July 10, 2008

7/10: It's Hard Out Here For A Nominee

Yesterday we observed that the netroots were upset that journalists weren't discussing John McCain's recent remarks about Social Security, in which he appeared to describe the program's pay-as-you-go funding mechanism as "a disgrace." Well, following a DNC conference call in which various advocates and experts blasted McCain for his comments, several news organizations reported on the controversy. Meanwhile, liberal bloggers continue to savage McCain for his remarks, portraying him as shockingly ignorant of how the nation's biggest social program works. They're also arguing that McCain has made "a campaign-changing mistake" and "handed his opponent a rhetorical gift".

Still, it certainly can't be said that Barack Obama is having a better day in the blogosphere than McCain. Obama's vote in favor of the controversial FISA bill -- while expected -- was met with sharp criticism by the netroots. Markos Moulitsas calls it "a move borne out of fear":

"He or his advisors (or both) decided that they'd rather capitulate on the issue than face GOP attack ads claiming Obama is weak on national security. They let fear of political attacks (that are inevitable anyway) override respect for the Constitution and even his prior promises to the American people. The press insists on calling it a 'move to the center', but really, it was a move borne out of fear. It wasn't an ideological decision (i.e. a 'move to the center'), but a tactical one. It was a strategic retreat."

Although they share Obama's support of the FISA bill, conservative bloggers are criticizing Obama for reversing himself in such an obvious manner. They are also delighting in the fact that Obama's FISA vote has driven a wedge between the Dem nominee and his online supporters. Will Obama's frayed relationship with the netroots hurt his fundraising numbers, as some on the right have suggested?

MCCAIN: A Campaign-Changing Mistake?

Liberal bloggers continue to hammer McCain for calling the Social Security system "a disgrace" because current workers pay for retirees' benefits (which we detailed yesterday):

• Daily Kos' SusanG: "McCain: Social Security Is 'An Absolute Disgrace'. [...] How about this for a disgrace: You're running for president and you apparently don't understand that the system -- arguably the most successful ever delivered by the federal government -- was set up to run precisely this way more than half a century ago. [...] Every time McCain opens his mouth these days, he seems to be expressing either ignorance or disdain (or an impatient combination, as when he got flippy with questioners who discovered he didn't know the price of gas). And it should prove interesting to see how McCain's abhorrence of Social Security -- and his plan to 'fix' it (or eliminate it?)-- plays with one of the few demographics he dominates: senior citizens, most of whose lives are undoubtedly eased by this absolutely disgraceful program."
• The Carpetbagger Report's Steve Benen: "Social Security is a pay-as-you-go system. Current workers pay into the system to provide benefits for retirees, and when those workers retire, the next generation will pay their benefits. That's what Social Security is. That's how it works. That's how it's always worked. If McCain wants to argue that privatization is a good idea, fine. He's wrong, but we can have the debate (again). But it appears that McCain is desperately in need of some kind of remedial Government 101 education, because he literally described the Social Security system as a 'total disgrace.' [...] If the Obama campaign and the DNC don't take advantage of this, they're missing a huge opportunity. McCain has made a campaign-changing mistake."
• dday: "If John McCain wanted to throw the election, he certainly handed his opponent a rhetorical gift. [...] When McCain calls the functional way that Social Security has worked for 75 years a disgrace, what you can conclude is that he wants to destroy the system. He's on the record as favoring private accounts, even in this bear market. We know all the reasons why that is so, not the least of which is that it would be a trilion-dollar present for the financial services industry. [...] Surely the DNC or the Obama campaign is tracking all of these town hall meetings. They now have, on tape, John McCain calling for the destruction of Social Security. You could DO SOMETHING with that."
• Avedon: "McCain thinks the problem with Social Security is that it's Social Security."
• AFSCME President Gerald McEntee, writing on the Huffington Post: "John McCain admits that he doesn't know a lot about the economy. Now we also learn that he doesn't know a lot about Social Security."
• Ezra Klein: "Everyone's quoting [McCain's statement], but I think the point of it is getting a bit lost: According to this comment, until today, or possibly sometime this week, John McCain did not know how Social Security worked. Just did not know. Wasn't aware. He seems to believe that at some other point in history, retiree benefits were paid for through taxes contributed by former workers, or possibly the retirees themselves. But, as Dean Baker says, 'present-day retirees have always been paid their benefits from the taxes paid by current workers. That has been true from Social Security's inception.' And it would remain true, incidentally, in the partial privatization plans that McCain and other conservatives favor: Those plans would still see Social Security funded out of payroll taxes, with current workers subsidizing current retirees."

