September 30, 2008

9/30: Bailout Fallout

Political bloggers on the left and right were both pleased (for the most part) that the House rejected the $700 billion bailout bill. On the left side of the blogosphere, a number of bloggers view the bill's defeat as an opportunity for progressives. They're urging Dem lawmakers to forget about getting GOP votes and instead pass a more progressive bill on a party-line vote, essentially daring President George W. Bush to veto it. Other lefty bloggers are concerned about the political ramifications of the Dems taking ownership of such an unpopular piece of legislation.

On the right side of the blogosphere, most bloggers are blaming House Speaker Nancy Pelosi for the bill's defeat. That said, several conservative bloggers agree with their liberal counterparts that this was a major political blow to John McCain, considering that he suspended his campaign in an effort to save the negotiations.

$700 BILLION BAILOUT: Yes, It Deserved To Die, And I Hope It Burns In Hell!

Most liberal bloggers are pleased that the bailout bill failed:

• Daily Kos' Markos Moulitsas: "I'm glad this thing failed. The right and left may have had different reasons for voting this bill down, but fact is, the 'consensus center' rushed into this bill with little transparency or public input deserved to die. Was this the right bill? Maybe, maybe not. but we certainly didn't have a fair debate on it. Some of you may be quick to trust your representatives in DC. I'm not willing to give them the benefit of the doubt. On the merits, the bill fell short. The CEO compensation provision was a joke, the oversight provisions were a joke, Congress had no ability to block additional disbursement of the money without an affirmative vote (subject to filibusters), and not a dime was directed at average Americans. It was a reverse Robin Hood -- the largest transfer of wealth in our nation's history from the working class to the upper class. And transferring that wealth to healthy financial institutions and foreign ones was morally repugnant."
• Firedoglake's Ian Welsh: "The bill has failed. Good. It deserved to die. There are two considerations at this point. The first is to get through the next three months. [Treasury Sec. Henry] Paulson, in testimony admitted that all 700 billion wouldn't be spent right away. So give him 150 billion and only that, to him. While I doubt he exactly 'needs' it, he and [Fed Chair Ben] Bernanke must not be given an excuse for engaging in a fit of pique now that their pet bill went down, and 'proving' that disaster would occur without it. [...] The next step is to start working on defining what a good bill would look like for January."
• MyDD's Natasha Chart: "Congress listened to their constituents today, instead of to the absolutely terrified financial elites."
• Daily Kos' mcjoan: "The message members of Congress and candidates is getting is very clear. Right now, they're listening, which is pretty much what representatives are supposed to do."
• Atrios: "Let it fail. If something really needs to be done, tell Paulson, the Republicans, and the Bush Dogs to eat shit and pass a bill Democrats can support."
• Salon's Glenn Greenwald: "The economy and the markets are clearly in severe distress, and some form of Government action is needed. I don't think anyone denies that. But this was the wrong deal..."

Open Left's Chris Bowers thinks Congress should wait until the next administration before passing a bailout bill: "Politically speaking, any bailout bill passed between now and January 19th will require Bush's signature, and siding with Bush will do Democrats more political harm than good. Economically speaking, any bill that gives the Bush administration this much money and power will cause more economic harm than waiting 113 days to allow [Barack] Obama to deal with the problem. As such, it is not just politically sensible, but it is also economically sensible to wait until the next administration in order to act. My solution is simple: stop negotiating with Bush altogether and make the election a referendum on what sort of economic plan to pass. The public would overwhelmingly back such a move, as polling shows."

$700 BILLION BAILOUT II: On The Other Hand...

A few liberal bloggers felt differently about the bill's failure:

• Mother Jones' Kevin Drum: "An awful lot of people really, really still don't get it. I swear, if I hear one more blogger or pundit suggesting that maybe it's actually a good thing the bailout bill failed because now we have a chance to pass an even better bill, I'm going to scream. [...] Do you know the old saying about credit? 'It's like oxygen. You don't know how much you need it until it's gone.' We're about to go into financial hypoxia, and it's not the millionaires who are going to suffer most from this."
• FiveThirtyEight's Nate Silver: "The schadenfreude of certain liberals on this issue is absolutely obnoxious. A lot of people are going to be hurt by this, and not just those in the investor class. I tend to see this more as a failure of our democracy than a reaffirmation of it. The congressmen who are retiring this year -- and who therefore can perhaps be described as the most neutral arbiters of the public good -- voted overwhelmingly for this measure."

Open Left's Matt Stoller disagrees with Silver: "Why would retiring Congressmen who do not have to face the voters but might have to face Wall Street recruiters be neutral arbiters of the public good? Why is it bad that candidates in tight elections voted against this bill for political reasons? Isn't that how we decide stuff? [...] This bill was unpopular and hated because the people proposing it do not have the faith of the public to write honest laws or carry them out. That is the problem, not partisanship or an excess of democracy."

$700 BILLION BAILOUT III: An Opportunity For Progressives?

Many liberal bloggers are urging Dem lawmakers to forget about getting GOP votes and instead focus on writing a more progressive bill that could pass the House with Dem votes alone:

• Think Progress' Matthew Yglesias: "Given that the House GOP didn't deliver the 80 (or whatever) votes that Democrats were making substantive concessions in order to achieve, now I really don't see why the Democratic leadership doesn't tear this thing up and start writing a progressive bill. Not only might that produce a good outcome in the end, but it also seems to me like the thing that would be most likely to convince recalcitrant House Republicans to get with the program in order to preempt something more left-wing."
• The Washington Monthly's Steve Benen: "The House Republican caucus has proven itself to be...what's the phrase I'm looking for...stark raving mad. So why bother working to make radicals happy? The Democratic leadership could scrap yesterday's bill, put together a truly progressive package, and pass it with or without Republican support. The Senate might be trickier, but if Dems could overcome a filibuster, the president might, under these circumstances, not want to risk a veto."
• TalkLeft's Big Tent Democrat: "The GOP and McCain do not want the bipartisan bailout solution. Fair enough. Then it is time for the DEM bailout bill. With HOLC, a stimulus package, rigorous oversight of Paulson, equity stakes in the bailoutees, and everything the Democratic caucus thinks is necessary now. Pass it on a party line vote. [...] The House Republicans do not want to be a part of this bipartisan short term bailout solution? Fair enough. Then Bush has to take the Dem bailout solution."
• Mark Kleiman: "Now's the time to pull the bill, go back to committee, write a new bill financing the whole thing with a transactions tax, and pass it with only Democratic votes. It shouldn't be a hard sell to make Wall Street pay for bailing out Wall Street. And the Senate Republicans and the White House are pretty much stuck with whatever the House passes."
• digby: "The Democrats should set forth a real progressive plan -- a New Deal for the 21st century."

MyDD's Jerome Armstrong doesn't like the idea of Dems taking ownership of this bill: "Get more Democrats on board? [This] makes it even more of a Democrat-Bush thing and less of a Republican bill. Not great politics, even worse if its Obama that gets involved. And who's to say that if they do get more Democrats on board, that more Republicans go ahead and bail?"

Ezra Klein doesn't think this will happen: "The likely outcome here is not, so far as I can tell, an aggressively liberal bill. The defecting Democrats look to be Blue Dogs -- which is to say, somewhat conservative, generally vulnerable, Democrats -- and members of the Black and Hispanic caucuses. A more liberal bill might get the latter two. It will lose 90 Republican votes. It won't get the Blue Dogs. And you'll lose a few dozen more Democrats who needed the bipartisan cover. My hunch is leadership is relying on market chaos to turn a few votes and trying to figure out the mixture of cosmetic changes and superficial giveaways that will push them over the finish line. I'd like to believe we're about to see a much better bill, but I rather doubt it."

On the right side of the blogosphere, Jim Geraghty applauds this scenario: "If House Democrats want to pass a left-wing, ACORN-heavy, union-proxies, salary-setting bill, fine. Let Senate Democrats pass that one, too. Let Barack Obama go on record in favor of it. At the heart, the rescue plan is a phenomenally unpopular proposal that is necessary to avert disaster that, for some reason, the public doesn't quite think is real yet. Let the Democrats pass the bill and let the unpopular Bush sign it. The Republicans running for House and Senate -- and McCain, for that matter -- can denounce it until their throats are hoarse every day from now until Election Day. Every voter will no that at a moment when most Americans were struggling, the Democrats voted along party lines to 'bail out Wall Street.' The bailout might save Wall Street, and ensure a Republican tsunami on Election Day to strip out the worst parts of the bill in 2009..."

$700 BILLION BAILOUT IV: Capitalism Lives Another Day

Many conservative bloggers were pleased that the bailout bill failed:

• Townhall's Amanda Carpenter: "Capitalism lives another day."
• NRO's Mark Levin: "[I] want to thank the House Republicans for taking a bold stand against what had been a stampede on a scale I have never before witnessed on matters of huge consequence. [...] The liberal uses crises, real or manufactured, to expand the power of government at the expense of the individual and private property. He has spent, in earnest, 70 years evading the Constitution's limits on governmental power. If conservatives don't stand up to this, who will? If they don't offer serious alternatives that address the current circumstances AND defend the founding principles, who will? The House Republicans have done both. And I, for one, thank them."
• Michelle Malkin: "The Crap Sandwich goes down in flames. [...] Imagine if [the GOP leadership] had been on the right side of this monster. They could be claiming victory, seizing the momentum, and advancing the conservative agenda. Instead, they're complaining about Nancy Pelosi's partisan attack on the floor."
• Right Wing News' John Hawkins: "What we have here are large numbers of liberals who don't like the bill because it's not socialistic enough and thank goodness, 2/3 of the Republicans were fiscally conservative enough to reject socialism and stick up for the taxpayers."
• RedState's Erick Erickson: "I'm a bit gobsmacked that conservative pundits who supported the bailout are attacking members of Congress for listening to their constituents. Amazing how representative democracy worked well today and that's not good enough for some people. [...] Does it really hurt Republicans that the media is blaming the GOP for killing something the public did not want anyway?"
• AmSpec Blog's Robert Stacy McCain: "The basic politics of the bailout resembles nothing so much as the immigration reform measures that Crazy Cousin John twice tried to shove through the Senate. It was one of those 'elite consensus' deals, fiercely opposed by ordinary Americans. It's eat-your-broccoli politics -- the condescending Washington-knows-best message that seeks to impose top-down solutions and treats voters as an obstacle to progress. You cannot win elections by campaigning against the people."

