confidence.
C.S. LEWIS: Ah! Kill it, lion Jesus!

Paradise Lost
ADAM: Paradise has arbitrary dietary restrictions?
DEVIL: They're really more like guidelines.
GOD: Incorrect.

Posted by Ian Faerstein at 01:11 PM

June 25, 2008

6/25: Dueling Narratives

The netroots have never been ones to embrace conventional Beltway wisdom, and that pattern certainly didn't change this week. Barack Obama's decision to opt out of the public financing system provoked a barrage of criticism from Washington journalists, many of whom felt that Obama had seriously damaged his reputation. NBC's First Read wondered if Obama's decision had "undercut the delicate nature of his fresh face image." David Broder suggested that Obama's decision could prove "troublesome" for him because he is "less familiar [than John McCain] and more dependent on the impressions he is only now creating." Richard Cohen also criticized Obama's decision and warned that "the character question hangs" over Obama in a way that it doesn't over McCain.

We've noted in recent days how liberal bloggers are upset that pundits are condemning Obama's campaign finance reversal while ignoring McCain's questionable record on this issue. However, it's also worth noting that liberal bloggers are far less concerned than the leading pundits about the political consequences of Obama's decision. While many journalists appear convinced that Obama has seriously tarnished his brand, liberal bloggers are more confident than ever that Obama will prevail in November. FiveThirtyEight.com currently projects Obama to win 344 electoral votes (versus 194 for McCain). Markos Moulitsas and Chris Bowers also project comfortable Obama victories. Bowers recently wrote:

"The long and short of it is that established media punditry has liked McCain more than Obama in the last couple of weeks, but the country disagrees. As such, what we are seeing is the fundamental problem with much election analysis: is the punditry trying to describe what is happening, or are they trying to create the reality themselves?"

It may be the case that the netroots' confidence is unfounded and that warnings from the chattering class about Obama will prove prophetic. Either way, the difference in their views is striking.

MCCAIN: Cohen's Crush

Liberal bloggers are criticizing The Washington Post's Richard Cohen (which they've done before) for his latest column, in which Cohen argues that McCain can get away with policy reversals in a way that Obama can't because McCain's experience as a POW in Vietnam gives him more credibility:

"Here is the difference between McCain and Obama -- and Obama had better pay attention. McCain is a known commodity. It's not just that he's been around a long time and staked out positions antithetical to those of his Republican base. It's also -- and more important -- that we know his bottom line. As his North Vietnamese captors found out, there is only so far he will go, and then his pride or his sense of honor takes over. This -- not just his candor and nonstop verbosity on the Straight Talk Express -- is what commends him to so many journalists.

Obama might have a similar bottom line, core principles for which, in some sense, he is willing to die. If so, we don't know what they are. Nothing so far in his life approaches McCain's decision to refuse repatriation as a POW so as to deny his jailors a propaganda coup. In fact, there is scant evidence the Illinois senator takes positions that challenge his base or otherwise threaten him politically. That's why his reversal on campaign financing and his transparently false justification of it matter more than similar acts by McCain."

• The Washington Monthly's Kevin Drum: "Shorter Richard Cohen: It's OK for John McCain to pander and flip-flop today because 40 years ago he refused to pander or flip-flop to his North Vietnamese captors."
• Daily Kos' BarbinMD: "Richard Cohen explains that while Barack Obama may have a lot of charisma, his character is in question because of his lack of experience. And apparently the only experience that could answer that character question is if he was tortured while a POW."
• TPM's Greg Sargent: "So how far will the pundits go to protect McCain's reputation as a 'maverick' -- and how far will they go to explain away his many reversals and flip-flops? The answer could help decide the presidential race. Judging by Richard Cohen's column in today's Washington Post, the early returns are not encouraging. Cohen offers what has to be the most creative justification for doing this that we've ever seen -- he argues that McCain's flip-flops matter less than Obama's...because McCain was a POW! I'm not kidding. [...] It's been argued that one reason pundits continue to cede McCain his image as a straight-talker is that some suffer from Vietnam envy. The idea is that they sense that they have never been tested the way McCain has, because he endured and survived the ultimate test -- torture -- and hence [they] are reluctant to question McCain's character. If Cohen ever served, it isn't reflected in his official bio, and you probably couldn't ask for a more perfect demonstration of this Vietnam envy phenomenon than Cohen's column today."
• Sadly, No!'s Brad: "Cohen acknowledges that McCain has indeed changed his position on several very important issues, including tax cuts, the environment and campaign finance. But because he was tortured by the VC, this demonstrates that 'there is only so far he will go' in selling out his ideological convictions (never mind that he even flip-flopped on his previous stance against torture!). So while McCain might actually be a disastrous president in the mold of Bush, at least he won't back down when Charlie busts into the Oval Office and demands he lick Hanoi's blood-stained boots -- he'll tell 'em to go to hell, he will! That's rough-'n'-tumble Johnny Mac for ya! Sellin' out to the oil companies is one thing, but at least McCain won't let Charlie call the shots! You really and truly cannot make this shit up, friends."
• TAPPED's Mori Dinauer: "Richard Cohen has really outdone himself today, writing in his syndicated Washington Post column -- I refuse to link to it -- that John McCain's flip flops deserve less scrutiny than Barack Obama's because McCain was tortured by the North Vietnamese. No, seriously. He also lectures us that 'A presidential race is only incidentally about issues. It's really about likability and character.' Well guess what, Dick, the public thinks otherwise."
• Benen: "I will gladly concede that McCain endured torture and abuse that I can hardly imagine as a POW. The nation will always owe him a debt of gratitude for what he endured. But what this has to do with McCain reversing himself on dozens of issues four decades later is a mystery. To hear Cohen tell it, McCain's service during Vietnam is the ultimate trump card, freeing McCain of political responsibility. [...] If guys like Cohen and Broder spent more time examining McCain's radical transformation, and less time rationalizing why it doesn't matter, the electorate might actually gain some important insights into the man vying to be president."