MCCAIN II: You Call That An Explanation?

For much of yesterday, liberal bloggers were upset that the press had yet to question McCain about his remarks:

• TPMCafe's Reed Hundt: "What I don't understand is why reporters don't ask: If Senator McCain doesn't want payroll taxes to fund Social Security (as has long been the case), then how does he propose to pay for it?"
• TPMCafe's Todd Gitlin: "Let's be generous to McCain and assume that the 'that' which is an 'absolute disgrace' is the impending zero point toward which Social Security is purportedly tending. [...] But still, even then, where is scrutiny of the claim that Social Security is in jeopardy? When Bush made such ridiculous claims in 2005, he spent all his political capital and then some. Why is McCain getting this pass? When the Straight Talk Express makes so many such stops, when does it become the Straight Talk Local? Why isn't this A Story? The Gaffe of the Week? Breaking News? A Clip to Be Rebroadcast Endlessly?"

Later in the day, ABC's Jake Tapper asked the McCain camp whether the senator was referring to the Social Security system itself when he said "it's an absolute disgrace":

"I asked the McCain campaign what Sen. McCain was referring to with the word 'disgrace.'

McCain spox Brian Rogers says that 'the disgrace is our failure to fix the long-run imbalance in Social Security -- a failure of leadership evidenced by our willingness to kick to problem to the next generation of leaders. He's also describing the looming and increasing demographic pressures confronting the Social Security system and Washington's utter failure to address it.' [...]

So, according to the McCain campaign, the senator was trying to explain how the system works but cut it short before describing the demographic pressures -- as he did in the August 2007 speech. That long-term imbalance and Washington's failure to fix it is the disgrace, he meant to say, the McCain campaign suggests."

TPM's Josh Marshall doesn't buy Rogers' explanation of McCain's comments, noting that this is not the only time that McCain has made this argument: "Everybody has words come out the wrong way sometimes, or they say things they don't really quite mean. IN other words, if it's just tripping over your words, who cares. But digital video recording is a wonderful thing. And that's why we can know pretty clearly that Rogers' explanation is bogus and that this is precisely what McCain meant. The townhall meeting where McCain said Social Security was 'an absolute disgrace' was on Monday in Denver. Just yesterday McCain went on CNN and said more or less exactly the same thing on CNN. In response to a question from CNN's John Roberts, McCain said, 'Let's describe it [i.e. Social Security] for what it is. They pay their taxes and right now their taxes are going to pay the retirement of present-day retirees. That's why it's broken, that's why we can fix it.' He doesn't use the flamethrower language of 'absolute disgrace' but he says very clearly that what's wrong with Social Security -- 'why it's broken' -- is the way it was designed to work and has worked for almost 80 years, because it's a pay-as-you-go system, 'pay their taxes and right now their taxes are going to pay the retirement of present-day retirees.' In other words, there's no question that John McCain thinks that the problem with Social Security is the way it was designed at the very beginning, the way it was always designed to work. Sometimes he just uses more flowery language than others."

MCCAIN III: That's Embarrassing

On Monday, the McCain camp released a statement signed by 300 economists who "enthusiastically support" his economic plan. However, Politico's Alexander Burns and Avi Zenilman report that many of those economist "don't actually support the whole of McCain's economic agenda":

"Upon closer inspection, it seems a good many of those economists don't actually support the whole of McCain's economic agenda. And at least one doesn't even support McCain for president.

In interviews with more than a dozen of the signatories, Politico found that, far from embracing McCain's economic plan, many were unfamiliar with -- or downright opposed to -- key details. While most of those contacted by Politico had warm feelings about McCain, many did not want to associate themselves too closely with his campaign and its policy prescriptions."