Other righty bloggers were concerned about the bill's failure:

• Power Line's Paul Mirengoff: "There's a conservative case for voting in favor of this legislation [...]. There's also a conservative case for voting 'No,' and I respect those conservatives who did so. But under the circumstances -- including the prospect that the Dems will pass significantly worse bailout legislation down the road -- I think the conservative vote today should have been 'Yes.'"
• Townhall's Carol Platt Liebau: "House Republicans have shown themselves to be gamblers. If all of this turns out all right despite the absence of a bill, kudos to them. But it's a big gamble. If the economy now tanks, they will be blamed, unfairly or not. [...] All the stuff about Pelosi's partisan speech and the fact she couldn't bring along more than 60% of her caucus won't matter. What voters will remember (and what they will be told) is that Democrats took a hard vote to avert disaster; Republicans refused. It will be a huge setback not only for the GOP brand, but more importantly, for free market principles, which will appear to have failed. And then good luck averting even worse legislation than this was."

$700 BILLION BAILOUT V: It's Pelosi's Fault!

Many conservative bloggers are joining the House GOP leadership in blaming Pelosi for the bill's failure:

• Townhall's Hugh Hewitt: "The GOP House leadership is now bluntly declaring what everyone who followed the story today knows: Nancy Pelosi killed the bailout bill with a blistering attack on Republicans just prior to the start of the vote. The Speaker cost millions of Americans hundreds of millions in retirement savings today because she could not resist using her position to slam her political opponents even after they had met her more than half way. [...] Wall Street didn't collapse today. The House of Representatives did. And Pelosi is its leader. She should be fired. Vote against every Democrat."
• RedState's Pejman Yousefzadeh: "Nancy Pelosi and the House Democratic leadership misread the mood of their caucus and the mood of the House. The bill failed as a consequence. Despite the fact that Democrats are in the majority, Pelosi & Co. can't count votes correctly and can't run Congress at a time of crisis. That's why the bailout plan failed."
• The Atlantic's Megan McArdle: "Pelosi screwed up royally. She is the Democratic Tom DeLay. Newt Gingrich was an ideologue, but Tom DeLay was simply a partisan, most keenly interested in maximizing his party's political power. Pelosi cut a deal in which, as far as I can tell, every single Republican in a safe seat had to vote yes so that the Democrats could maximize their no votes. Given that the Republican caucus is pretty much in open revolt, this was beyond moronic. She then spent a week openly and repeatedly blaming the Republicans and the Bush administration for the current crisis. The way she set things up, it was 'Heads I win, tails you lose': vote for the deal and I'll paint you as heartless reactionaries bailing out your fat cat friends. If you're going to do that, you'd better make sure you have some goddamn margin for error in your own party. She didn't. Then she got up and delivered yet another speech blaming the Republicans for the bailout deal she was about to pass."
• Power Line's John Hinderaker: "This is a classic Charlie Brown and the football maneuver. Pelosi gives a speech that frames the issue, falsely, as the result of bad Republican policies, then allows her own threatened representatives to do the popular thing while expecting Republicans to take one for the team by casting an unpopular vote. Which, of course, their Democratic opponents would use against them, thereby increasing the Democratic majority in the House. If this was Pelosi's plan it failed, in part, perhaps, because her over-the-top partisan diatribe tipped off Republicans as to what was afoot."
• RedState's Moe Lane: "Either Nancy Pelosi knew that the vote was going to fail yesterday, or she didn't. If she didn't know, then the failure of passage can directly laid at her uncritical willingness to permit her own caucus to slide on an unpopular vote, while doing less than nothing to bring in equally-concerned Republicans -- which could be seen as another way of calling her a blithering incompetent fool. If she did know, then she lied, to all of us, and is currently risking the health of the American economic system for partisan political gain."
• Robert Stacy McCain: "This is a classic example of Pelosi's failed 'leadership.' She could deliver only 60% percent of her own caucus and, needing Republican votes to pass what she said was an emergency bailout, she decided this would be a perfect occasion to score partisan points."

$700 BILLION BAILOUT VI: Don't Blame Nancy's Speech

Other righty bloggers think it's foolish to blame the bill's failure on Pelosi's speech:

• Townhall's Matt Lewis: "I applaud conservatives who opposed this bill on ideological grounds. [...] However, if Republicans think the American people will side with them on voting 'no' -- because they were upset with Pelosi's speech -- I think they are terribly mistaken. Personal slights and 'snubs' should not influence ones vote on an important issue such as this. A congressman's decision to vote for -- or against -- the bill should be based solely on whether or not they believe it is best for the country. Pelosi's remarks should be irrelevant."
• Geraghty: "I'm not buying this 'Pelosi's speech turned Republicans against it' argument. Either you think the bill is worthwhile (or that the cost of inaction is greater than the cost of action) and you vote for it, or you don't. Somebody else's speech is a lousy reason to change a vote on an issue as big as this..."
• Hot Air's Allahpundit: "There are, conceivably, good reasons to vote against a bailout in a national emergency -- if you think it'll do more economic harm than good, if you think it accrues too much unchecked power to the executive -- but being honked off at Nancy is not one of them."
• Liebau: "I'm concerned about the ramifications of this vote, as I noted below, but I can respect any member -- who's knowledgeable about the economy and aware of the risks involved, that is -- who opposed the bill on its merits. I can't respect someone who puts Nancy Pelosi's words above a sense of where his/her duty lies."

MCCAIN: Epic Fail

Liberal bloggers believe that the bailout bill's failure represents an enormous defeat for McCain, since he suspended his campaign in order to get the bill passed:

• TPM's David Kurtz: "Whatever you think about the substance of McCain's bizarre campaign suspension so he could single-handedly save the economy, his gambit now looks like a disaster, judged on its own political terms."
• Firedoglake's watertiger: "After melodramatically 'suspending' his campaign last week to rush back to Washington -- well, okay, to his campaign office in Arlington -- to save the Wall Street bailout negotiations -- well, okay, to make dinner reservations Saturday night with the Liebermans at a four-star restaurant in D.C., John McCain got to watch his latest campaign publicity stunt crash and burn with the same fiery elan as those four Navy jets he piloted."
• MyDD's Todd Beeton: "Remember what John McCain's campaign claimed he was bringing to the table by going to Washington to 'solve the crisis'? [...] His results speak for themselves. Great work, John!"
• Benen: "McCain 'suspended' his campaign to get this bill to the floor -- and then it failed because his friends didn't like it. It's a fiasco that's going to be hard to live down."
• Daily Kos' DemFromCT: "The job of the leader is to deliver the votes. And whether you think it should or should not have passed, John McCain failed miserably as a bipartisan 'leader', though he had no hesitation to prematurely take credit for it."

Liberal bloggers are also mocking McCain because "[he] and his top aides took credit for building a winning bailout coalition -- hours before the vote failed and stocks tanked":

• dday: "The guy who suspended his campaign to race back to Washington to save the economy, who then took credit for showing the leadership to get it passed, ended up bragging about passage before it ever happened."
• Oliver Willis: "Like Bush in Iraq, John McCain declared victory before the war was over."
• Daily Kos' BarbinMD: "John McCain and his minions repeatedly took credit for delivering the bailout bill, but when it came time to vote, the Republican Party threw McCain under the bus and refused to support the plan. This is a massive failure of leadership on the part of John McCain, not to mention a large dose of hubris."

MCCAIN II: Crashing And Burning

Several conservative bloggers agree with liberal bloggers that the bill's defeat is bad for McCain:

• NRO's Ramesh Ponnuru: "This vote is very bad for McCain. He was trying to get House Republicans on board, after all, and he failed. Blaming the Democrats for the failure will not and should not work, given the ratios on both sides."
• AmSpec Blog's Philip Klein: "In the immediate term, I think this hurts McCain. He made such a show of suspending his campaign so that he could go to Washington, bring the two parties together, and get things done. The fact that everything collapsed undermines that argument. Furthermore, the longer the stock market is in turmoil and Americans are uncertain about the economy, the harder it will be for McCain to win, because, fair or not, the public holds Republicans responsible for this mess."