MCCAIN II: If It Feels Good, Do It!

Liberal bloggers are criticizing McCain's defense of his offshore drilling proposal. Although he admitted that offshore drilling would not immediately lower gas prices, McCain argued that it would nevertheless have "psychological" benefits:

"I don't see an immediate relief, but I do see that exploitation of existing reserves that may exist -- and in view of many experts that do exist off our coasts -- is also a way that we need to provide relief. Even though it may take some years, the fact that we are exploiting those reserves would have psychological impact that I think is beneficial."

• Daily Kos' Markos Moulitsas: "Is McCain even trying?...He's proposing things he knows won't make a difference, then admits it. In other words, 'It won't do shit for you, but it'll make you feel like something is being done.' That's not beneficial. In fact, it's the exact opposite of beneficial."
• AMERICAblog's Joe Sudbay: "McCain is basing his energy policy on feelings."
• dday: "It's one thing to offer a quick-fix Big Con solution to every problem, it's quite another to TELL everyone it's a con."
• TAPPED's Dana Goldstein: "Sure, it would be nice, psychologically, to believe that the U.S. has a homegrown energy supply that would decrease our reliance on foreign oil. But drilling offshore would be environmentally disastrous and yield very little output. Investing in alternative energy and mass transit would have a far greater 'psychological impact,' don't you think?"
• The Carpetbagger Report's Steve Benen: "The incoherence here is breathtaking. McCain believes drilling is part of a short-term solution. He also believes drilling offers no real short-term solutions. McCain believes a gas-tax holiday will produce big savings for consumers. And no savings for consumers. McCain believes we need pragmatic policies that work. He also believes we need psychic policies that make people happy whether they work or not. I have no idea what John McCain is talking about. The real question, though, is whether John McCain knows what John McCain is talking about."
• The Atlantic's Matthew Yglesias: "Couldn't people use some policies that are beneficial in non-psychological ways[?] Maybe the federal government should provide a cash infusion to mass transit systems so that instead of buckling under increased demand we can improve the quality of people's experience and start running trains and buses more quickly? That wouldn't solve everyone's problems by any means, but it would deliver genuine help to many people in the short run."

MCCAIN III: It Wasn't Him, Charlie, It Was You

Conservative bloggers have varying opinions about McCain's chief campaign adviser Charlie Black, who provoked a mini-uproar when he said that a terrorist attack on U.S. soil before the election "would be a big advantage to [McCain]":

• Hot Air's Ed Morrissey thinks Black was correct in his analysis: "Is it somewhat impolitic to express Black's analysis? Perhaps, but it shouldn't be. The Obama campaign has said over and over again that they want a robust debate on national security, but their response to Black and their rejection of town-hall debates says otherwise. The truth is that Obama's appeasement-minded initiatives towards America's enemies have made him look soft on terrorism, and the Obama team wants to keep the debate focused on the economy as much as possible, where Obama's populism can prevail over McCain's market approaches. Any reminder that the world is a dangerous place makes it difficult for Obama."
• AmSpec Blog's Philip Klein isn't so sure that a terrorist attack would benefit McCain: "Jim Geraghty assumes that Black's underlying assertion is obviously true. I'm not so sure. Geraghty's correct that a terrorist attack would shift the debate back to national security, which is McCain's strong suit. However, the debate won't necessarily get framed in a way that's favorable for McCain. If there were another attack, Obama could point to it as the ultimate proof that the 'Bush-McCain' policies have failed to keep America safe, and it may actually feed into the change narrative. The inevitable onslaught of 'what went wrong' news stories pointing to policy errors will surely reinforce Obama."

Meanwhile, Right Wing News' John Hawkins becomes the first conservative blogger (that we've seen) to call for Black's dismissal: "John McCain has enough problems as it is without having one of his top advisers making it sound like he's hoping to benefit politically from a terrorist attack. [...] John McCain, to his credit, immediately distanced himself from Black's comments, but he should have fired him. Scratch that. Actually, he should never have had a former lobbyist like Charlie Black working on his campaign to begin with. It just looks bad for a guy who has made campaign finance reform into the centerpiece of legislative career to have a guy like Charlie Black on his team."