Liberal bloggers, of course, are buzzing about the Politico's discovery:

• Ezra Klein: "This fits into a broader problem for the McCain campaign which is that their economic policy shop is terribly inept. Their numbers don't add up. Their statements contradict each other. They can't even release a letter without falling face first into the mud. To some degree, this is Doug Holtz-Eakin not doing a very good job. But the broader problem is that the candidate doesn't know much about economics and so didn't know how to staff his economic team, and has no idea how to reform it into something that stops causing problems for his campaign."
• The Washington Monthly's Kevin Drum: "It turns out that [the economists] merely signed on to a brief statement of intent (low taxes, low spending, free trade, etc.), not the 15-page number-free plan that McCain released on Monday. So there's no telling how much of his plan they actually support. [...] Somebody who's not me ought to start dialing up the other 280+ signatories and find out just how much of McCain's plan they really support. Do they think the current Social Security funding mechanism is a disgrace? Are they in favor of a gas tax holiday? Do they think his multi-trillion tax cut will increase revenues? Inquiring minds want to know."
• The New Republic's Jonathan Cohn: "One reason for the tepid support: The document itself is pretty vague and the McCain economics team had begun circulating it some months ago, as an affirmation of a broad conservative approach to economics. (Some of the signatories had forgotten all about it and didn't even know the statement had been released, until Politico contacted them.) Another reason, surely, is that many economists -- even many conservative economists -- have serious qualms about the McCain agenda, which pairs more tax reductions with vague, utterly unrealistic promises to cut spending. That's a formula for incurring huge deficits and growing the national debt to more onerous levels."

Meanwhile, The Atlantic's Matthew Yglesias sarcastically writes: "There's not a shred of doubt in my mind that this scandal will dominate the cable news coverage of the campaign to an even greater extent than did coverage of Wesley Clark observing that being a POW is not the same as running the country. After all, the McCain campaign is lying here. And lying about their campaign's macroeconomic policies, which is a very consequential matter. So this is going to be a huge story on teevee, right? Of course it will."

OBAMA: Stop Criticizing Him? Are You Serious?

Yesterday, Daily Kos diarist HatchInBrooklyn wrote a popular diary defending Obama's support of the controversial FISA bill: "The FISA bill is obviously imperfect, but I do not believe that a serious Presidential candidate can afford to vote 'no' on legislation that is intended to help prevent terrorist attacks. If Obama were to oppose the bill as a whole, he would be handing McCain -- who didn't even bother to show up and vote today -- a huge opening to scare voters and paint Obama as weak on terrorism. The 'Obama turning rightward' media coverage has gone on long enough as it is. We don't need to fan the flames of that storyline anymore. Respectfully, I ask Mike Stark to change the name of his MyBO group [which is named "Senator Obama Please Vote NO on Telecom Immunity -- Get FISA Right"]. I am all for having a MyBO group that expresses the feelings of Obama's progressive supporters. But I hope that it will not remain a group whose only purpose is to criticize Obama for voting the way that I believe he absolutely had to on the overall FISA bill."

Open Left's Chris Bowers criticized HatchInBrooklyn's post, arguing that Stark's MyBO group has played a valuable role in forcing Obama to respond to the concerns of the Dem base: "I have to wonder why hundreds of people on Daily Kos would desire for people to leave a group that is critical of Obama from the left. This is to effectively ask Obama supporters to stop asking things from Obama. The inability of some to tolerate any criticism of Barack Obama is pretty depressing. Since the end of the primary season, Mike Stark's group is the only proven means of making Obama answer criticism from the left. It is also the only proven mechanism for making Obama actually self-identify as a progressive. To shut down the group would be to effectively shut down any hopes of having Obama actually address the concerns of what he calls his 'friends on the left.' The desire to see such a group disappear is thus functionally the equivalent of desiring to end criticism of Obama from the left. That's not something I would like to see, and reminds me more of the DLC than of the progressive netroots."

MyDD's Josh Orton disputed HatchInBrooklyn's claim that Obama had to support the FISA bill: "No. No no no no no. No. Democrats must always stand against Republicans on national security -- because Republicans have proven miserable failures on national security, and yet still try to politically intimidate Democrats by painting them as weaklings yearning to surrender. It's precisely why Barack Obama deserves credit for opposing the war in Iraq. It's why [WI Sen. Russ] Feingold deserves credit for casting the sole vote against the PATRIOT Act in the Senate. And, because the American people don't like to be fooled twice, it's why most of our fellow citizens no longer fear a terrorist attack and favor ending the war in Iraq. There is more than one possible justification for voting the way Obama did on FISA, but this is quite possibly the worst."