Several conservative bloggers believe that McCain made a mistake in suspending his campaign in order to try to broker a compromise on the Hill:

• The Next Right's Patrick Ruffini: "McCain dramatically overestimated his ability to control the battle space with a single grand maneuver. It was the starkest example in recent history of a candidate gambling -- and with seemingly no frickin' clue what would happen at that -- and coming up short."
• Right Wing News' John Hawkins: "How does McCain handle the crisis? First off, he says he's suspending his campaign, canceling the debate, and heading to Washington to work on the crisis. The Democrats immediately called that a cheap stunt. When McCain later inexplicably changed his mind and did the debate anyway, he proved them right. It was a foolish, indecisive move and it didn't help his campaign. Additionally, after McCain made this big show of going back to Capitol Hill, what did he do while he was there? He didn't take a strong position on the bill. He didn't lead. He didn't do anything different from any of the other 'leaders' up on the Hill. [...] Unless John McCain does something differently, I'm afraid this bill is going to sink his candidacy."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Why McCain Lost The Debate

The Atlantic's Ross Douthat re-examines his earlier view that McCain won Friday's debate:

"...On points, McCain may have won a lot of the exchanges, and I still think his attacks on Obama were stronger than Obama's attacks on him, but nothing he dinged his opponent on -- from pork-barrel spending to meeting with [Iranian Pres. Mahmoud] Ahmadinejad to being slow to come around to the same position as McCain on Russia's invasion of Georgia -- was big enough or immediate enough to undercut the basic respectability of Obama's performance, and the air of moderation, caution and sanity he projected. If the two men had gone into the debate on equal footing, I suspect my read on the evening would have been on the money (he said, defensively). But they didn't, and it wasn't: Obama needed to seem like a reasonable man and plausible President, and McCain needed to make Obama seem like a neophyte, and incompetent, and/or a lefty radical, and only one of the two of them got the job done."

LEST WE FORGET: Members Of Twisted Sister Now Willing To Take It

From The Onion:

"NEW YORK -- In a stunning reversal of their long-stated reluctance to take it, members of heavy-metal band Twisted Sister announced Monday that, after 24 years of fervent refusal, they are now willing to take it. 'I acknowledge that we promised not to take it anymore, but things change. The world is a different place today, and with that in mind, we would like to go on record as saying that, starting right now, we are going to take it,' read a statement released by the band's lead singer, Dee Snyder. 'To clarify, we would still prefer not to take it, but as of now, taking it is an option that we would be open to. That is all.' Bassist Mark 'the Animal' Mendoza also stated that, in regards to what he wants to do with his life, he no longer solely wants to rock, but would instead prefer doing other things, such as raising a family and working as a claims adjuster in Rye, NY."

Posted by Ian Faerstein at 01:24 PM

September 29, 2008

9/29: Friday Night Lights

Conservative bloggers almost unanimously proclaimed John McCain the winner of Friday night's debate. Righty bloggers praised McCain's energy, aggressiveness, and knowledge of foreign policy. They also argued that Barack Obama deferred to McCain on too many issues, as evidenced by his repeated use of phrases such as "John is right" or "I agree with John". Paul Mirengoff echoes many conservative bloggers when he writes: "McCain was the teacher; Obama was the promising but somewhat disappointing student."

Most liberal bloggers considered the debate a draw -- which, in their view, is good for Obama since he is currently ahead in the polls. As Markos Moulitsas summarizes, "This was McCain's turf. He needed a solid victory, and he didn't get it." Liberal bloggers are directing a lot of criticism at McCain for refusing to look at Obama during the debate and for repeatedly claiming that the IL senator "doesn't understand" various issues. Lefty bloggers believe that McCain came across as mean-spirited and condescending, and they're pointing to focus groups as evidence that McCain turned off undecided voters with his demeanor.

OBAMA DEBATE: Passing The Commander-In-Chief Test

Most liberal bloggers were pleased with Obama's debate performance:

• Moulitsas: "The consensus seems clear: This was McCain's turf. He needed a solid victory, and he didn't get it. At best, it was a tie. And with the next debates focusing on economic issues, McCain will be in hostile territory. My interpretation of all of this is that Obama won via the expectations game, but was a draw on the substantive issues. [...] Obama's plan was to show he was knowledgeable about foreign policy issues, and he did that. No flubs."
• Open Left's Matt Stoller: "Obama clearly won the debate. [...] McCain has to change the shape of the race, and he didn't do that last night."
• Daily Kos' MissLaura: "I was apprehensive about Obama's performance, having been underwhelmed throughout the primary season, and tonight I was pleasantly surprised. I knew the facts and the policies were on his side, but wasn't confident of his presentation. I was wrong, and I'm glad of it."
• MyDD's Jonathan Singer: "The question is whether the candidate newer to the scene can stand toe-to-toe with the candidate longer on the national scene, and clearly on this front Barack Obama was able to speak as forcefully as John McCain. In this regard, Obama passed the most important test of the night. And to reiterate a point I made earlier, John McCain sounded like a Senator while Obama looked like a President."
• AMERICAblog's Joe Sudbay: "Barack Obama clearly won the debate tonight. Hands down. Throughout the debate, Obama was very strong. He never let a McCain attack go unanswered. He mocked McCain appropriately. And, he sounded like a president. McCain looked old. He got bitchy and cranky several times."
• Open Left's Chris Bowers: "Obama dominated McCain during the economic section (the first forty minutes), and kept delivering great lines the entire night [...] He rarely ventured into defensive territory, as he is known to do at some times. [...McCain] was a bit more fluid than Obama during the second forty minutes, but it is hard for me to believe that talking about cutting wasteful spending will reassure people during the economic crisis. [...] The foreign policy sections were about even, but that makes them a win for Obama because it wasn't supposed to be his strong suit."
• Ezra Klein: "If you thought McCain the only candidate in the race able to talk confidently and fluently about foreign affairs, you were disabused of that notion tonight. Many in the media, it seems, held that notion. But for McCain, decades of experience, both as a soldier and a politician, did not translate into a measurably superior grasp of international relations. For him to fulfill his own public promises and carefully cultivate persona, it needed to."

OBAMA DEBATE II: Too Cold? Or Just Right?

Firedoglake's Jane Hamsher was one of several liberal bloggers who thought that Obama wasn't aggressive enough: "McCain controlled the debate tonight. He came off as a brittle, grumpy, mean-spirited old coot, but on the economy -- which should have been Obama's strong suit -- McCain managed to divert the conversation to tax cuts and kept Obama off the kitchen table issues where he excels. McCain was allowed to paint himself as a crusader for reform, and no mention was made of the Keating 5. [...] But the biggest problem for me was that McCain had a grab bag of adjectives he consistently used to characterize Obama -- 'naive, inexperienced' -- and every time he repeated them, it was like money in the bank. He worked them in at every opportunity, and their cumulative effect wore into Obama as the evening went on. Obama missed the opportunity to do the same and characterize McCain as brittle, rash, impulsive and out-of-touch. [...] The idea that you can run against a Republican for national office and remain above the fray was a nice one, but it isn't realistic. Obama needs to stop agreeing with McCain and reinforcing his message. It doesn't make him look statesmanlike, it makes McCain look right."

Other liberal bloggers disagreed:

• TPM's Josh Marshall: "I know that many Obama supporters are disappointed that he passed on various opportunities to deliver a smackdown that McCain couldn't recover from. But having watched the guy for 18 months now, for better and worse, that's not who he is. What he did do though is stand on the stage with McCain for 90 minutes on what's supposed to be McCain's terrain. He had an easy command of the issues. And he didn't get rattled by any of McCain's attacks. For all those reasons, I think he had a much better night than McCain."
• The Atlantic's James Fallows: "Obama would have pleased his base better if he had fought back more harshly in those 90 minutes -- cutting McCain off, delivering a similarly harsh closing judgment, using comparably hostile body language, and in general acting more like a combative House of Commons debater. Those would have been effective tactics minute by minute. But Obama either figured out, or instinctively understood, that the real battle was to make himself seem comfortable, reasonable, responsible, well-versed, and in all ways 'safe' and non-outsiderish to the audience just making up its mind about him. [...] The evidence of the polls suggests that he achieved exactly this strategic goal. He was the more 'likeable,' the more knowledgeable, the more temperate, etc. [...] For years and years, Democrats have wondered how their candidates could 'win' the debates on logical points -- that is, tactics -- but lose the larger struggle because these seemed too aggressive, supercilious, cold-blooded, or whatever. To put it in tactical/strategic terms, Democrats have gotten used to winning battles and losing wars. [Friday] night, the Democratic candidate showed a far keener grasp of this distinction than did the Republican who accused him of not understanding it."
• The Atlantic's Ta-Nehisi Coates: "Liberals have a bully complex. Having gotten chumped repeatedly, we're confusing strength with arrrogance, toughness with strut. Take it from someone who learned it the hard way. They ain't the same, son. To paraphrase Carolyn Forche, Obama needs to do exactly would he did last night -- slice McCain to lace. But he needs to do it so quietly, calmly and efficiently, that even those who are paid to opine on such things, don't even notice the blood all over the floor."