MCCAIN VEEPSTAKES: Talkin' 'Bout Bobby

Conservative bloggers are debating the merits of LA Gov. Bobby Jindal as McCain's running mate. The Club for Growth's Nachama Soloveichik doesn't like the idea:

"The Jindal love feast is running into some stumbling blocks. The NY Times has an article analyzing Bobby Jindal's refusal to veto a massive legislative pay increase despite a campaign promise to do so. The next Ronald Reagan? I don't think so."

Other conservative bloggers are defending Jindal:

• Morrissey: "Minnesota state legislators get $31,000 per year for their part-time work. It seems to me that without paying the state legislators a decent wage, Louisiana risks having the only people in their legislature either be rich or able to manipulate their power to get there. [...] Part of governing is compromise, and this doesn’t seem too egregious to me. I understand that Jindal had promised to keep pay raises off the table, but this is a good lesson to Jindal not to overpromise during the campaign."
• The Next Right's idahoconservative: "The Club for Growth, which focused on the less conservative parts of Mike Huckabee's Arkansas record with laserbeam intensity is doing the same thing with Governor Bobby Jindal (R-La.) in order to boost their favorite candidate for the Vice-Presidency, Governor Mark Sanford (R-SC). [...] I disagree with the Governor's decision [on the legislative pay increase], but have the Club for Growth and a few Louisiana Conservatives lost all sense of perspective here? You get a School Choice bill, you get a bill through the legislature cutting business taxes (which was the governor's idea), you get serious reform of State ethics laws, you get more freedom of discussion on public schools on hot button issues like evolution and global warming. And all that gets dwarfed by a State legislative pay increase that while high (the amount paid is $37,500), I can't necessarily say is completely unreasonable. [...] I would agree that there can be some criticism leveled, but as for Solveichik's 'He's no Reagan' statement, I would respond that no one can live up to the godlike image of Ronald Reagan that has been created by fiscal conservatives, no one can live up to it -- not even Reagan on his California record."
• RedState's Leon Wolf: "Apparently, Jindal's acquiescence in the legislative pay raises establish conclusively that he is a witch, and therefore must be burned. [...] As it happens, I agree that Jindal needs more experience before he should be VP or President. However, these shrieking denunciations by fiscons of every minute deviation from standards that are arbitrary and do not account for the realities of the real world. [...] It is by all means appropriate to note that Jindal (and [AK Gov. Sarah] Palin, the subject of this ridiculous attack from the CfG) may lack the necessary experience to be VP. It is another to treat the most talented GOP backbenchers in the country like they are witches who deserve to be burned. With the state that the party is in now, let's not pre-emptively start chucking people who are 98% with us overboard just so Saint Sanford can become Vice President."

Soloveichik responds to Wolf's post: "I am by no means engaging in a witch hunt against Bobby Jindal. My criticism has long been that his record is completely disproportionate to the recent conservative love feast. From Rush Limbaugh declaring Bobby Jindal the 'next Ronald Reagan' to the blogosphere's teenage-like crush, you would think Jindal has been a superstar in Congress and as governor. That is not the case. [...] I have praised Jindal where it is deserved and I would love to be proven wrong over the coming years. But so far, Jindal has not persuaded me that he will be a consistently strong advocate for limited-government, free-market policies. As for Leon's problem with the Club's praise of Mark Sanford, I plead guilty to being impressed with the South Carolina governor. But I think Sanford's record is far more worthy of praise than many of the other names mentioned as VP possibilities, including Bobby Jindal, [MN Gov.] Tim Pawlenty, and [FL Gov.] Charlie Crist."

OBAMA: On Fruitcake Interpretations

Liberal bloggers are pushing back against evangelical Christian leader James Dobson's criticism of Obama, in which he accused the Dem nominee of distorting the Bible and advocating a "fruitcake interpretation" of the Constitution:

• Al Giordano: "This, from a minister (Dobson) whose own interpretation of The Bible leads him to conclude that 'spanking should be of sufficient magnitude to cause the child to cry genuinely,' that women should avoid the workplace and stay home even when their children reach teenage years because 'menopause and a man's midlife crisis are scheduled to coincide with adolescence, which can make a wicked soup,' and that 'tolerance and its first cousin, diversity, "are almost always buzzwords for homosexual advocacy."' Uh, which US presidential candidate has a 'reverend problem'?"
• AMERICAblog's John Aravosis: "Obama has made no secret that he's wooing people of faith, as a fellow Christian. McCain's Christian bona fides aren't that strong -- he recently got his faith wrong, and he certainly doesn't talk about God and Christ in the real way that Obama does, in the real way that a real Christian recognizes as, well, real. So Dobson appears to be worried that Obama is a real threat, not just to McCain, but to Dobson's own warped view of Christianity. Of course, the real threat to Dobson is that nobody appears to care what he and his ilk have to say anymore. At least not in politics, and that's Dobson's home turf. He may have loads of red-state followers who are still willing to at least sip his Kool-Aid, but in Washington, he's not exactly the cock of the walk he once was. And he knows it."
• Crooks and Liars' John Amato accuses Dobson of deliberately using loaded language: "I'm not going to even comment on [Dobson's] own distortions, but I will say that he's just trying to get his flock motivated a little bit. And notice that he calls Obama's interpretation of the Constitution, 'fruitcake.' We know how he feels about gay marriage. See any connection there?"

