June 18, 2008

6/18: Issues Of National Importance

Counterterrorism and energy remain the two big topics in the political blogosphere today. After John McCain's advisers accused Barack Obama of possessing a "September 10th mindset," liberal bloggers pushed back strongly, accusing the McCain aides of willfully distorting Obama's views. Many bloggers are citing Obama's willingness to pursue al Qaeda terrorists in Pakistan as evidence that the Dem nominee does not, in fact, favor a "totally criminal justice approach" to fighting terror. The netroots' aggressive response provides yet more evidence that they are relishing a debate over national security issues, thereby challenging the conventional wisdom that this debate plays to the GOP's strengths. The McCain camp clearly thinks it benefits from keeping this issue alive, however, as it dispatched Rudy Giuliani to all three cable morning shows to attack Obama's counterterrorism policies.

Meanwhile, McCain's decision to come out in favor of offshore drilling (which is "a reversal of the position he took in his 2000 presidential campaign") has drawn scorn from liberal bloggers, who believe McCain is rapidly developing a reputation as a flip-flopper. Conservative bloggers remain suspicious of McCain's global warming rhetoric, but they're pleased that McCain now supports offshore drilling. They're also convinced that the GOP nominee has public opinion on his side (and they may be right).

MCCAIN: Attacking A Straw Man?

Liberal bloggers are accusing McCain's advisers of deliberately misrepresenting Obama's counterterrorism policies when they accused him of possessing "a September 10 mindset":

• Obsidian Wings' hilzoy: "If you listen to the audio of the McCain campaign's conference call, McCain's advisors are responding to a position that Obama does not actually hold. [...] Does Obama have a 'totally criminal justice approach' to fighting terror? No. You can read his speech on counterterror policy here. There's a lot in it about things other than law enforcement, including things like this: 'I will not hesitate to use military force to take out terrorists who pose a direct threat to America.' Moreover, as Jonathan Chait points out, it was just a few months ago that McCain was criticizing Obama for recklessly threatening to go after terrorists in Pakistan. It's a bit odd that he is now supposed to want 'to take us back to the bad old days of going after terrorists with prosecutors rather than predators.' Did Obama say, yesterday, that he favors a 'totally law enforcement approach'? No. He said that we can track down terrorists 'within the constraints of our Constitution,' and that the prosecutions of the 1993 bombers were more successful than what we are now doing at Guantanamo. The only way you can construe his position as the McCain campaign people do in this conference call is to lie about it."
• The Carpetbagger Report's Steve Benen: "Even by the standards of the McCain campaign, this [attack] is unusually stupid. In the reality the rest of us live in, Obama has repeatedly emphasized an aggressive counter-terrorism policy, focused on intelligence gathering, law-enforcement operations, and military operations. Indeed, when Obama talked about pursuing al Qaeda terrorists in Pakistan, McCain and his allies suggested that Obama was being overly aggressive. [...] The political reality of this is that McCain is losing, his campaign is feeling antsy, so the same tired conservatives are trying to use the same tired scare tactics, hoping voters won't realize that a) they've heard all of this before; and b) the attacks don't actually make any sense. I'd almost feel sorry for the McCain gang if their demagoguery wasn't so ridiculous."

Interestingly, conservative blogger Allahpundit (sort of) agrees that Obama is "getting a bad rap": "This is the guy, remember, who wants a troop build-up in Afghanistan, and who (in)famously said, 'If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President [Pervez] Musharraf won't act, we will.' [...] As I read his comments to ABC, what he's saying is if we capture guys instead of kill them then they're owed basically the same constitutional protections as criminals -- a novel and worrisome legal position, as Mark Levin tries to explain to George Will, but not proof that due process is Obama's tippy top concern."

