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 June 26, 2008 01:11 PM