MCCAIN DEBATE: The Mac Shows Who's Boss

Most conservative bloggers thought that McCain won the debate:

• NRO's Ramesh Ponnuru: "McCain won, and not, I think, by a small margin, either."
• Townhall's Hugh Hewitt: "A strong McCain win. [...] As expected, McCain shines and Obama is on the defensive throughout. The good news for Obama is that more than 30 minutes were not on the specifics of foreign policy. But Obama stumbled badly on Iraq, Pakistan and Afghanistan. McCain simply knows this stuff, and Obama again and again betrays that he does not."
• NRO's Stanley Kurtz: "I think McCain clearly won this debate, chiefly because he came across as advertised -- extremely comfortable and experienced on issues of defense and foreign policy. McCain speaks here like a man who knows his own mind, who's command of the game is so taken-for-granted that he can focus on aggressively on playing it to win. Obama also came off as advertised -- as a bright and earnest guy, but still in the process of coming to grips with these questions."
• RedState's Pejman Yousefzadeh: "There were no knockout blows in this debate, but McCain won on points -- a surprise for people like me who expected a crushing performance from the much more silver-tongued Barack Obama. That didn't happen tonight. Instead, Obama seemed at times to wither against McCain. 'I agree with John' is the takeaway line from the debate. Obama said it over and over and over. And how could he not? On a number of issues, McCain demonstrated superior judgment and understanding and clearly outclassed Obama in terms of familiarity and knowledge regarding those issues. When someone thoroughly schools you on a matter, you have little choice but to admit it and agree with the master on his arguments about those issues."
• Townhall's Carol Platt Liebau: "Overall, John McCain won tonight's debate. No, he's not a glib, smooth talker like Barack is. But his understanding of foreign policy is so second-nature that he actually attains a kind of eloquence and definite intellectual forcefulness when he discusses it. [...] In contrast, one gets the feeling that Barack is both blustering, and choosing every word with care when he discusses foreign policy..."
• Michelle Malkin: "Who won? I'm giving it to McCain -- and you know I'm a tough grader on him. He was slow out of the gate -- a broken record on earmarks and spending -- but Obama failed to turn the bailout debacle against him. McCain hit his stride in the second half, schooling Obama on counterinsurgency, Iraq, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iran, and Russia. McCain made no major soundbite-able gaffes. It was more a matter of a few missed opportunities for McCain than the commission of any major errors. [...] Obama, on the other hand, committed several gaffes..."
• Mirengoff: "McCain was the teacher; Obama was the promising but somewhat disappointing student -- the one who knows lots of facts but ultimtely doesn't quite get the big picture. In reaching this verdict, I don't want to give the impression did Obama did badly. To the contrary, I think he debated quite well for the most past. Certainly, his performance should end the mantra of certain critics that Obama can't handle himself without a tele-prompter. The problem for Obama was not his performance; his problem was that once McCain got past his dreadful first 'round' of the debate, he excelled. McCain was more knowledgeable, more to the point, keener on the attack, and (above all) deeper than Obama."
• RedState's Jeff Emanuel: "Eight times tonight the freshman Democrat Senator from Illinois has responded to questions and McCain answers by saying, 'John is right.' Further, he listened to McCain's exceedingly knowledgeable response on Georgia by saying, in essence, 'What he said.' Tonight, Senator Obama has reinforced the simple fact that -- if he can shed the arrogance he wears on his sleeve -- he is very well prepared to be an understudy of an experienced, knowledgeable, principled President of the United States. Unfortunately for Obama and for the party that nominated him, America doesn't elect understudies President -- she elects Leading Men."
• NRO's Jim Geraghty: "From where I sit, McCain had a surprisingly strong night. [...] Maybe McCain went to the 'Senator Obama doesn't seem to understand' well one time too many. Maybe some voters will see it as condescending. (I can only imagine the howls of outrage on the liberal blogs right now.) But the overall message of the night was clear -- McCain is smart, familiar with the issues on a striking level of detail, knows what he wants to do. [...] Obama seemed a little shaky at times tonight -- his performance didn't boldly and clearly say, 'I know I'm new on the scene, but you can trust me; I am ready to succeed in the hardest job in the world.'"

MCCAIN DEBATE II: Good, But Not Good Enough

While most conservative bloggers thought that McCain won the debate, a few thought that Obama may have benefited more than McCain:

• Townhall's Matt Lewis: "This was, perhaps, the most boring debate I've seen. Rather than trying to win, both candidates were trying not to lose...to avoid making a mistake. Clearly, McCain wanted to stress experience, and has a much greater command of foreign policy than does Obama. But Obama held his own -- primarily by misrepresenting his past positions (such as support for missile defense, whether or not to negotiate with dictators without pre-conditions, etc.). I don't think that anyone won, which is bad for McCain, as it probably means the trajectory stays the same..."
• Power Line's John Hinderaker: "As the evening went on McCain warmed up a bit, but he was still mostly in 'bad McCain' mode. [...] Obama, meanwhile, was at his best. Generally he is below average when forced to speak extemporaneously, without a teleprompter. But tonight I thought he came across as plausible. He stammered much less than usual and didn't commit any obvious blunders. The bar probably wasn't set very high for him, and I think he got over it. Most viewers probably thought that he seemed a plausible President."
• NRO's Michael Graham: "Sen. McCain won the debate on points. But he was supposed to win, so the fact that Obama fumbled a few questions just won't matter. If McCain had landed a knockout punch he might have raised the 'ready to lead?' question about Obama. But he didn't. Obama did fine. And he's the frontrunner. Therefore he wins. Or put it another way: If Gov. [Sarah] Palin does as well Thursday as Sen.Obama did tonight, Republicans will be happy."

MCCAIN DEBATE III: Do Americans Want To Elect A Grumpy Old Man?

Liberal bloggers are buzzing about what they perceive to be McCain's contemptuous demeanor toward Obama:

• Marshall: "Whether it was contempt or condescension or some sort of fear or inability to -- in the most literal sense -- face Obama, it made McCain look small and angry. [...] For that kind of attitude to have 'worked' for McCain, Obama needed to come off as completely ignorant and unprepared. And I don't think even his harshest critics believe that is what happened. Roll it all together and Obama just seemed like a bigger person than McCain. And in a race in which the issue agenda and party identification already work strongly in Obama's favor, that's an advantage that is very hard for McCain to give up."
• Sudbay: "I'm still struck by how angry McCain was on Friday night. Refusing to look at Obama. Sneering. And, muttering under his breath. He was acting like a fifth grader. McCain should have been on best behavior, but he couldn't control himself. He can't control himself and is increasingly erratic. And, as I've been saying, 'erratic' is the best word to describe John McCain, but 'erratic' is the one of the worst words to describe a president."
• Klein: "McCain wouldn't look at Obama. Kept smirking. Sighing. Sucking in his lips. Flipping his papers angrily. Accusing Obama of 'not understanding' basic points of foreign and domestic policy. We knew he didn't want to be there. But he couldn't keep his body language from signaling that he didn't think Obama deserved to be there. [...] It's not a posture that worked for [Al] Gore in 2000. It didn't work for McCain tonight."
• Atrios: "Visuals aside, what did come through loud and clear on the radio bits I heard was McCain's incredibly condescending attitude towards Obama. Not a mindreader, so I don't know what he really thinks/feels, but he sounded like he thought Obama was on par with dog shit."
• Open Left's Davis Sirota: "I thought McCain's condescension repeatedly claiming Obama doesn't 'understand' things made McCain look petty."
• TalkLeft's Big Tent Democrat: "McCain was incredibly unlikable and unPresidential."
• The Washington Monthly's Steve Benen: "I was a little surprised at the contempt McCain showed for Obama, refusing to even look at Obama during the debate. It was the height of arrogance -- McCain's not-so-subtle message was that he didn't even want to be on the same stage with his rival. I lost count of how many times he said Obama 'doesn't understand' an issue, even when it was obvious that it was McCain who was confused."
• Balloon Juice's John Cole: "Someone should Lexis-nexis the 2000 post-debate coverage in which they chided Gore for his sighing. I remember a lot of talk about how the debates were a time to let voters decide what candidate they wanted in their house for the next four years and blah blah blah [...] If we were to use the Al Gore criteria, John McCain got his ass kicked tonight. He was a cranky old SOB, scowling and ranting 'You don't understand' and generally just a dick. Folks on tv are calling it 'vintage McCain.' Loosely translated, that means everyone knows he is a dick, they just can not say it on tv."

Think Progress' Matthew Yglesias: "I think McCain is playing with a bit of fire when he lets his contempt for Barack Obama show through so clearly. Those of us who follow politics obsessively are now well-informed about this aspect of the campaign, but most people probably don't see it under ordinary circumstances. And whatever partisans on either side may think, or the fashionable 'they both suck' cynics may say, surveys indicate that McCain and Obama are both popular and the key swing constituency is composed of people who have warm feelings toward both guys. That means, to me, that a negative, slashing, attacking approach is a totally reasonable approach but you've got to have the good. Sneering about how so-and-so 'doesn't understand' when he seems to understand just fine, and most people are predisposed to like him is a potential disaster."

PALIN: Apparently She Doesn't Speak For Her Campaign

Liberal bloggers are mocking McCain after he had to retract Palin's comments about Pakistan:

"Sen. John McCain retracted Sarah Palin's stance on Pakistan Sunday morning, after the Alaska governor appeared to back Sen. Barack Obama's support for unilateral strikes inside Pakistan against terrorists.

'She would not...she understands and has stated repeatedly that we're not going to do anything except in America's national security interest,' McCain told ABC's George Stephanopoulos of Palin. 'In all due respect, people going around and... sticking a microphone while conversations are being held, and then all of a sudden that's -- that's a person's position... This is a free country, but I don't think most Americans think that that's a definitive policy statement made by Governor Palin.'"

• Mother Jones' Kevin Drum: "Got that? It's unfair for someone to 'stick a microphone' in the face of a vice presidential candidate during a campaign appearance and then take her words seriously. This is no longer even low farce. It's more like we're all in the middle of a bad vaudeville skit."
• Moulitsas: "It's unfair to take [Palin's] words at face value. Really, that's now their argument. [...] Kind of the exact opposite definition of 'straight talk', isn't it? But McCain is probably right. Given her negative 10 net approval/disapproval ratings, it seems the American people have learned she is a pathological liar and don't believe anything that comes out of her mouth. Even when she accidentally tells the truth. And on a policy note, why does McCain think leaving Osama Bin Laden free to roam Pakistan, even if we have him in our sights, is such a political winner?"
• Benen: "So, just because Sarah Palin says something in public doesn't mean Palin actually believes what she's saying. And for goodness sakes, no one should think that Palin's comments are a reflection of the campaign's position on an issue."
• Firedoglake's Blue Texan: "Geez, when she does finally open her mouth -- they correct her."
• Open Left's Daniel De Groot: "As Chris [Bowers] has noted before, if you are explaining, you are losing. And looking at the daily trackers, McCain is certainly losing. The best part of this is that Obama didn't need to do anything to put McCain on the defensive here, Palin is now doing that for him, and on likely the most sycophantic Sunday show there is, no less."