Most conservative bloggers do not interpret Obama's comments so charitably, however:

• Commentary's Jennifer Rubin: "If Obama really intends to make the 1993 [WTC bombing] trial the model for handling terror detainees, he should be prepared for some tough questioning about the consequences of that option."
• Power Line's John Hinderaker: "Obama does have one thing going for him when he talks about scaling back our efforts against Islamic terrorists -- wishful thinking. No doubt many voters would find it comforting to be told that we can go back to letting the police and the courts worry about terrorism."

MCCAIN II: The Netroots Counterattack

Following the McCain camp's attack on Obama's counterterrorism policies, liberal bloggers are slamming McCain's foreign policy views:

• The Washington Monthly's Kevin Drum: "So Barack Obama tells Jake Tapper that we can fight terrorists and follow the constitution at the same time ('for example, the first attack against the World Trade Center, we were able to arrest those responsible, put them on trial'), and we get the standard talking point reaction from the McCain team. You know the drill: naive, September 10th mindset, etc. etc. All the usual dumb little campaign comments. But wouldn't it be nice if we could have a real conversation about this? We could compare, say, the amount of terrorism we've stopped via police work, intelligence, international cooperation, financial interdiction, and so forth, and compare it to the amount of terrorism created by our military intervention in Iraq. And then we could talk about how the real September 10th mindset is the one that says it doesn't matter what other people think of us because, you know, we've got the biggest military in the world and we can squash 'em all like bugs anyway. I say: bring 'em on. Let's talk about who's naive vs. who's learned some lessons from 9/11. The sooner the better."
• The Atlantic's Matthew Yglesias: "The GOP philosophy has for years now been that we need to hit the terrorists hard where they aren't, while letting problems in Central Asia fester because they're difficult. [...] Military force will play a role in U.S. counterterrorism strategy, but it simply has a limited utility in dealing with the problem. If you don't recognize that, you wind up blundering down the Bush/[Donald] Rumsfeld/McCain/[Doug] Feith road of sending troops to Iraq because Iraq contains good military targets rather than coming up with an actual strategy for fighting terrorism."
• The Reality-Based Community's Quincy Adams: "McCain needs to distract from the fact that his and George Bush's policies precluded an effective attack on Al Qaeda ever since Bin Laden was allowed to escape at Tora Bora. It turns out that the McCain campaign can't debate policy issues; it can only resort to Rovian name calling. There is no hope that McCain would change the tone in Washington."

TPM's Josh Marshall calls out the McCain aides who participated in the conference call: "I don't know if I can expect anybody else to point this out. But check out the participants list of the McCain campaign's conference call this morning calling Barack Obama 'naive' and 'delusional'. Look at the names of the two worthies making these accusations. Randy Scheunemann and Jim Woolsey. Let's track back for a moment here. Both were top supporters of disgraced charlatan and accused Iranian spy Ahmad Chalabi in the lead up to the Iraq War. Woolsey, in addition to being one of his top DC confidants, was actually Chalabi's lobbyist. Needless to say both were also big advocates of the most lurid and far-fetched claims about Saddam's phantom WMDs. [...] Delusional and naive? I'd say both of these guys are really overdrawn in that department. These two simply have too much egg on their faces to be hurling those claims at anyone else."

Meanwhile, TPM's Greg Sargent is pleased by Obama's aggressive response to the McCain camp's attack: "If there were any doubts that the Obama campaign would respond aggressively to the sort of soft-on-terror attacks that felled John Kerry four years ago, Obama put them to rest today. [...] It's hard to believe right now, but it was only two years ago -- in the spring of 2006, during the midterm elections -- that many national Dems were still struggling to persuade themselves that they could win an argument against the GOP on national security. Obama, clearly, suffers from no such confidence deficit. Perhaps more important, he's saying so. Loud and clear."

MCCAIN III: Flip-Flop Alert!

The Washington Post's Dana Milbank notes that McCain once supported the federal moratorium on offshore drilling that he now opposes:

"During his last run for the presidency, in 1999, McCain supported the drilling moratorium, and he scolded the 'special interests in Washington' that sought offshore drilling leases. Yesterday, he announced that those very same 'moratoria should be lifted' and proposed incentives for the states 'in the form of tangible financial rewards, if the states decide to lift those moratoriums.'"

