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 June 24, 2008 01:22 PM