Meanwhile, liberal bloggers continue to slam Obama for his vote in favor of the FISA bill:

• Salon's Glenn Greenwald: "I can't count the number of emails I've received demanding that I stop criticizing Obama for his support of this bill on the ground that such criticisms harm his chances for winning -- as though it's the fault of those who point out what Obama is doing, rather than Obama himself for completely reversing his position, abandoning his clear, prior commitments, and helping to institutionalize the destruction of the Fourth Amendment and the concealment of Bush crimes."
• Daily Kos' Moulitsas: "[Obama] or his advisors (or both) decided that they'd rather capitulate on the issue than face GOP attack ads claiming Obama is weak on national security. They let fear of political attacks (that are inevitable anyway) override respect for the Constitution and even his prior promises to the American people. The press insists on calling it a 'move to the center', but really, it was a move borne out of fear. It wasn't an ideological decision (i.e. a 'move to the center'), but a tactical one. It was a strategic retreat. Like all retreats, this one came with a price. Much of his veneer as a transformational politician has faded. He's a gifted and inspirational politician, no doubt about that, and he will make a great president. But at the end of the day, he's a politician, with all the triangulating goodness that's become a hallmark of our presidential candidates. That has cost him some intensity of support, some bad headlines, a new avenue of attack for Republicans."

OBAMA II: You've Got To Make Him Vote The Right Way

While the netroots are harshly criticizing Obama and other Congressional Dems who voted in favor of the FISA bill, some are emphasizing the necessity of creating a political climate in which Dems are compelled to oppose this type of legislation:

• Firedoglake's Jane Hamsher: "Today's FISA vote was not a surprise. We've been fighting this battle for a long time, and will continue to fight it. But I hope it abolished once and for all the idea that our leaders are going to 'lead' on this issue without encouragement to do so. Barack Obama and others will be great on this stuff when there is a reason for them to be great -- when the public comes together in a meaningful way and provides the political climate where it becomes the wise thing to do. We're not there yet. To make it happen, we need to reward those who were with us. We need to punish those who stood against us. We need to recruit and support primary challengers, and help those people with the tools they need to run winning races that don't rely on being in the good graces of the political establishment."
• Obsidian Wings' hilzoy: "I hate, hate, hate the FISA bill. I hate, hate, hate that Obama voted for it and its cloture motion. The fact that he voted for the three amendments (1, 2, 3) is some consolation, but not nearly enough. [...] In case anyone is interested in my take on the 'punish him?' question, I will do whatever I can to help him get elected. Heck, I maxed out for [John] Kerry, and he was a much worse candidate. I will also devote some energy to electing better Congresspeople, and keep trying to convince people that this matters. In the long run, a citizenry who care enough about the Bill of Rights that this vote would have been a political disaster is the best guarantee I can think of that this will not happen again. [James] Madison did not count on the virtues of politicians, and neither do I."

OBAMA III: Where's Your Hope And Change Now, Netroots?

Conservative bloggers are delighting in the fact that Obama damaged his relationship with the netroots by reversing his position on FISA:

• Michelle Malkin: "The heartbroken nutroots are foaming at the mouth. Hoist, meet petard."
• Protein Wisdom's Jeff Goldstein: "Obamalot is beginning to look a lot like any other pedestrian political clubhouse, with our self-styled 'progressive' hero King taking steps to insulate himself from the very kind of progressive stances that will almost certainly hurt him among moderate voters, should Maverick Johnny choose to exploit them."
• RedState's Moe Lane: "I'd just like to note something. There were two Senators who were serious Democratic Presidential candidates, and they both voted on FISA. One of them voted against telecom immunity -- a matter of extreme importance to the netroots -- all the way down the line (and despite the fact that Democrats in Congress have assessed the public mood, and have clearly decided that the bill must be passed). The other voted against it...except for the final vote, which is the only one that the population will actually care about. In other words, we have a case of actual integrity versus equivocation. The funny part is that the netroots went with the equivocator. Barack Obama brazenly lied to them about his intent to filibuster FISA, and they support him anyway. And now they have to go give him some more money, so that he can lie to them some more. Funny, I don't recall Hillary Clinton being nearly as bad in that regard this election cycle."