Liberal bloggers are criticizing McCain for changing his position on offshore drilling:

• Think Progress' Matt Corley: "Yesterday, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) offered 'a bit of a capitulation to the oil companies' by announcing that he would end the federal ban on offshore oil drilling. Not only is McCain's move a break with environmental activists, but it is also 'a reversal of the position he took in his 2000 presidential campaign.' [...] In 2000, McCain promised to 'never lose sight' of fundamental principles on the issue."
• Firedoglake's Blue Texan: "This is yet another flip-flop for McSame, who when he was running against [George W.] Bush, derided calls for offshore drilling as being driven by 'special interests in Washington.' He looks more and more like Bush all the time."
• dday: "[McCain is] trying to please two classes of voters at the same time. On the one hand he wants to prove his commitment to doing something about climate change. On the other, he has to keep the global warming denialists in his base, who have called him a 'liberal Democrat' just for talking about the issue, at bay. So he calls a mandatory cap 'voluntary,' suggesting that he has no interest in the policy whatsoever. And he's paradoxically called for an end to the offshore drilling ban in coastal waters, a signal to the hard right that in the end, he values the oil companies over breathable air and a manageable climate."
• John Kerry criticizes McCain in a Huffington Post diary: "In Houston today, candidate McCain will tell the people that he used to call 'special interests' that just because two oilmen are leaving the White House doesn't mean the gravy train has to end. Back in 2000, he promised he would 'never lose sight' of the importance of protecting our natural heritage. Today his campaign reversed McCain's longstanding position and endorsed drilling off our coastlines. Oh -- and Senator McCain's reform agenda of getting tough on Big Oil? Now Candidate McCain is against any windfall profits tax to fund renewable energy. [...] More than a few people have asked me how the John McCain I knew so well, and teamed up with on CAFE standards in 2002, has ended up here. I can't fully answer that. But I know that the Senator McCain I knew, and who will always be my friend, is very different from this candidate McCain."

MCCAIN IV: Welcome Aboard, Maverick!

Although they're critical of some of McCain's environmental positions, conservative bloggers are praising the GOP nominee for coming out in favor of offshore drilling:

• RedState's Pejman Yousefzadeh: "It's nice to see that John McCain is in favor of removing the ban on offshore drilling (note the popularity of the proposal). [...] It should be noted that the Obama campaign has come up with no proposals whatsoever aimed at increasing the supply of oil in order to alleviate current price pressures."
• The Weekly Standard's Jaime Sneider: "John McCain has set things up brilliantly: He proposed a gas tax holiday and now supports offshore drilling, both very popular ideas with the American public and bound to lower gas prices at least temporarily. Compare that with Obama, who says he is favor of higher gas prices. Sure, Democrats can accuse McCain of flip-flopping. But that's not going to resonate for a few reasons. First, McCain's change is analogous to Bush's foreign policy shift after 9/11. It's a response to a paradigm shift, and the public is going to understand a guy who says prices are so high that he's reconsidered his position on offshore drilling. Second, Obama is now attacking McCain for an energy bill Obama voted for and McCain voted against."
• Glenn Reynolds: "A lot of people see [the energy issue] as an opportunity for McCain, and I think they're right. Hairshirt environmentalism never seems to do well with voters."
• Hot Air's Ed Morrissey: "This news comes as a relief to consumers who have waited for some promise of action at any level of the government. [...] Only new supplies can address the rising demand for oil as well as runaway speculation."
• Hinderaker: "With oil prices shaping up as the dominant issue of this campaign season, evidence is growing that Republicans can win in November if they get behind a program of aggressive energy development. [...] The Republicans' biggest problem is that they can't be the party of economic growth and affordable energy unless John McCain supports the initiative at the top. So far, he's getting better, but is far from the full-throated advocate the party needs. Today McCain gave an energy speech in Houston -- the first of several he will give over the weeks to come. As we previewed last night, the highlight of McCain's speech was his endorsement of offshore drilling. [...] That's good, obviously. But McCain larded it up with ritual invocations of the global warming myth. [...] And he's never going to come around on ANWR. [...] McCain needs to emerge as an aggressive, enthusiastic advocate of affordable energy and economic growth. If he can do that, he, and the Republican Party, will sweep to victory in November. Unfortunately, with McCain it is often one step forward and one step back."

