June 17, 2008

6/17: Debate Substantive Issues? Yes, We Can!

Lately, it seemed as though political bloggers were following the lead of the Barack Obama and John McCain campaigns and focusing on relatively minor issues instead of engaging in substantive policy debates. Fortunately, that appears to be changing. Liberal bloggers are hitting McCain hard over his recent remarks about his emissions plan, in which he appeared to advocate a cap-and-trade system while simultaneously rejecting a "mandatory cap" on carbon emissions. Many liberal bloggers are accusing McCain of not understanding his own proposal, while a few are accusing him of deliberately misrepresenting his plan in an effort to avoid angering either environmentalists or the business community.

Meanwhile, conservative bloggers are hitting Obama equally hard for statements he made concerning his approach to fighting terrorism. Conservative bloggers are joining McCain's advisers in accusing the Dem nominee of possessing a "September 10th mindset" that will lead to more terrorist attacks.

MCCAIN: It Depends On The Definition Of The Word "Mandatory"...

Liberal bloggers are accusing McCain of misunderstanding his own emissions plan after he and a reporter had the following exchange at a press conference (emphasis added):

QUESTION: The European Union has set mandatory targets on renewable energy. Is that something you would consider in a McCain administration? [...]

MCCAIN: Sure. I believe in the cap-and-trade system, as you know. I would not at this time make those -- impose a mandatory cap at this time. But I do believe that we have to establish targets for reductions of greenhouse gas emissions over time, and I think those can be met.

• The Atlantic's Matthew Yglesias: "Watch in amazement as John McCain fails to realize that a cap-and-trade system necessarily involves a 'mandatory cap' on carbon emissions. Obviously the root of the issue here is that McCain doesn't understand anything about carbon policy and doesn't care about it either. But he wanted to sign up for a 'centrist' solution on the sexy issue of climate change, so his staff came up with a plan. But 'mandatory cap' sounds like the lefty position, so McCain thinks he must not have it."
• Obsidian Wings' hilzoy: "The best you can say for McCain, on this point, is that he is completely unfamiliar with what is supposed to be one of his signature issues. Not knowing what 'mandatory cap' means, in this context, is like not knowing what a 'strike' is in baseball."
• The Carpetbagger Report's Steve Benen: "One need not be a policy wonk to be a good candidate and a capable president. But it's not too much to ask that presidential nominees have at least a passing familiarity with their own proposals, especially those the candidate places enormous significance on. [...] It's tough to know for sure whether McCain is hopelessly confused or shamelessly dishonest, but given his remarks, I'm afraid it has to be one or the other (or perhaps, I suppose, a little of both)."
• Grist's Kate Sheppard: "[McCain's response is] completely out of line with his own proposal for a cap-and-trade scheme, both the plan he proposed with Joe Lieberman last year and his own presidential plan, released last month. They both would, by nature, be mandatory -- hence the 'cap' in the name. This isn't the first time McCain has misunderstood his own policy on cap-and-trade. In the Republican debate in Florida in January, he also denied that his cap-and-trade program included a mandatory cap on carbon."

Other liberal bloggers don't think that McCain is confused about his emissions plans; rather, they believe he's deliberately misrepresenting his position in order to avoid taking a side:

• The Washington Monthly's Kevin Drum: "Does a greenhouse gas cap-and-trade plan mean that greenhouse gases would be capped? You'd think so, but in a press conference this morning we learned that apparently John McCain thinks otherwise. Is McCain confused again? Maybe, but more likely it's just politics as usual, a way of being all things to all people. He wants credit for taking climate change seriously but he also wants credit for being business friendly, so he offers up a cap-and-trade plan and then insists that it doesn't actually involve a cap. This is garden variety double talk, but he can get away with it because he knows that no one in the press corps will actually challenge him on an issue of substantive policy."
• Mark Kleiman: "Umm...Senator? If there's no actual cap on greenhouse-gas emissions -- a binding cap, that companies actually have to comply with, rather than just a helpful hint -- then there's nothing for companies to trade. A voluntary cap-and-trade system is like dry water. It's hard to tell how much of McCain's cranky-obtuse-and-forgetful-Grandpa personal is genuine, and how much of it is a shtick designed to allow him to be on both sides of all issues. Compared to clarity, it has huge tactical advantages for someone in McCain's position: a solid conservative (in the debased current sense of that term) running for President of a country thoroughly tired of that brand of conservatism."