Yglesias: "Normally we've seen Sarah Palin either engages in gaffes where she says something that doesn't make sense or else we've seen her say stuff that isn't true. Now, though, she's entered into the realm of the Kinsley gaffe where she's just not well-briefed enough to remember the McCain campaign's convoluted talking points on this issue. Instead, she went with the common sense position -- Obama's position."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Would It Be Better For Republicans To Lose This Election?

The Next Right's Sean Oxendine:

"...The incoming President is likely to inherit an economy that stumbles along for several years. It may even be in a severe recession. Things overseas may get better, but it is unlikely. This will be blamed on [George W.] Bush for a while (just as the 2001 recession was blamed by most Americans on [Bill] Clinton in the beginning of Bush's term), but sooner or later, if it lingers, it will be blamed on the Democrats. [...]

In other words, 2010 would probably be a very good Republican year in the event of an Obama victory. Remember, in 1993-1994, Clinton did a few small things -- raised taxes on the rich marginally, tried to let gays into the military, and signed a gun ban. He lost 52 seats. Imagine what happens if Democrats go down a similar path, and go into an election with 1/4 of their caucus in districts Bush carried twice, with a softer economy than Clinton had in 1994. And quite frankly, the dirty little secret is that Obama doesn't have a fraction of Clinton's political sense and skill, and Joe Biden is a babbling buffoon, something that he (and the press) just won't be able to hide anymore once he is President. [...]

The best thing that happened to the Republican party was Jimmy Carter winning in 1976 -- had [Gerald] Ford won, he would have had to have dealt with many of the same problems, and probably would not have fared much better. It could be that losing in 2008 is a similarly good option. There's some times the Presidency isn't worth having."

LEST WE FORGET: Internet Explorer Makes Desperate Overture To Become Default Browser

From The Onion:

"NASHVILLE, TN -- After months of futile entreaties to upgrade to its latest version, web browser Internet Explorer made a last-ditch proposal to become local man Jeremy Drewing's primary Internet application Monday. 'Internet Explorer is not currently your default browser. Would you like to make it your default browser?' the software program asked in an attempt to guilt Drewing into accepting its offer out of pure pity. Sources say Explorer went so far as to highlight the 'Yes' button in the pop-up window in the hopes of baiting him into pressing it, and even emitted a sad little 'beep' in a pathetic bid for attention. Drewing opted to keep Firefox as his default browser, thus relegating Internet Explorer back to its primary functions: looking up pornography and Googling ex-girlfriends."

Posted by Ian Faerstein at 01:35 PM

September 26, 2008

9/26: High Drama

Liberal bloggers blame John McCain and the House GOPers for causing last night's bailout talks to break down, and they're urging Dem lawmakers to walk away from the negotiations. They're accusing McCain of engaging in political gamesmanship and they're declaring that if a financial crisis happens, it will be on McCain's shoulders, since he failed to bring House GOPers on board. Conservative bloggers are defending McCain by arguing that House GOPers never supported the legislation and that Dems are free to pass it without them.

That said, most lefty and righty bloggers agree that the bailout bill is flawed. You know it's a strange political environment when Michelle Malkin and Markos Moulitsas are both denouncing the same piece of legislation.

Meanwhile, liberal bloggers are buzzing about Sarah Palin's shaky interview with CBS' Katie Couric -- particularly her jumbled answers concerning Russia and the bailout. Lefty bloggers are describing Palin's performance as "mesmerizingly horrendous" and "incoherent" and they're arguing that McCain's running mate has become "a national joke". Unsurprisingly, conservative bloggers have been mostly silent about the interview.

$700 BILLION BAILOUT: No Deal? Blame McCain!

Liberal bloggers blame McCain and the House GOPers for causing the bailout talks to break down, and they're urging Dem lawmakers to walk away from negotiations:

• TalkLeft's Big Tent Democrat: "John McCain and the Republicans blew up this deal to further McCain's own political ambition. Country first my ass."
• Balloon Juice's John Cole: "If this is not a big enough crisis that McCain and the GOP can play games with it, it is not a crisis at all. Walk away, Democrats."
• Oliver Willis: "Everything points to the fact that drama queen McCain decided that working to scuttle the deal with his Republican allies is what's needed to use our economy as a flimsy backdrop to McCain's personal ambition. It's the ultimate demonstration of Ego First."
• Firedoglake's Scarecrow: "Okay, John McCain. You own this mess. You went to Washington to get a solution that didn't require your help, after telling the nation repeatedly that this was the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression and that we had to solve it to save the economy. If the crisis worsens in the next few days -- as in major banks failing -- and you don't get your crazies in line, you've just seized ownership of a possible financial meltdown."
• Mother Jones's Kevin Drum: "Well, it appears that John McCain has succeeded in his plan to torpedo the bailout negotiations for a while so that he can swoop in and pretend to be their savior tomorrow. [...] There really seems to be no end to McCain's preening self-regard and stunt-of-the-week campaigning strategy these days, nor any end to his lack of regard for caring about what's actually best for the country. If this stuff were a game with no real-world consequences, I'd admire his gamesmanship. Since it's not, I'm just disgusted."
• Obsidian Wings' hilzoy: "David Kurtz notes that McCain had spoken to the House Republicans before they staged their revolt, and that a number of them reported that he seemed sympathetic to their ideas. McCain's campaign, however, issued a statement saying that he 'did not attack any proposal, or endorse any plan.' That's what I call real leadership: parachute in after other people have been in complicated negotiations for days, trailing the entire national press corps behind you, on the grounds that you are urgently needed, in person -- and then undermine the deal behind the scenes without being willing to publicly take any position at all."
• Sadly, No!'s Brad: "It's time for the Democrats to call the GOP's bluff. They have to hammer the SOBs and tell them that they had a deal all set before John McCain and his big fucking ego decided to ride in on his white horse and fuck everything up. They cannot allow themselves to be used as pawns to get John McCain elected. Democrats, give them the finger and walk away until they meet your demands. And then go on television every day and loudly blame for the coming stock market crash. Crush them and don't stop crushing them until you've won."

$700 BILLION BAILOUT II: It's Not McCain's Fault!

Conservative bloggers are defending McCain against the Dems' charge that he contributed to the breakdown of the bailout talks:

• NRO's Jim Geraghty: "The House Republicans were never on board. And you don't actually need their votes to pass this bill; the holdup is that the House Democrats are terrified of having sole responsibility for the bill. What changed between yesterday afternoon and evening is that the Democrats position changed from 'we're comfortable passing the bill without many House GOP votes' to 'we're NOT comfortable passing the bill without many House GOP votes.' How is that John McCain's fault again?"
• Power Line's Paul Mirengoff: "Democrats are claiming that McCain has done more harm than good in the legislative debate. Although this is always a possibility with McCain (and, indeed, just about anyone who is willing to lead), the Democrats' case is absurd. Their argument is that Congress was on the verge of a deal until McCain entered the picture and caused Republican House members to block it. The problems with this script are several. First, there is no evidence that House Republicans were ever on board with any deal. Second, the support of House Republicans is not needed to pass bailout legislation. The Democrats control the House. [...] If the deal made sense, House Dems wouldn't believe they need 'cover' from House Republicans."
• NRO's Jonah Goldberg: "I honestly believe that the determinative factor in McCain's decision to suspend his campaign and go to Washington was that he thought it was the right thing to do (in other words, politics was part of it, but he wouldn't have done it if he didn't feel it was his duty). Whether his move helps the situation or hurts it is hard to figure out now and may only be knowable in hindsight (and perhaps not even then). But politicization is a two way street. If the Democrats' reaction to McCain's intervention is to care more about denying him a victory than to get the deal done, they're just as guilty of 'politicizing' this mess."

$700 BILLION BAILOUT III: Just Say No, Dems

Most liberal bloggers remain strongly opposed to the bailout legislation, which they consider both politically foolish and wrong on the merits. They're urging lawmakers to wait until after the elections to pass major legislation addressing the financial situation:

• Firedoglake's Ian Welsh: "At this point I can't see how we get a good deal when the entire Congressional leadership, and the president plus both presidential candidates are onside for a bad bill (just, as it happens, different bad bills.) [...] Efforts should continue to make sure that backbenchers in both the House and Senate continue to refuse to sign off on this mess. No good bill is going to come out of this Congress with the help of this administration. Kill the bill, give [Treasury Sec. Henry] Paulson a hundred billion or so on strict strings just so that he and [Fed. Chair Ben] Bernanke can't blame Congress for the continued economic and financial deterioration which will occur no matter what is done, and go on holiday. January 20th a new Congress can start over with a new President and try and do it right."
• dday: "This is impossible to do in the current environment, and it always was, given that we're 40 days out from an election, and nothing more should be done than a temporary bridge loan to get us to Inauguration Day. The people can decide on the best practice after that."
• Open Left's Chris Bowers: "Stop the deal. We don't need an immediate decision -- the only reason Congress wants to wrap this up quickly is so they can go campaign. Fine -- they should stop the dealmaking, go and campaign on what they believe should be done, and then let us decide. We don't need bi-partisanship 40 days before an election. Give us a choice, and let us decide."
• Arianna Huffington: "I've said it before, and I'll say it again: bipartisanship in service of bad legislation is not a good thing. And, make no mistake, this bailout bill -- at least if the details that are trickling out are accurate -- is going to be very bad legislation indeed. And by that I mean very bad for the American people, whose interests are by no means identical to Wall Street's. If Barack Obama goes along with it in the name of post-partisan comity, he's making a big mistake."
• Open Left's Matt Stoller: "If I had to guess, a $700 billion is going to hurt Obama more than McCain. [...] Obama is giving up good turf here, where he can ask for everything from the right, and if they don't give it to him, appeal to the voters at the ballot box. But that's not what he's doing, he's giving away his political leverage. [...] The best case scenario is that things return to normal temporarily with no improvements in the housing situation, and normal is a bad place to be for Obama because normal returns the campaign to celebrity ads, race-baiting, and foreign policy turf where his campaign doesn't like to play (he can win there but he hasn't won there to date). And if they cut this deal, and the markets keep sliding and financial instability returns, then it'll be proof that neither McCain nor Obama, who are both calling for bipartisan unity around give-aways to the people who got us into this mess, can govern. And let's not even discuss the situation where McCain votes no on a trillion dollar bailout to Wall Street, and the Democrats and Obama vote yes."

