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 June 25, 2008 01:35 PM