MCCAIN II: We Can Drill If We Want To, We Can Leave Those Dems Behind

Conservative bloggers are pleased that McCain called for the lifting of the federal moratorium on offshore oil drilling for states that want to permit it:

• NRO's Rich Lowry: "[This was] a big step forward on drilling. Very good news."
• Townhall's Carol Platt Liebau: "John McCain believes states hould have the right to engage in energy exploration off their coasts. That makes a lot of sense, given sky-high gas prices and our dependence on foreign oil. Barack Obama is complacent about high gas prices -- and seems to believe that Americans would be, too, if the increases had come about more gradually. Just another example of our choice in November."
• Right Wing News' John Hawkins: "Would there be some huge environmental impact if we drilled ANWR or off the coast of Florida and California? Honestly, no, there wouldn't. The only reason lefties won't say that is because then they'd have to tell people the truth: they oppose drilling because they're generally anti-capitalist and also because they think high gas prices are a good thing. Politically, that kind of honesty costs you elections, so this is just one more thing the libs aren't going to tell the truth about."
• Power Line's John Hinderaker calls McCain's statement a "small step forward": "McCain announced his support for lifting the moratorium on Outer Continental Shelf drilling. [...] At the same time, McCain reiterated his opposition to drilling in ANWR. He has a long way to go on energy policy, but I believe he will give a speech on the subject tomorrow. We'll see whether he has more to say."
• Townhall's Amanda Carpenter links to a new Rasmussen poll indicating that "67% of voters believe that drilling should be allowed off the coasts of California, Florida and other states": "Americans Want to Drill, Drill, Drill...This should come as welcome news to John McCain who will be making a formal call for increasing energy exploration off our coastlines, by way of lifting existing oil moratoriums, in a Texas speech late this afternoon."

Michelle Malkin, on the other hand, accuses McCain of flip-flopping: "Just a recap: McCain was AWOL on the windfall profits tax debate in the Senate (a failed [Jimmy] Carter relic that he says he'd be 'glad to look at'). He had nothing to say about Rep. John Peterson's effort to lift the offshore drilling ban when it was up for a vote last week. And as I noted back on May 22, he has channeled the entire Democrat presidential field's class warfare rhetoric and repeatedly referred to the oil industry's 'obscene profits'. Now, he's announced he wants to lift the offshore drilling moratorium and will give an energy speech tomorrow. He was for it before he was against it before he was for it again. Positively Kerryesque."

MCCAIN III: Does He Really Want These People On His Side?

Yesterday we briefly discussed McCain's 6/14 meeting with disgruntled Hillary Clinton supporters. The Politico's Ben Smith reports that Paula Abeles, the Clinton supporter who organized this meeting, previously worked on behalf of Thomas Jefferson's white descendants in an effort to exclude Jefferson's possible black descendants from family gatherings:

"A key organizer of John McCain's meeting Saturday with former supporters of Hillary Clinton is best known for her role in another bitter American fight: The effort by some white descendants of Thomas Jefferson to keep his possible African-American descendants out of family gatherings. [...]

Abeles first made the news in 2003, when she and her husband, then-Monticello Association President Nat Abeles, led the fight to keep members of the Hemings family -- descendants of Jefferson slave and, some historians believe, mistress Sally Hemmings -- out of a gathering of the Monticello Association, which is made up of lineal descendants of the third president."

Liberal bloggers are buzzing about the revelations:

• TPM's Eric Kleefeld: "It looks like John McCain could have another controversial campaign associate on his hands. This time it comes in the form of Paula Abeles, a former Clinton-backer who has now taken a lead in organizing support for McCain among women voters. One problem, as Ben Smith has discovered: Abeles previously attained notoriety in 2003 as part of her husband's association of Thomas Jefferson descendants, working hard to keep out any of Sally Hemmings' African-American descendants. When it was discovered that she'd used a fake Internet identity to undermine the efforts of Jefferson's alleged black descendants, she said it was necessary to make sure the family reunion was 'a calm and civilized gathering.'"
• Yglesias: "This, of course, is the faction of Clinton supporters -- people who don't like black people -- where McCain has a very good shot at picking up new voters. The people who backed Clinton on feminist grounds or because they thought she had the savvy to deliver big time progressive legislation probably won't be following in Abeles' footsteps."
• TAPPED's Dana Goldstein: "It's worth expanding, I think, upon how deeply racist and out-of-the-mainstream folks like Abeles are. [...] Those Jefferson descendants who continue to reject their black brethren are facing off against both science and history, choosing to embrace an outdated and, quite literally, white-washed image of their scion. Hearing that Abeles supports McCain will only push more Clinton supporters -- the vast majority of whom are committed Democrats and fairly progressive -- into Obama's camp."
• Kleiman: "This ought to cool the ardor of any of the Hillaryites-for-McCain who aren't stone racists. [...] Note that the McCain folks allowed Abeles to make the guest list for the teleconference and meeting. She's not just some random supporter: she's the person the McCain camp wanted to work with, or the person they judged could best reach out to the potential McCain supporters from the Clinton camp."
• hilzoy: "Ben Smith cites an AP article, which is kind of incredible: apparently, Ms. Abeles spent a considerable amount of time pretending to be a 67 year old black woman on an internet chat group in order to find out how members of the Hemings family might be planning to get into the event. [...] I have to wonder: with all the things in the world that one might choose to spend time on -- being kind to a child, helping the sick, the halt, and the blind [...] -- what kind of person would decide that the thing she really had to do was keep actual descendants of Thomas Jefferson out of a meeting of descendants of Thomas Jefferson? Couldn't she think of a single non-repulsive, non-spiteful, non-racist thing to do? I also wonder: hasn't the McCain campaign figured out about Google yet?"
• Atrios: "Only the best supporters for McCain."