CBN's David Brody explains that Dobson speaks for conservative Evangelicals, whereas Obama is trying to appeal to younger and moderate Evangelicals: "James Dobson is simply pointing out what millions of conservative Evangelicals are thinking. These conservative Christians have problems with Obama's views on abortion, partial birth abortion, civil unions and statements that contradict basic Christian philosophy. [...] It's important to remember that while Obama will attract some conservative Evangelicals, Obama's main goal is to win over moderate Evangelicals. Also young conservative Evangelicals seem more open to Obama's 'Christian' message of caring for the poor, fighting genocide, healthcare for all and climate change. They also like the fact that he is reaching out to try and find common ground with conservative faith voters. One other quick point: while Obama may not win over conservative Evangelicals he has to be careful that they don't make this a huge issue because if they do watch out. It could have some crossover effect and hurt Obama with more socially conservative Democrats in key swing states."

OBAMA II: Gordon Smith Hearts Obama

Liberal bloggers are mocking Sen. Gordon Smith (R-OR) for making a TV ad touting his work with Obama:

• Daily Kos' mcjoan: "Just how shameless can Smith get? [...] He's trying to tell the people of Oregon that he's Barack Obama's choice for the Senate in Oregon."
• MyDD's Todd Beeton: "Wow, how desperate is this guy? Incumbent Republican Senator from Oregon, Gordon Smith...is now actually using Barack Obama to promote his own candidacy, even implying a quasi endorsement with the opening line. [...] What makes this even more satisfying is that Smith was an extremely early McCain endorser yet here ends up reinforcing the idea that Obama is the consensus builder that he says he is, which completely undermines two central messages being pushed by the McCain camp: (a.) that Obama is the most liberal senator in congress and (b.) that Obama is just a typical politician."
• Open Left's tremayne: "When even Republicans such as Gordon Smith want to align with Obama over McCain or Bush, that's a telling sign of things to come."
• Oliver Willis: "Has this ever happened before? An incumbent senator touting a connection to the opposing party's presidential candidate?"

On the right side of the blogosphere, Hot Air's Allahpundit thinks Smith's ad is sensible: "Marc Ambinder says he's never seen an ad like it but is it really that surprising? [...] A blue tide in Congress this year is a given, Obama won the state primary by 18 points over Hillary, and he's already up three against McCain in the latest Survey USA poll. If you're going to bet, this is the way to go. And even if he bets wrong and Maverick pulls an upset, what's the GOP going to do, ostracize him? They need every congressional vote they can get."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: You Only Hate Him 'Cause He's Winning

Open Left's Chris Bowers responds to Beltway journalists who have been criticizing Obama for (among other things) opting out of the public financing system:

"I was [initially] perplexed by how the punditry could be claiming that Obama was making campaign mistakes even though he has been steadily rising in the polls at both the national and state level. Now, upon further reflection, I think I understand why the concern troll press is so irritated with Obama. It is because, unlike pretty much all Democrats over the past forty years, Obama is both acting like a winner and also actually winning. [...]

Candidates who can raise more money than any other presidential candidate in history don't simply give up their financial advantage so that a few goo-goos will like them better. In fact, not only would Obama be dumping his massive financial advantage if he accepted public financing, but given the $50M gap in cash between the DNC and RNC, he would have faced a massive financial disadvantage. Scratch that -- given that he only leads McCain by $8M in cash on hand, he already is facing a massive financial deficit, and public funds would have made it much worse. Candidates who want to win campaigns don't spot their opponents $50M. By not accepting public funds, Obama [is] acting like a winner."

LEST WE FORGET: The Limits Of Self-Reliance

Dwight Schrute from NBC's "The Office" explains his rules for tipping:

"Why tip someone for a job I'm capable of doing myself? I can deliver food. I can drive a taxi. I can, and do, cut my own hair. I did however, tip my urologist, because I am unable to pulverize my own kidney stones."

Posted by Ian Faerstein at 01:35 PM

June 24, 2008

6/24: The Slings And Arrows Of Fortune Magazine

Fortune magazine's story about John McCain has created quite a stir in the liberal blogosphere. Liberal bloggers are ridiculing McCain for telling Fortune that the gravest long-term threat to the U.S. economy is "Islamic extremism." They're portraying McCain's statement as evidence that the GOP nominee doesn't know anything about the economy and therefore wants to "turn the entire election into a referendum on national security". The netroots are also accusing McCain of dramatically overstating the danger posed by Islamic extremism when he claims that it threatens "our very existence." Conservative bloggers, of course, share McCain's assessment of the terrorist threat, and this was one of the major reasons that former McCain critics like Hugh Hewitt became such passionate McCain supporters once the GOP primary ended.