Meanwhile, RedState's Bluey thinks congressional GOPers should do everything they can to promote offshore drilling: "The party's nominee, Sen. John McCain, gave his colleagues a big boost this week with an endorsement for offshore drilling. While McCain's energy position is far from perfect -- ANWR remains off limits for him -- Republicans can't let that slow them down. They should take this fight to the Democrats at every opportunity. And they can begin by shutting down the Senate if Democrats refuse to allow offshore drilling."

MCCAIN V: Sorry Chuck, But The Netroots Agree With MoveOn

Liberal bloggers are defending MoveOn's new anti-McCain ad and criticizing NBC Political Director Chuck Todd for calling it "a borderline shameless ad". In the ad, a young mother holding a baby addresses McCain:

"Hi, John McCain. This is Alex. And he's my first. So far his talents include trying any new food and chasing after our dog. That, and making my heart pound every time I look at him. So, John McCain, when you say you would stay in Iraq for 100 years, were you counting on Alex? Because if you were, you can't have him."

• Daily Kos' Kagro X: "News flash, Chuck: All troops start as babies. Every one that gets sent belongs to someone. You don't like it? Take it up with the management. This campaign won't have any shortage of shamelessness, borderline or otherwise. Here's hoping [you] will drop your pearls for long enough to get concerned over...oh, I don't know...100 years in Iraq, rather than the 'use' of a baby. Frankly, I don't think there are too many people out there who think Bush/Cheney/McCain's 'use' for their babies is any less shameless."
• Open Left's Matt Stoller: "I get why discussing McCain's Iraq-related policy ideas and acknowledging that they will [affect] lots of people is impolite. But not discussing them, and worse still, a journalist on a TV channel that has access to the public airwaves in return for looking out for the public good actually suggesting that others should not discuss them, is, well shameless."
• Oliver Willis: "In [Todd's] world, liberals aren't allowed to produce ads that tug at heartstrings, just conservatives."
• Crooks and Liars' John Amato: "I hate to say I told you so to all the bloggers that praised [Todd], but in the blink of an eye the Villagers have turned on MoveOn. For all those that thought Chuck Todd was so cool -- guess what? He's going to stick with the Villagers every time. I'm not saying that he's wrong all the time, but in the end, you'll wind up with this. And the right wing doesn't even have to engage them in the MoveOn ad because the Chuck Todd's will never need any convincing to attack the left. They will instinctively do it to appease the right wing and demonstrate to them that 'I'm not part of that crowd.'"
• MyDD's Josh Orton: "John McCain cavalierly suggests that he would be fine with an occupation of Iraq for 100 years, as long as casualties end. But under no imaginable circumstance is that possible. So where Chuck Todd sees a 'borderline shameful' ad and Joe Scarborough crows about independent groups getting into the mud, others see a powerful but fair ad that translates the possible consequences of McCain's disastrous Iraq policy into a tangible, real-world reality."
• AMERICAblog's John Aravosis: "I think [this ad] rocks. The Republicans would like nothing better than for you to think of our military as a bunch of robots, and not men and women, sons and daughters, moms and dads. This new ad from MoveOn says what a lot of parents are thinking -- hands off my kid. John McCain is pro-war. He loves what we're doing in Iraq, and he'd like to see the same in Iran and elsewhere. George Bush has already broken the US military. In order to support John McCain's wars we're going to need a draft. John McCain's wars will be fought by your kids. So, is it unfair to tell John McCain to take his hands off your kid? I don't think so."