OBAMA: Wake Me Up When September Ends

Conservative bloggers are joining McCain's advisers in criticizing Obama's anti-terrorism policies:

• NRO's Andy McCarthy accuses Obama of living in a "September 10th America": "The fact is that we used the criminal justice system as our principal enforcement approach, the approach Obama intends to reinstate, for eight years -- from the bombing of the World Trade Center until the shocking destruction of that complex on 9/11. During that timeframe, while the enemy was growing stronger and attacking more audaciously, we managed to prosecute successfully less than three dozen terrorists (29 to be precise). [...] As a national-security strategy...and as a means of carrying our government's first responsibility to protect the American people, heavy reliance on criminal justice is an abysmal failure. A successful counterterrorism strategy makes criminal prosecution a subordinate part of a much broader governmental response. [...] Obama would bring us back to September 10th America. And September 10th is sure to be followed by September 11th."
• Townhall's Hugh Hewitt: "Perhaps worst of all his many terrible positions, Barack Obama wants to return to the anti-terrorism model of the 1990s -- the criminal justice model. [...] On issue after issue we have enormous clarity on the differences between John McCain and Barack Obama, but nowhere are these stark differences more important than on how the two men would conduct the war against jihadism. John McCain will instruct the military to continue to wage it wherever necessary to prevent its return to our shores. Barack Obama will attempt to prosecute terrorists after they kill who knows how many Americans even as he badmouths the American justice system."
• AmSpec Blog's Philip Klein: "I've always thought from the very beginning of this election that more than anything else, Barack Obama's candidacy was tapping into a desire among a growing part of the electorate to move into a post-post-9/11 world in which terrorism is no longer a central issue. This is what has scared me most about his candidacy. The only way terrorism can succeed is for civilization to become indifferent to its threat. Terrorists strike most effectively when we aren't paying attention. Normally, Obama's argument for moving on from 9/11 is subtle, as he promises to 'turn the page' or end 'the politics of fear.' But now he is making the specific argument that we should go back to the 1990s way of handling terrorism, when it was treated as a criminal justice matter rather than part of a larger war. [...] Our old policies allowed terrorists to increase the frequency, boldness, and sophistication of their attacks while were reactive. And now Obama offers 'change' that would represent a return to the failed counterterrorism policies that were in place prior to 9/11."

OBAMA II: Sending A Message To Hillary?

Liberal bloggers are buzzing about the news that the Obama camp has hired ex-Clinton campaign manager Patti Solis Doyle as chief of staff to the VP nominee. Most liberal bloggers see Solis Doyle's hiring as a sign that Obama won't choose Clinton as his running mate:

• The Huffington Post's Sam Stein: "One thing the move does suggest, insiders believe, is that Hillary Clinton's chances of being tapped for the vice presidency are now slim to nil. [...] According to two close Clinton confidantes, the Senator and Solis Doyle have not spoken since her firing months ago. And there is a sense that bad blood lingers between the two."
• The Carpetbagger Report's Steve Benen: "If the goal of the Obama campaign was to have a Clinton ally in place to 'ease' the transition, the very last person they'd pick is Patti Solis Doyle. [...] Obama won't get credit for hiring a top Clinton aide who Clinton no longer talks to. As Ben Smith noted, 'many' Clinton backers 'view Solis Doyle as a bit of a traitor for having signaled that she'd move to Obama before the primary was over.' [...] Given today's news, I think the likelihood of an Obama/Clinton ticket is more remote this afternoon than it was this morning."
• Drum: "I didn't realize that Solis Doyle had become so estranged from Hillary Clinton after she was fired as Hillary's campaign manager. Far from her hiring being a conciliatory gesture, the developing conventional wisdom is that Team Obama is sending the same kind of message to Team Clinton that the Tattaglia family sent to the Corleones in The Godfather. 'It's a slap in the face,' Susie Tompkins Buell, a prominent Clinton backer, said in an interview. [...] Another Hillary supporter puts it even more bluntly: Hiring Solis is the 'biggest fuck you I have ever seen in politics.' If this is true, it's beyond bizarre. Obama has every incentive in the world to make nice with Hillary, and nothing in his past behavior suggests that he's given to gratuitous insults like this. Either the conventional wisdom is wrong, or else there's a much deeper game going on than anyone thinks."
• TalkLeft's Big Tent Democrat, a fierce Obama critic, calls the hiring "a slap in the face to Hillary Clinton": "Unity? Not if the Obama camp has anything to say about it."