Liberal bloggers are also ripping McCain's chief campaign adviser Charlie Black for telling Fortune that a terrorist attack on U.S. soil before the election "would be a big advantage to [McCain]". The netroots have previously urged McCain to fire Black due to his past lobbying work for controversial foreign leaders, and now they're once again calling for Black's head while denouncing his remarks as "sick" and "politically tone-deaf". Meanwhile, the Barack Obama campaign doesn't appear ready to let go of Black's comments, suggesting that the Obama campaign -- like the netroots -- believes that Dems can finally win the national security debate.

MCCAIN: A Noun, A Verb, And Islamic Extremism

Liberal bloggers are ridiculing McCain for making the following statement to Fortune magazine, which conducted parallel interviews about the economy with McCain and Obama:

What do you see as the gravest long-term threat to the U.S. economy?

Obama: If we don't get a handle on our energy policy, it is possible that the kinds of trends we've seen over the last year will just continue. Demand is clearly outstripping supply. It's not a problem we can drill our way out of. It can be a drag on our economy for a very long time unless we take steps to innovate and invest in the research and development that's required to find alternative fuels. I think it's very important for the federal government to have a role in that process.

McCain: Well, I would think that the absolute gravest threat is the struggle that we're in against Islamic extremism, which can affect, if they prevail, our very existence. Another successful attack on the United States of America could have devastating consequences.

• The Washington Monthly's Kevin Drum: "It's as if McCain is trying to become a parody of himself here. Is his answer to every question 'Islamic extremism'? [...] Two things are remarkable here. First, that McCain genuinely seems to believe that Islamic extremism poses not just a threat, but a threat to the very existence of the West. This is science fiction territory. Second, that he apparently can't come up with any better answer to Fortune's question about economic threats. Not energy, not high taxes, not runaway entitlement growth, not healthcare, not globalization, not any of a dozen plausible answers that would have gone down fine with his base. [...] It's been pretty obvious for a while that McCain is going to try and turn the entire election into a referendum on national security, painting Obama as a 21st century Neville Chamberlain. This seems like an early sign of just how far he's planning to take this. Luckily, Obama seems to be ready for it."
• Firedoglake's Christy Hardin Smith: "In its forthcoming issue, Fortune Magazine decided to cover presidential candidate economic policy by putting the same questions to McCain and Obama, and then pasting their answers side-by-side. What Fortune didn't count on was the unintentionally hilarious read. It's as though they put together a side by side interview with a thoughtful Warren Buffett protege and Glenn Beck's drunken, more moronic twin. [...] Guess McCain didn't get around to reading Alan Greenspan's book yet so that he could understand economics, so he went with the Rudy Giuliani 'repeat what scares the bejeebers out of the base' method of answering the questions."
• Daily Kos' Markos Moulitsas: "McCain's answer to any question, including ones about the economy, is 'look at the terrorists!'"
• Atrios: "In defense of John McCain, he does have a point. A grave threat to the economy is the reaction of people like John McCain to what they perceive as a threat, spending hundreds of billions of dollars attacking Bolivia in response to Pearl Harbor."
• Ezra Klein: "There are essentially two sets of premises under which you could answer this question. The first is the real world, which contains likely threats to the American economy. Things like a deep recession that's worsened by a credit contraction. Or oil prices that turn out to be skyrocketing not because of transient speculation, but enduring global instability and a dawning recognition of peak oil. Or a health system that isn't fixed, and is chewing up 30 percent of our GDP in two decades. The other set of premises is the fantasy world. This is more like Marvel's 'What If?' series. What is the Supervolcano explodes? What if we have an 'I Am Legend' style pandemic? Or a '28 Days Later' zombie virus? What if 'radical Islamic extremism' prevails and terrorists establish a global caliphate? [...] McCain's answer, like a lot of his answers, doesn't make any sense. But he wears a dark suit. He's an experienced looking white guy. He stares into 'the void.' He's the Republican nominee for president. And so we're supposed to take this stuff seriously. But it's absurd."
• The Carpetbagger Report's Steve Benen: "Now, I can appreciate the fact that terrorism can obviously have a real effect on an economy. But McCain seriously believes that radical Islamic extremism is not only the most serious long-term threat to the economy, but to 'our very existence'? I'm certainly not prepared to argue that America doesn't have dangerous enemies; we do. It's just that the politics of fear can lead to a certain unhealthy hysteria. The notion that, at most, several thousand religious nuts with no military equipment and practically no land, could seriously threaten 'our very existence' is ridiculous. The idea that these same violent lunatics represent the 'gravest long-term threat to the U.S. economy' isn't much better."

MCCAIN II: Pining For A Terrorist Attack?

Liberal bloggers are criticizing McCain's chief campaign adviser Charlie Black after Black told Fortune magazine that a terrorist attack on U.S. soil before the election would give McCain a boost:

"[Benazir Bhutto's assassination] probably saved McCain in New Hampshire, a state he had to win to save his candidacy -- this according to McCain's chief strategist, Charlie Black. The assassination of Benazir Bhutto in December was an 'unfortunate event,' says Black. 'But his knowledge and ability to talk about it reemphasized that this is the guy who's ready to be Commander-in-Chief. And it helped us.' As would, Black concedes with startling candor after we raise the issue, another terrorist attack on U.S. soil. 'Certainly it would be a big advantage to him,' says Black."