Daily Kos' Moulitsas remains skeptical about the necessity of this legislation: "There has been zero effort to educate the American people about why the situation is so urgent. There have been a lot of proclamations that the situation is urgent, but still no explanation. I asked both [Sen. Maj. Leader Harry] Reid's office and [House Speaker Nancy] Pelosi's office about releasing Paulson's presentation to the leadership to the American people, so we can all see what supposedly has them all so spooked that we have to mortgage the next several generations of Americans. Reid's office was non-committal (i.e. 'I hear you', but no movement toward full transparency), and Pelosi's office blew me off. Maybe [Rep. Barney] Frank or [Sen. Chris] Dodd can clue us in? I mean, we know they think it's the end of the fucking world, but this isn't Iraq, there's no pretensions of 'secret intelligence' and 'protecting sources' to hide behind. If they want the peoples' representatives to sign off, then don't treat us like damn toddlers too delicate to see the facts. Because from where I'm sitting, it looks just like the Iraq War bullshit, and we all know how those dire 'facts' ended up turning out. Either offer full transparency, or stop whining about people skeptical about this solution to the crisis."

Moulitsas also believes the bailout is bad politics: "The American people aren't happy with this bailout. Democrats are giving McCain a gift by allowing him to be seen as its slayer. Yet Democrats sit there thinking that lining up behind [George W.] Bush's proposal will somehow be a political plus. Yet every challenger across the nation, Democratic and Republican, is running against this thing to public cheers. The tone deafness on this is shocking."

$700 BILLION BAILOUT IV: Kill The Bailout!

Many conservative bloggers are also denouncing the bailout legislation:

• Malkin: "[I] just heard from several readers that Lindsay Grahamnesty [SC Sen. Lindsay Graham] told Fox that the Mother of All Bailouts includes a reported $100 million more in funding for the left-wing housing entitlement thugs and heavily tax-subsidized fraudsters at ACORN. [...] Told you not to trust Hank Paulson. And I repeat: Fiscal conservatives need to be looking out for us tonight as they try to ram this thing through with a plethora of goodies for liberal shakedown artists."
• NRO's Jack Fowler: "So a huge chunk of this proposed bailout is going to end up in the coffers of the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now? [...] This bailout seems to be developing into a lefty Christmas tree, and that's just something conservatives will just have to swallow. Unless ACORN gets sprinkled with this pixie dust, unless John Sweeney and his hugely overpaid labor buddies get their wish list adopted, we are going to have a depression? Stop the world, I want to get off."
• Hot Air's Ed Morrissey: "I'd support a rational bailout package, but anything that funds the [Housing Trust Fund] needs to get stopped."
• Right Wing News' John Hawkins: "The reaction to the bailout deal remind[s] me of the very early stages of the immigration debacle, before people became completely infuriated -- except, this time the anger is on the Right AND the Left. Every single day since this lousy deal has been announced, the general reaction I've seen has gotten more negative, with more and more people speaking out against it. This bill is going to be absolute political poison by the time it's done and if you want to know why they're hurrying so fast to 'get something done,' I think it has as much to do with the fact that they realize that the political window is closing fast and they want to get it done before the public really figures out what's going on and gets very, very angry."
• AmSpec Blog's Quin Hillyer: "I predict that if this bailout plan passes as expected, the relief will only be temporary, and that a new crisis will emerge when even more capital flees the US markets because the dollar isn't strong enough to make the investments worthwhile. If John McCain had any sense, what he would do is endorse one of the conservative plans ([Rep. Thaddeus] McCotter, [Newt] Gingrich, [Rep. Jeb] Hensarling) and bend Paulson and company to HIS will. [...] This is not a good plan. It should not be adopted. And conservatives hungry for leadership from McCain will again be disappointed -- unless, in a surprise, he actually does do something dramatic to re-emphasize free-market principles."

$700 BILLION BAILOUT V: A Necessary Evil

Other conservative bloggers believe the bailout is necessary:

• Geraghty: "Over the past days, I've become a reluctant supporter, or at least acknowledging that what the Paulson plan aims to do has to be done. You can't say, 'this will take care of itself' or, 'let the markets work,' unless you're comfortable with the stock market really crashing (several thousand points), and continuing to decline for a long stretch, with serious repercussions for the entire economy. [...] I'm noticing that the members of Congress who are on committees that deal with financial issues are (generally) on board with the plan, and the opposition seems to be coming from rank-and-file members, who, it seems safe to say, have less familiarity of the details of how the markets work. There seems to be a sense among some folk that if they don't own stock themselves, a stock market crash wouldn't affect them. I can see a lot of reasons to not like this proposal. But I can see a lot more reasons why inaction is worse."
• Townhall's Carol Platt Liebau: "I admire the House Republicans' purity of purpose -- and like them, I wish that the crisis could could be solved through cutting taxes and deregulating that would attract a flood of private capital into the markets. The problem, however, is that the problem has become too big and needs to be solved fast. We're talking $700 billion that's needed [...] There's simply not enough private capital out there -- with people willing to sink it immediately -- to solve the problem. And make no mistake. If the markets crash and borrowers remain unable to access the credit markets because the markets lack liquidity, the problem will spread to every sector of the economy. Everyone will be hurt. Anyone who (like me) worries about the 'creeping socialism' that the Paulson plan may represent needs to remember the aftermath of the first Great Depression. That's when the modern administrative state and previously unheard-of powers for the federal government came into being. Does anyone think that if we encounter a second Great Depression -- especially coupled with an Obama presidency (how, exactly, does McCain make the case for himself this fall if his party scuttles the deal?) -- that we're not going to see even more socialism than the Paulson plan represents?"

Townhall's Hugh Hewitt writes a "Memo To House Republicans": "No one likes the risks involved in Paulson 2.0 or the precedent of using so much public money to rescue reckless bankers, both private and semi-private. But there is a very good chance that (1) it will actually make money for the Treasury and (2) without it the financial crisis will spread and the small businesses of America and the people who own and staff them will be deeply injured. These businesses are the backbone of the economy, and they are in danger. This isn't just a bailout of Wall Street; it is a breakwall for Main Street. [...] Gather with John McCain this morning -- he is the leader of the party -- and invest him with the authority to conclude or walk from the deal. [...] You cannot stand by and watch people's business and savings hemorrhage and expect them to reward you for your purity of purpose and incompetence of execution."

NRO's Kathryn Jean Lopez disagrees with Hewitt: "Hugh Hewitt wants the House guys to chill out. They are doing their job -- trying to make the deal better. And I'll defend their right to do it. I don't want markets to collapse either. But if some noise can make for a better, more conservative plan in the end, I'm glad they're fighting."

Townhall's Matt Lewis also supports the efforts of House GOPers: "The belief among House Republicans is that a bad bill is worse than no bill -- a point I tend to agree with. [...] We may well need a bill to get us out of this situation, but a bad bill will set a dangerous precedent, as well as bring America even closer to socialism. Washington and New York elites got us into this mess, but conservative congressmen are elected to represent we the people. [...] House Republicans ought to insist on a clean bill which will solve the current crisis, without creating a new one. Democrats can pass this legislation without the support of conservative Republicans. After losing in 2006, we have finally gotten a group of up-and-coming conservative young turks elected to congress who are not tainted by from being in the majority during the Bush years. If this bad bill is to pass, let it happen without tainting conservative hands."

MCCAIN: His Campaign Sure Doesn't Look Like It's Suspended...

Liberal bloggers are pointing out that McCain hasn't suspended his campaign in any meaningful sense, since (a.) his TV ads continued to run all day Thursday, (b.) his surrogates continued to appear on TV and attack Obama, and (c.) his state campaign offices were still open and operating:

• TPM's Josh Marshall: "Let's see. In the interests of saving the country, John McCain has to cancel the debate. But he's got time to do prime time interviews on each of the three broadcast networks tonight."
• MyDD's Jonathan Singer: "Color me confused. John McCain is apparently so embroiled in negotiations that he can't participate in tomorrow night's debate, but he's not so busy that he can't appear on all three network news programs tonight?"
• Atrios: "Does this look like suspended to you?"
• AMERICAblog's John Aravosis: "Busted. McCain's campaign specifically said they'd stop appearances, rallies, and TV advertising. But they didn't. Liars."
• TPM's Greg Sargent: "McCain's suspension of his campaign apparently doesn't apply to his own advisers. Despite McCain's claim that he's put his campaign on hold, two of them directly attacked Barack Obama in political terms on television this morning."
• Daily Kos' SusanG: "Andrew Sullivan has reports from two different readers in two different media markets that McCain ads are up and running as relentlessly as ever. David Kurtz at Talking Points Memo reports on McCain surrogate Nancy Pfotenhauer appearing on Fox to attack Obama, and then scooting on over to the Washington Times for a friendly little chat about the campaign. Guess we'll be seeing McCain at the debates tomorrow since he's decided to keep his campaign going. Right?"
• The Huffington Post's Sam Stein: "The Huffington Post called up 15 McCain-Palin and McCain Victory Committee headquarters in various battleground states. Not one said that it was temporarily halting operations because of the supposed 'suspension' in the campaign. Several, in fact, enthusiastically declared the continuation of their work."