MyDD's Jerome Armstrong, in contrast, thinks Solis Doyle's hiring is a sign that Obama will choose Clinton as his running mate: "The hire of Doyle raises the chances that Clinton is the VP choice of Obama. You'll recall, in 2004, that [John] Kerry went out and hired a [John] Edwards staffer for this position, in the weeks leading up to the announcement of Edwards as VP. This is more likely a couple of months, but still, it seems fairly overt, yea?"

Daily Kos' Markos Moulitsas is confused by the hiring: "This is beyond bizarre. It would certainly be weird to see Doyle as chief of staff of the person who fired her quite publicly just a short while ago. But Doyle and Clinton go way back, so it's plausible. But it's even weirder for the Obama campaign to hire a chief of staff for a veep candidate who has yet to be chosen and who may have his or her own staff he or she might feel more comfortable working with. This sort of position is too important to impose on the veep nominee without consideration over whether they can work well together. So all in all, weird."

OBAMA III: Another Friendly Face At Fox News

The netroots are buzzing about the news that Lanny Davis -- Bill Clinton's former Special Counsel who annoyed liberal bloggers with his aggressive advocacy of Hillary Clinton in '08 and CT Sen. Joe Lieberman in '04 -- will join Fox News as a contributor. The netroots expect Davis to be a terrible surrogate for Obama:

• Moulitsas: "Ha ha, Lanny Davis is headed to Fox News. Shocker! It's a win-win for Fox -- they get to claim to present 'both sides' of an issue, while featuring the most ineffective 'Democratic' surrogate in television history."
• Balloon Juice's John Cole: "So many possibilities -- how about a one hour show with Lanny and Geraldine Ferraro? They could call it 'In Search of Reagan Democrats' or the 'Racial Resentment Power Hour.'"
• BooMan: "Once you realize that reality has a liberal pro-Obama bias, FOX News is a good match for you. Lanny Davis should enjoy pontificating from the ashheap of history with his pals Newt Gingrich and Karl Rove. I know that he will be an effective advocate for our nominee during this election, and a strong voice for our party next year."
• AMERICAblog's John Aravosis: "Will top Hillary surrogate Lanny Davis be using his perch atop FOX News to sabotage Obama's candidacy? And if so, will Hillary do anything about it?"

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: The State Of The Race

NRO's Yuval Levin:

"[The Atlantic's] Marc Ambinder offers some helpful analysis of the spate of recent national polls. Although he does not quite put it this way, his reading seems to confirm the view that this election will be about whether the public finds Barack Obama adequate -- if he passes a kind of minimal bar, he will win. If not, McCain wins. It's an up or down vote on Obama more than a choice among alternatives. So far, some crucial constituencies remain unpersuaded, and Obama is underperforming in ways that ought to worry his campaign [...] But as Ambinder points out, these voters are still open-minded. I think he's right in saying 'they are ready to be persuaded, as opposed to waiting to be dissuaded.' Not an ideal situation for McCain, to be sure, but it could certainly be a lot worse in a year like this one. And of course, these are national polls. If you look at the crucial states individually, especially Pennsylvania and the upper Midwest, the problems that emerge for Obama in the national polls are all the more serious, and McCain's chances are even better. There are some very plausible paths to victory for McCain, most of which would have been pretty surprising a few months ago."

LEST WE FORGET: Grandmother Proud To Have Lived Long Enough To See First Viable Female Candidate Torn Apart

From The Onion:

"PEORIA, IL -- Seventy-six-year-old grandmother Anita Graney told reporters Monday that she was 'overwhelmed with pride' for having lived to see the first viable female presidential candidate in the nation's history so successfully run into the ground by vicious media attacks and hubristic, arrogant miscalculations. 'Hillary [Clinton] showed America that a woman can be politically destroyed just as completely and heartbreakingly as any man,' said Graney, a lifelong feminist. 'What an amazing example for today's young women who aspire to fail spectacularly at the highest levels.' Graney expressed hope that one of her granddaughters might someday be the first woman to get utterly eviscerated in a nationwide general election."

Posted by Ian Faerstein at June 17, 2008 01:10 PM