• Benen: "When asked if a terrorist attack would benefit one candidate over another, the tasteful response is to say electoral considerations pale in comparison to the seriousness of terrorism. Instead, McCain's chief campaign strategist effectively said, 'Yep, terrorism would be good for us.' It's a politically-tone deaf remark."
• BooMan: "After 9/11 people dug up several comments that people had made prior to 9/11 where they seemed to be rooting for another Pearl Harbor so that the American people would be more supportive of an aggressive foreign policy. These comments kind of fed the early conspiracy theories that the Bush administration let 9/11 happen on purpose. I guess none of that really matters though, because Republicans keep pining for another terrorist attack to buck up American resolve for an aggressive foreign policy. There isn't really any doubt that a significant number of Republicans would welcome another terrorist attack. Which leads to my question. Why should we trust these people to prevent terrorist attacks?"
• Mark Kleiman: "Fear. It's all they have left. Ever since 9/11, the Republicans, aided and abetted by the mass media, have been doing their best to turn Americans into cowards. It worked on enough people to swing the elections in 2002 and 2004. It didn't work in 2006. I don't think it will work this year. Yes, this election is about 'hope' and 'change.' But more than that, it's about courage. Barack Obama is appealing to the grown-ups. McCain is appealing to the scared little children."
• dday: "If anyone thinks Charlie Black is sorry for saying this, they're nuts. This is completely calculated. [...] He's backtracked on it now, and McCain strenuously disagreed, but the target for that comment were media types. The only reason it is conventionally assumed that a terrorist attack is good for Republicans is that Republicans keep saying it, and when they say it, the media listens. They're perfectly willing to risk sounding ghoulish in the short-term so that they're prepared for every talking head explaining in the wake of a terrorist attack how the Republicans have been enhanced. I'd call it mind control but it's not nearly so difficult; more like that scene where Crocodile Dundee raises two fingers in front of the bull and makes him go to sleep."

Several liberal bloggers are calling on McCain to fire Black:

• Crooks and Liars' John Amato: "Is Black hoping for an attack on US soil? He should be fired for saying this."
• AMERICAblog's John Aravosis: "McCain is supposedly 'distancing himself' from his top adviser. Sorry, but if the guy is still McCain's top adviser, there's no distance at all. I was ready for McCain's Double-Talk Express, but never thought McCain would stoop to the Terrorist-Talk Express. I mean, if John McCain is a sitting Senator, and his top adviser thinks that a terrorist attack on US soil would help McCain win the presidency, then doesn't that mean McCain has a pretty massive, sick, and deadly conflict of interest?"

MCCAIN III: You Ain't Gotta Like Me; You Just Mad 'Cause I Tell It How It Is And You Tell It How It Might Be

Conservative bloggers believe that Black was simply telling the truth when he said that a terrorist attack on U.S. soil would give McCain "a big advantage":

• RedState's Erick Erickson: "Charlie Black just said what everyone already knows."
• NRO's Jim Geraghty writes a sarcastic post: "There's no reason to think that after a terrorist attack, Americans would prefer the leadership of a war veteran who's spent his entire career dealing with national security issues. There's every chance that with Americans dead and more attacks possible, they would turn to the former community organizer who, when asked about his military response to terrorist attacks, gives a lengthy answer listing every action except the military response. [...] No, of course, Black is wrong. The American people would eagerly want the guy whose foreign policy advisers contend that Osama bin Laden, if captured, should be allowed to appeal his case to U.S. civilian courts. They'd love to have a commander in chief who erroneously claims that all of the perpetrators of the 1993 World Trade Center bombing have been brought to justice, and who praises the pre-9/11 approach to al-Qaeda terrorism, ignoring the fact that the attacks kept getting larger."

Hot Air's Allahpundit agrees that Black's statement was correct, but thinks it was a foolish thing to say: "[This was] a tin-eared Kinsleyan gaffe, like Harry Reid cooing about the senate seats his party's going to reap from chaos in Iraq. As an observation of electoral reality it may be true but it's far too crass to say aloud, as would be true of a lefty acknowledging that a downturn in Iraq would be a big advantage for Obama's campaign vis-a-vis Maverick's '100 years' comment (which it would, and which is precisely why Reid's still pushing the idea of an 'intractable civil war' even after the media's given up on it). Too bad Black doesn't have the good sense to recognize that."