PALIN: I Can See Alaska From My House!

Liberal bloggers are criticizing Palin's answer to Couric's question about why she believes that AK's proximity to Russia "enhances [her] foreign policy credentials" (video here, transcript here):

COURIC: Have you ever been involved with any negotiations, for example, with the Russians?

PALIN: We have trade missions back and forth. We-- we do-- it's very important when you consider even national security issues with Russia as Putin rears his head and comes into the air space of the United States of America, where-- where do they go? It's Alaska. It's just right over the border. It is-- from Alaska that we send those out to make sure that an eye is being kept on this very powerful nation, Russia, because they are right there. They are right next to-- to our state.

• Moulitsas: "Ouch, ouch, ouch, ouch. You have to watch her. It's mesmerizingly horrendous. Watch how she says 'as Putin rears his head'."
• Cole: "This isn't even funny anymore. I am now feeling bad for this moron, she is in so completely over her head. This is like one of those awkward moments in school when a student is giving a presentation they are completely unprepared for, and the teacher knows it, the student knows it, and everyone watching knows it, yet you sit there and go through the charade. [...] Heartbeat away. Jeebus."
• Ezra Klein: "Has there ever been a national politician this incoherent? And how has the McCain campaign organization not helped her memorize a better answer to the Russia question?"
• Sargent: "Anyone know what this means? Again, that's not snark. Never mind the image of Putin rearing his head as he floats into Alaskan airspace. Is she saying that American spies who keep an eye on Russia take off from Alaska? And what does that have to do with being Governor of the state? What is the woman talking about?"
• The Washington Monthly's Steve Benen: "Usually, candidates for national office get better as time goes on. Palin is clearly getting worse. I mean, really, think about Palin's argument here. She has foreign policy experience because [Putin] flies over Alaskan air space. Seriously, that's what Palin told a national television audience. [...] I'm afraid Sarah Palin is not only embarrassing herself, she's quickly become a national joke."
• Aravosis: "[This is a] horrific, horrific, horrific excerpt of Palin explaining why living close to Russia and Canada makes her a foreign policy expert. She comes across as a blithering idiot. At some point, Republicans have to ask themselves why they're willing to risk our national security, should McCain die in office, on someone who is quite clearly not ready to lead our nation in a time of crisis."
• Daily Kos' DemFromCT: "Oy. Watching this interview, I'm thinking McCain accidentally picked Mary Richards from the old Mary Tyler Moore Show to run for VP. If only all we needed was 'perky'..."
• Think Progress' Matthew Yglesias: "It's very hard to say what this is supposed to mean. When I flew from Moscow to New York, my flight path didn't take me anywhere near Alaska. Indeed, Moscow is closer to New York than it is to Anchorage. And yet nobody would say that [NY Gov.] David Patterson has extensive foreign policy experience thanks to his proximity to Russia. I think Palin may have gotten a briefing that told her that Alaska is in the flight-path for some Russian nuclear missiles that go over the arctic en route to destinations in the United States. That, I believe, is true though it's certainly not what she said. It's possible that all this cramming is causing Palin to become less coherent -- instead of just parrying questions she knows she doesn't have good answers to, she's trying to remember canned lines but it's too much all at once to actually get right."
• BooMan: "I know Alaskans speak English, but I have to ask you Alaskans, 'Does Sarah Palin make sense to you?', because down here in the lower 48 it seems like she is speaking a foreign language."
• Atrios: "The horror continues."

PALIN II: Okay, This Isn't Even Funny Anymore

Liberal bloggers are also criticizing Palin's jumbled answer to Couric's question about the bailout:

COURIC: Why isn't it better, Governor Palin, to spend $700 billion helping middle-class families who are struggling with health care, housing, gas and groceries? Allow them to spend more, and put more money into the economy, instead of helping these big financial institutions that played a role in creating this mess?

PALIN: ...Ultimately, what the bailout does is help those who are concerned about the health care reform that is needed to help shore up our economy. Um, helping, oh, it's got to be about job creation, too. Shoring up our economy, and getting it back on the right track. So health care reform and reducing taxes and reining in spending has got to accompany tax reductions, and tax relief for Americans, and trade -- we have got to see trade as opportunity, not as, uh, competitive, um, scary thing, but one in five jobs created in the trade sector today. We've got to look at that as more opportunity. All of those things under the umbrella of job creation.

• Moulitsas: "I just want to make sure you guys understood this answer properly about the $700 billion bailout: Reducing taxes has to be accompanied by tax reductions. Got it? Good. Carry on."
• Salon's Glenn Greenwald: "[This is] more than just being inarticulate. It's exhibiting a complete inability to formulate a coherent thought about core issues."
• TalkLeft's Jeralyn Merritt: "Unbelievable that Gov. Sarah Palin could be Vice-President of the United States. She's practically sub-verbal and she makes no sense."
• Drum: "Look, this is just getting scary. I don't care how partisan you are, you can't watch this clip from Sarah Palin's interview with Katie Couric without wondering if she's completely cracked under the pressure of running for vice president. The question is a simple softball about the bailout -- something she's had weeks to bone up on -- but her answer is incoherent. Not just the usual platitudes politicians offer when they don't feel like answering a tough query, but completely incoherent. Hell, it's barely even in English. I don't even feel right making snarky jokes about this stuff anymore. This campaign has gone seriously off the rails. I've never seen anything like it."
• Benen: "If you watch the clip, you might notice that Palin was intermittently referring to notes. In other words, this is the kind of response she offers on a question about the Wall Street bailout with help."
• Brad: "WHAT THE HOLY HELL IS SHE EVEN TALKING ABOUT??!?!!!?!!? OK, people, I am scared to death. If any Canadian friends will take me in, I will be your official houseboy: I'll clean up, take out the trash, wash dishes, cook meals, walk your pets, ANYTHING. Just GET ME OUTTA THIS MADHOUSE!!!!"
• Daily Kos' BarbinMD: "Now we know why the McCain campaign is hiding Palin."
• Klein: "Try to parse [her answer]. The bailout helps health reformers by bankrupting the government? We need to accompany our tax reductions with reduced taxes, and pair that with tax relief for Americans? How does the bailout connect to trade, or to job growth? And even the syntax is falling apart: She corrects 'help' to 'helping,' but 'helping' doesn't make sense in that paragraph. These aren't lies she's telling. It's not misdirection, or deception. It's just nonsense."
• TAPPED's Sam Boyd: "It's hard for me to believe that McCain couldn't have made a better pick than Palin after watching this projectile nonsense. [...LA Gov.] Bobby Jindal might not have generated quite as big an initial bump as Palin, for example, but he certainly would have generated public interest and pleased the base just as much as Palin -- plus he's capable of speaking in complete sentences."

PALIN III: Everyone Knows I'm In Over My Head...Over My Head...

Liberal bloggers are growing increasingly skeptical about Palin's readiness to become VP:

• Greenwald: "Sarah Palin's performance in the tiny vignettes of unscripted dialogue in which we've been allowed to see her has been nothing short of frightening -- really, as I said, pity-inducing. And I say that as someone who has thought from the start that the criticisms of her abilities -- as opposed to her ideology -- were much too extreme. One of two things is absolutely clear at this point: she is either (a) completely ignorant about the most basic political issues -- a vacant, ill-informed, incurious know-nothing, or (b) aggressively concealing her actual beliefs about these matters because she's petrified of deviating from the simple-minded campaign talking points she's been fed and/or because her actual beliefs are so politically unpalatable, even when taking into account the right-wing extremism that is permitted, even rewarded, in our mainstream. I'm not really sure which is worse, but it doesn't really matter, because with 40 days left before the election, both options are heinous."
• dday: "I think John McCain suspended his campaign (sort of) to deflect attention away from the jaw-gaping performance by his running mate with Katie Couric. We already know that he ran in for a damage control interview with Couric last night in the middle of [David] Letterman. That was the right move. I mean this is stunning. [...] I'm with Greenwald, she's either deeply ignorant and incurious or she's so buttoned up by the McCain campaign that she can only speak gibberish."
• Klein: "What's happened to Sarah Palin? The fact that Palin's responses to questions are becoming increasingly incoherent rather than rapidly more polished is interesting. Rote memorization should have all but eliminated the overlay of nonsense in her answers by now."

Most conservative bloggers haven't mentioned about Palin's interview with Couric, but there are a few exceptions:

• The Atlantic's Ross Douthat: "And now, an excerpt from my inner monologue, as transcribed while watching various clips from Sarah Palin's interview with Katie Couric (I can't link to them; they're too painful): And that, Douthat, is why nobody's ever going to hire you to help pick their running mate. But hey, maybe it's all just effing brilliant rope-a-dope for the [Joe] Biden debate...."
• AmSpec Blog's Philip Klein: "This doesn't change my earlier assessment that, in my view, Palin is not ready to be a heartbeat away from the presidency. What I am saying is that Palin is in a situation in which she has to field questions on a lot of subjects that she doesn't know a lot about. Rather than try to spit out rehearsed lines over and over again, she would be better off, as much as possible, to speak in her own words, rooted in her own values, and sense of right and wrong."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Are We Overemphasizing Stock Market Performance?