Meanwhile, Commentary's Jennifer Rubin criticizes Obama for not supporting the earlier FISA compromise: "Let's review what Obama did. He and his Democratic colleagues opposed, objected and delayed passage of a FISA extension for months. This left a void, a gap, in intelligence collection. Whatever communications we didn't catch are lost and whatever data we could have used to protect Americans is gone. The terrorists aren't going to be calling back to recap their communications over the last few months. So it wasn't just that Obama took a position which appealed to the Left in the primary, and then reversed course in the general election. It was that he did so at the expense of the national security of the country."

OBAMA IV: Way To Go, Jesse!

Rev. Jesse Jackson apologized to Obama after making "critical and crude comments...in which he accused Mr. Obama of 'talking down to black people.'" Conservative bloggers believe that Obama is likely to benefit from this incident:

• Townhall's Matt Lewis: "It's clear to me that old-school 'civil rights leaders' like Jackson and [Rev. Al] Sharpton feel threatened and jealous of Obama. But rather than be a problem for Obama, this is actually an opportunity. Jackson and Sharpton have long ago lost any claim to legitimacy that they might have once had. In fact, picking a fight with Jackson would probably benefit Obama. I've personally heard Republicans tell me that the good thing about having Obama win is that it would officially end the reign of Jackson and Sharpton."
• NRO's Kathryn Jean Lopez: "'That helps Obama' was my first thought. I imagine that Obama is more of a draw to the Left now and some conservatives will have the thought that anyone who can tick off Jesse Jackson can't be that bad (and if it's on issues like fatherhood, especially so). He is that bad, but, casual impressions may be all this election is decided on."
• Hot Air's Ed Morrissey: "Jackson may have done Obama a bit of a favor. Mainstream America has long distrusted Jackson, and anything that puts distance between him and Obama can only help support Obama's status as a member of the new generation of black politicians."

Other conservative bloggers are arguing that Jackson is wrong to suggest that Obama "talk[s] down to black people"; rather, they believe that Obama talks down to all people:

• Townhall's Carol Platt Liebau: "In the midst of a vulgar tirade, Jesse Jackson accused Barack Obama of 'talking down to black people'. Come off it. Heck, as even Democrats have said, Barack talks down to (or about) lots of people of all races on a regular basis. This of course includes those 'bitter' people in Pennsylvania and any American who isn't bilingual. Let's hope it will reassure Jesse Jackson to know that Barack's condescension is absolutely color-blind."
• NRO's Jim Geraghty: "Obama talks down to everyone, regardless of skin color. Remember, every time you visit a country where you don't know the language, you embarrass him."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Against Personal Virtue

Ezra Klein is not a fan of the effort to make this year's Democratic National Convention "the most sustainable ever":

"Like Matt [Yglesias], I think trying to run a carbon neutral convention is a dumb idea. The more Democrats present their environmentalism as a call for personal austerity or individual rectitude, the less likely they are to succeed. But that's not what a cap and trade proposal does. It's a market-based attempt to accurately price carbon in products, so that the economic incentives naturally point in a direction that doesn't end up scorching the planet. It's not about banning meat or keeping people from driving. It's just about eliminating the silent subsidy that makes meat, gas, and other elements of a carbon-intensive lifestyle look much cheaper than they really are. But the key here is that cap and trade won't ask people to 'do' anything differently. They'll just have to do what they always do: Decide what they need and then figure out the most cost-effective way to get there. In other words, shop. What they're not being asked to do is personally figure out carbon counts and chart a low-energy lifestyle. Democrats should stop implying otherwise."

LEST WE FORGET: T.G.I. Friday's Executive Chef Recommends Booze-On-Meat-With-Cheese Thing

From The Onion:

"SCHAUMBURG, IL -- The executive chef of the Tremont Road T.G.I. Friday's strongly recommended that a table of VIP guests try the evening's special: a 'tender, juicy, and heavily seasoned' booze-on-meat-with-cheese thing. 'Tonight's special is a succulent 8-ounce meat, infused with imported cheese and drizzled with a creamy reduction of booze,' said chef Tom Pinelli, adding that the entrée is served on a bed of cheese and meat, and is best paired with a glass of booze. 'However, if you're in the mood for something a little lighter, we do have a refreshing selection of sauce-on-fish-on-stick stuff, as well as some healthier cheese-filled-meat-under-bacon options.' For vegetarian diners, Pinelli recommended the 56-ounce fried mushroom."

Posted by Ian Faerstein at July 10, 2008 01:07 PM