MCCAIN IV: Hypocrisy, Thy Name Is McCain

Liberal bloggers are angry that so many media figures have loudly criticized Obama's decision to opt out of the public financing system while ignoring McCain's manipulation of campaign finance law:

• TPM's Josh Marshall: "I just saw John McCain very gravely lamenting Barack Obama's decision not to accept public financing for the general election campaign and opining about what it says about Obama's ethics and trustworthiness. And I must confess that I'm a little confused why more Democrats are not hitting this preening peacock with the fact that he is as we speak breaking the campaign finance laws and specifically breaking the law on accepting public financing. Having opted into the system and gotten the advantage of it he's now spending freely in defiance of the caps he agreed not to spend over. Not a commitment to Common Cause to try to come to deal, but a legally binding commitment to stay within the public system for the primaries (which, by FEC rules, continues through the nominating conventions). It's almost surreal that McCain is being allowed to get on his high horse on anything remotely connected to the public financing system."
• Arianna Huffington: "Isn't it interesting how, after largely ignoring the issue for the last 30 years, during which the GOP consistently outfundraised and outspent Democrats in election after election, the media are suddenly all atwitter about whether the campaign finance system is 'basically fair'? How dare Obama inspire 1.5 million donors, giving an average of $197 apiece, to help him raise more money than McCain? [...] Amidst all the attacks on Obama's 'flip-flop,' how much have you read in the MSM about the fact that McCain has 'completely reversed himself' on public financing -- and is currently breaking the law on a daily basis, making a mockery out of a campaign finance system he helped create? [...] While Obama's decision is a subject open to debate, the mainstream media should not be allowed to get away with their continued refusal to accurately report on the fall of John McCain.."
• Benen: "For reasons that I haven't quite been able to figure out, McCain's own behavior with relation to the public financing system seems to have completely escaped the attention of political reporters. [...] Of all the issues for McCain to strike a self-righteous note, this is one of the worst. The only reason McCain is not currently under investigation is that the FEC ceased to function a while back. The whole issue of the public financing system is one McCain should be desperately trying to avoid. Instead, he's talking about nothing else, assuming that the media (and Dems, for that matter) won't push the issue. So far, the gamble actually seems to be working."

MCCAIN V: Where's Bill Kristol When You Need Him?

NRO's Rich Lowry thinks the McCain camp should hire conservative New York Times columnist William Kristol:

"There's a sense you never know where McCain is going to be on any given day. Is he zigging toward the center, or zagging right? And on top of this, the campaign feels so defensive -- all about not being Bush and not being Obama. All of this is diminishing McCain, who is a serious, impressive guy for all his flaws. With every clever tactic and worthy small-bore proposal -- whether it's off-shore drilling or the battery prize -- McCain loses a tiny bit more of his stature and his sense of who he is. He needs to be bigger than Obama to win the election, and he needs his political persona -- as a patriotic fighter determined to fix Washington and win the war -- to come out clearly and unmistakably. I think some new blood -- focused just on the big picture -- would help the McCain team. My candidate would be Kristol. He obviously has a keen political mind; he's a McCain guy going way back (and as far as I know has a good relationship with McCain's key people); and he's a conservative who understands the need to move beyond the Bush administration without being panicked by every Bush association."

Other conservative bloggers aren't so keen on the idea:

• NRO's Kathryn Jean Lopez: "Bill, of course, is terrific, and I take all your points, Rich. But you want McCain to hire a New York Times columnist who called those opposed to amnesty yahoos? It would be a smarter campaign, but it would send a lot of the same old bad signals to conservatives."
• Michelle Malkin: "With all due respect, adding another Beltway political strategist to the McCain camp isn't going to fix an un-fixable problem. It's not fundamentally flawed messaging, it's a fundamentally flawed candidate. The sooner Republicans reconcile themselves to that, the better."

OBAMA: Looks Like Karl's Projecting Again

Liberal bloggers are slamming ex-WH adviser Karl Rove -- who currently serves as a Fox News contributor and an informal adviser to McCain -- for making the following remarks about Obama "at a breakfast with Republican insiders at the Capitol Hill Club":

"Even if you never met him, you know this guy. He's the guy at the country club with the beautiful date, holding a martini and a cigarette that stands against the wall and makes snide comments about everyone who passes by."

• The Atlantic's Matthew Yglesias: "How many Americans have had the experience of being at a country club and watching some dude with a beautiful date hold a martini and smoke a cigarette? Certainly I haven't. Rove assumes that 'you know this guy' but unless 'you' are a wealthy person from the past, you probably don't know a guy like that."
• Oliver Willis: "What is this, 1952? Who the hell goes to a country club? The most that the rest of us know about country clubs is that they're full of guys like Rove slapping each other on the back. This advice is the sort of advice you would expect from the guy who lost the House and Senate while crowing about 'the math'. So please, Republicans, listen to Karl."
• Ezra Klein: "I really like that when Karl Rove is talking to 'Republican insiders,' he finds it easiest to illustrate concepts by referring to 'types of people you might meet at a country club.'"
• Firedoglake's Attaturk: "Pretty bold words from the guy whose patron's middle name is derived from the latter's grandfather who started the 'Walker Cup' -- one of the better known golfing events. Besides, isn't Karl Rove the guy who would blackball guys like Barack Obama from joining his club to begin with?"
• The Atlantic's Andrew Sullivan: "Karl Rove [is] revealing more about his own insecurities than Obama's."
• TPM's Greg Sargent: "Obama is 'the guy at the country club'? As [ABC's] Jake Tapper notes, Obama probably 'wouldn't be admitted into many country clubs that members of the Capitol Hill Club frequent.' It should also be noted, of course, that Rove took a man who actually is a country club denizen who makes 'snide comments' about others -- that would be George W. Bush -- and turned him into a regular Joe. Meanwhile, the guy who would struggle for admittance to some of these exclusive enclaves -- Obama -- is now 'the guy at the country club.' Rovian up-is-downism at its finest."
• Balloon Juice's John Cole: "Does this make any damned sense? Since when do people look at Obama and think 'He goes to a country club?' At least the 'radical liberal with black panther racist priest and oh by the way he is a stealth muslim' BS they are peddling makes sense, even if it is a silly and stupid smear, but Country Club? When I think of country clubs, I think of the Enron crowd that puts folks like Mitt Romney and George Bush and Kay Bailey Hutchinson in office. But black liberals from Illinois named Obama? Is Hamas into country clubs or something?"
• Benen: "Rove is going to have to do better than this. Usually his ugly attacks aren't quite this silly."
• Digby: "It's very clever to add in the country club and martini imagery, even though it's patently absurd. Gives it a nice sort of cover to what he's saying. After all, conservatives can't just come right out and call someone an Uppity Negro these days."