MCCAIN VI: Stop Swiftboating Our Nominee!

Conservative bloggers are slamming MoveOn's anti-McCain ad:

• Townhall's Amanda Carpenter: "Like the terrorists, MoveOn hides behind their women and children. I realize this is harsh to say and don't even believe it makes a good, fair analogy, but it was my first thought when I watched it. I mean, what kind of group uses a young mommy and her baby to make partisan smears?!"
• Townhall's Matt Lewis: "This is one of the most despicable, scurrilous ads I've ever seen. Tony Schwartz may no longer be with us, but his spirit of below-the-belt, fear-mongering, negative campaign ads is alive and well. Will the establishment media decry this as an effort by an outside group to, 'swiftboat' John McCain?"
• Hot Air's Allahpundit: "Mom here hasn't yet grasped that (a) President McCain won't be setting Iraq policy for the next 18 years, let alone the next hundred, (b) MoveOn's candidate of choice has himself been dropping some dark hints lately about 'tactical readjustments', and (c) whether McCain and the military can have her son is, um, up to her son, not her. The left (or at least the segment that MoveOn represents) still hasn't quite accepted the idea of a volunteer military. If you enlist, it can only be because you were somehow forced -- through a draft or, per Charlie Rangel and Waffles, through economic hardship."

AmSpec Blog's Robert Stacy McCain thinks the ad will backfire: "Being a father of six, I'd call that ad another MoveOn.org blunder. Republican leanings are most pronounced precisely among the Middle American married-with-children demographic, and I expect the MoveOn ad to produce nothing but an angry backlash -- especially considering that John McCain's own son volunteered for the Marines. MoveOn is very good at stirring up the left-wing base, but they're tone-deaf when it comes to the rest of America. They surely didn't focus-group that ad, or they never would have released it, since it's a hanging curveball delivered straight into McCain's wheelhouse."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Let's Agree To Disagree

NRO's Ramesh Ponnuru offers McCain some advice:

"In 2000, Joe Lieberman had to move left on school choice, Social Security, and affirmative action to get on the Democratic ticket. After his shift in positions, he was aligned both with Al Gore, the presidential nominee, and with his party. McCain's choice is going to be trickier, since on several issues he himself is not in alignment with his party. If he picks a vice-presidential nominee from the conservative end of the party, should he make that nominee profess agreement with him on global warming, immigration, stem cells, and the like?

I think the answer to that question is a clear 'no.' For one thing, there would be no point in picking someone conservatives like while forcing him to abandon the positions that made conservatives like him in the first place. It might even make conservatives less supportive of a McCain candidacy if they think he is trying to remake the party in his image. [...] It could even, somewhat paradoxically, undercut McCain's case that he is a maverick Republican if he insists on making other Republicans conform to his views. By far the better course, if McCain picks a running mate who is to his right on these issues, would be for that vice-presidential nominee to emphasize those issues where they agree but forthrightly admit to their disagreements. The veep nominee could say that he understands that President McCain will call the shots in his administration but that he will feel free to offer the president his own views in private."

LEST WE FORGET: Oh, What Could Have Been

ESPN's Bill Simmons relays an anecdote told to him by his friend who attended Game 5 of the Lakers-Celtics series:

"A friend of mine sat courtside with Matt Damon in seats to the left of the Lakers' bench. During the third quarter, with Damon cheering on the Celtics in a green Celtics cap -- great job by him, by the way -- [Lakers coach] Phil Jackson barked at Damon, according to my friend, 'Sit down and shut the f--- up.' After getting texted that story, I spent the rest of the game rooting for a Boston comeback win, followed by Damon pulling a Will Hunting and asking Jackson, 'Hey, Phil, do you like apples? (PAUSE) Well how 'bout them apples!!!!' Didn't happen."

Posted by Ian Faerstein at June 18, 2008 01:01 PM