OBAMA II: No Immunity For Telcos!

The netroots are urging their readers to pressure Obama and the other Dem Senators to strip the retroactive immunity provision from the FISA bill:

• Firedoglake's Christy Hardin Smith: "The objective is to strip immunity from the bill. We need to figure out a way to make that happen before leadership caves on this altogether. [...] One way to push on this is to flood the offices of Senators with calls and FAXes telling them to do just that. If they don't hear from you, then they won't know you are pissed -- so let's get to work. [...] Several Senators could use extra contact on this -- uncommitted or wavering Democrats, leadership folks, members of the Gang of 14, and a number of wavering Republicans. Tell them no telecom immunity -- period. It is well past time that respect for the rule of law and the role of Congress in the balance of powers was restored."
• Salon's Glenn Greenwald: "Christy Hardin Smith at FDL has all of the key information for pressuring swaying Senators to keep amnesty out of the FISA bill this week. Personally, I think the only remotely plausible pressure points are demanding that Obama complies with his filibuster promise and doing the same with [CT Sen.] Chris Dodd, and by 'remotely plausible' I mean 'something that is, in theory, not absolute zero.' Still, even battles that are almost certain to end in a loss are worth waging until the bitter end."

Meanwhile, Balloon Juice's John Cole discusses the politics of FISA: "For me, the long-term is in the context of the election, and November is the end-game. With my mindset, you look at the political realities, realize you are right on the issue but the politics are against you, cut your losses and keep working towards changing the game in November. I just don't see anything in the works that will be game-changing regarding this piece of legislation -- it is going to pass, no matter what Obama does. For Glenn [Greenwald], the long-term means the fight must start now, and if you fight now, the election will turn your way, as it will be a reflection of the public's embrace of your willingness to fight. Any of the short-term political concerns that I noted here are of little relevance, and your larger message will carry the day. [...] It will be interesting to see how this plays out over the next week with FISA being presented in the Senate. The bill is going to pass, but how Obama fights the immunity provision will go a long way to demonstrating what he thinks the best general election strategy will be for his team. Personally, I think Obama has already shown a willingness to fight and to engage, and that he realizes this issue is lost, but it remains to be seen if that will satisfy those who want a bolder strategy."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Image Is Everything

Matthew Yglesias:

"It's interesting that the result of not one but both major parties nominating presidential candidates known as process-oriented reformers has merely resulted in an usually large volume of campaign finance shenanigans -- from McCain illegally backing out of the system after having used public financing to secure a loan, to Obama wriggling out of a commitment to use public financing for the general election. I bet that two years ago, reformers would have told you that a McCain-Obama matchup would be great for their cause. In practice, it's turned out to be terrible.

And I think it's not a coincidence. McCain and Obama both feel they can take the hit on these issues in part because they're both branded as 'reformers' and thus don't need to worry as much about being perceived as corrupt. Years ago, of course, McCain had a different reputation as a consequence of the Keating 5 business and became a reformer in part in order to change that reputation. But politicians who have the clean image can feel free to ditch process constraints whenever convenient."

LEST WE FORGET: Table Names At Our Wedding If We Were Truthful

McSweeney's Harris Bloom makes a list:

• People We Didn't Think Would Come
• People We Invited Solely Because They Invited Us to Their Weddings
• Relatives We Haven't Seen in 20 Years
• Wealthy People
• Sorry, but You Are...?

Posted by Ian Faerstein at 01:22 PM

June 23, 2008

6/23: Welcome To The General Election, Netroots!

In what the Washington Post describes as "his most substantive break with the Democratic Party's base since becoming the presumptive nominee," Barack Obama announced his support of the controversial new FISA legislation. The netroots fiercely oppose this legislation, which dramatically expands the President's power to conduct warrantless wiretapping and gives retroactive immunity to telecommunications companies that participated in the Bush administration's unlawful surveillance program. Liberal bloggers are very disappointed by Obama's decision, which they're calling