Yglesias:

"People are generally happier when the stock market goes up than when the stock market goes down. But given that large numbers of people own no stock, and most people own only a very small amount of stock, it makes no sense to make stock market performance the main goal of economic policy. Most people's year-to-year financial situation is more influenced by the state of the health care system than by the state of the stock market. Most people's retirement security is more influenced by whether or not large cuts are made in promised Social Security benefits than by the state of the stock market. But the interests of the relatively small minority of people whose financial situation is dominated by the state of the stock market have disproportionate influence over the media and the political system."

LEST WE FORGET: Mmmm...Krispy Kremes

From Overheard in the Office:

Female employee: You've never had Krispy Kreme donuts?
Male employee: Nope.
Female employee: Ohh. They are so good!
Male employee: Really?
Female employee: Yeah, they're better than sex!
Male employee: Hmm. You must be doing it wrong.

Posted by Ian Faerstein at 12:50 PM

September 25, 2008

9/25: McCain Calls Time-Out

Predictably, most conservative bloggers loved John McCain's decision to suspend his campaign and return to Washington to work on the proposed $700 billion bailout plan. Righty bloggers are praising McCain's unconventional move as "politically sagacious" and "shrewd". Hugh Hewitt declares: "The contrast between McCain as a leader and [Barack] Obama as a schemer has never been more clear than today."

Just as predictably, liberal bloggers panned McCain's move, deriding it as a "cheap stunt" that demonstrates that McCain is "temperamentally unfit to be president". Lefty bloggers believe that McCain is trying to politicize the bailout debate in Congress rather than engage in a good-faith effort to move the negotiations along. They also believe that the McCain camp is proposing to postpone the VP debate because they fear that Sarah Palin isn't ready for prime time, as evidenced by her shaky performance during her interview with CBS' Katie Couric.

MCCAIN: Desperate Candidates Do Desperate Things

Liberal bloggers see McCain's move as a cheap political stunt that reflects his desperation:

• The Huffington Post's Seth Grahame-Smith: "What a cynical, political, desperate man he's become. I can only pray that the rest of America sees this for the gimmick it is."
• AMERICAblog's Joe Sudbay: "This is a stunt from an increasingly desperate campaign -- a campaign that doesn't have a clue about the economy. The Washington Post/ABC News poll showing a nine-point Obama lead must be similar to McCain's internal polling."
• Obsidian Wings' hilzoy: "This is flailing desperation. [...] He's down in the polls. His 'brilliant' VP pick is not wearing well, even in her virtual press seclusion. His responses to a genuine crisis are all over the map. So he decides that rather than scaling back his appearances and being quietly helpful behind the scenes, he will descend on Washington, cameras in tow, and posture."
• Oliver Willis: "Sen. Obama proposed some bipartisan action on this, but drama queen John McCain decided to try and take all the credit for this by 'suspending' his campaign -- because he's currently trailing in the polls. That smell? That's desperation."
• MyDD's Todd Beeton: "Shorter John McCain: Hey, look over there!"
• TPM's Josh Marshall: "Bringing the presidential candidates and their press entourages back to Capitol Hill won't speed or improve the process of coming up with a good bailout deal. It will politicize it. That's so transparently obvious that it barely requires stating. And of course that is the point. By going public with his 'suspension' announcement as a breaking news statement McCain intended to make any agreement between the candidate impossible. Contrast that with Obama's campaign, which apparently tried to get both campaigns to agree on a common set of principles privately before going public. There's no logical reason there can't be a presidential debate while a bailout plan is being negotiated. Finally, does anyone think that McCain would have come up with this gambit if his polls were where they were two weeks ago instead of where they are today? Of course, not. This isn't a reaction to the national financial crisis but to the McCain polling crisis."
• The Washington Monthly's Steve Benen: "I've never even heard of a presidential candidate acting in such a reckless, compulsive, and ultimately haphazard fashion. McCain just decided to 'suspend' campaign activities? This rivals picking Sarah Palin for the ticket on the list of desperation moves. [...] The Republican nomination has apparently gone to some kind of man-child who believes stunts and gimmicks are the way to the White House. It is nothing short of breathtaking to see someone so manifestly unserious seek the highest office in the land."
• TAPPED's Adam Serwer: "John McCain's latest effort to ensure that the campaign becomes a narrative of his personal heroism, rather than a referendum on the issues, is to 'suspend' campaigning and postpone Friday's debate ostensibly to deal with the economic crisis. This is like a student caught cheating who demands that class be interrupted so he can finish the homework that was assigned yesterday, given that he hadn't bothered to read the bill as of yesterday. His call to put 'Country First' just happens to occur a day after unfavorable polling and the revelation that his campaign manager Rick Davis has been apparently engaged in undisclosed lobbying on behalf of one of the very mortgage giants McCain identified as being part of 'the culture of corruption and influence' in Washington. Most disconcerting is the idea that this is how McCain would run his administration. The American people cannot stop what they're doing whenever John McCain feels like he needs a time out. It's the president's job to be able to concentrate on more than one thing at a time without having a panic attack."
• Sadly, No!'s Brad: "Shorter John McCain campaign: Barack Obama needs to stop kicking my ass for the sake of national unity, my friends!"
• Atrios: "So much obvious stuff can be said about this. McCain hasn't voted since April, etc.. etc.. But basically his campaign thinks you're stupid."

MCCAIN II: I Guess Those Fundamentals Aren't So Strong Anymore...

Many liberal bloggers are observing that McCain's rhetoric about the economy has shifted dramatically during the past two weeks:

• Daily Kos' Markos Moulitsas: "So apparently, McCain no longer thinks the fundamentals of our economy are strong. So now he's 'suspending his campaign'."
• TPM's David Kurtz: "The guy who a week ago said the fundamentals of our economy remain strong suddenly suspends his campaign and wants to cancel the first presidential debate to rush back to Washington to deal with a crisis that his vice presidential candidate now says could lead to another Great Depression if not addressed immediately."
• The Huffington Post's Jed Lewison: "It's taken [McCain] exactly ten days to go from the economy is strong to we're heading into the Great Depression and must stop the campaign. But nothing has changed other than the polls, and that's why it's impossible to take this gamble seriously."
• Balloon Juice's Tim F.: "Several pundits noted McCain's polar swing from dissing economic concerns last Monday to hair-on-fire panic today. That sort of bipolar, crisis-to-crisis reactivity is normally taken as a sign that a person (or campaign) has no idea what is going on."

MCCAIN III: Reckless, Cowardly, Or Both?

Many liberal bloggers are portraying McCain's move as an example of his recklessness:

• Beeton: "This needs to be framed as John McCain in panic mode. This is what someone who panics does, while Barack is calm and steady in a time of crisis."
• Marshall: "Desperate and Reckless: Ramp up Georgia Crisis for votes; Call off half the GOP convention; pick a demonstrably unqualified freshman governor to salvage his campaign; calls for firing head of the SEC; now ask to have presidential debates delayed or canceled so he can politicize the bailout debate..."
• Lewison: "What we are witnessing right now is what a McCain presidency would be like -- herky jerky, bouncing from crisis to crisis, overreacting at every step. [...] McCain wants to demonstrate his leadership skills, but instead he's demonstrating beyond any doubt that he is temperamentally unfit to be president."
• tristero: "The McCain campaign's behavior is worse than a cheap stunt; it's seriously panicky behavior, the last thing this country needs from its leaders."
• Balloon Juice's John Cole: "If you want some moron to run around like his hair is on fire in a time of crisis, McCain is your man."
• Open Left's Chris Bowers: "McCain is crazy out of control. He will do anything crazy if it is perceived as helping him, no matter how ludicrous it actually is (such as, say, picking Palin as VP.) What an incredibly dangerous President this guy would be."

Other liberal bloggers are accusing McCain of cowardice and/or lack of preparedness:

• Willis: "Does McCain realize that there's no 'time out' in the White House?"
• Atrios: "What's the problem, John? Are you chicken?"
• Ezra Klein: "There's every reason to focus [Friday]'s debate on the economic crisis, but no reason to cancel it. And, indeed, McCain is not canceling everything. He is still giving his speech at the Clinton Global Initiative. He is simply hiding from the debate. He's a kid pulling the fire alarm because final is coming up and he hasn't studied. Such a panicked response to declining poll numbers and major national events does not inspire confidence. You don't get to call time out when you're president."
• Think Progress' Matthew Yglesias: "John McCain feels he can't do debate prep and make up his mind about the bailout proposal at the same time. He wants an extension."
• The Nation's Ari Melber: "After calling for debates all summer, John McCain is cutting and running from the first one. [...] McCain says he is taking these dramatic steps because he wants to focus on congressional negotiations over the bailout. It's not clear how a national presidential debate -- the ultimate bully pulpit in this political season -- would detract from any effort to build national consensus on solutions for the economic crisis."

MCCAIN IV: Where Are Your Priorities, John?

Liberal bloggers are arguing that McCain's behavior during the past 24 hours proves that his call to suspend his campaign was nothing more than a political stunt. First of all, they're pointing out that McCain made time to meet with a prominent supporter yesterday morning, as The Politico's Ben Smith reports:

"The McCain campaign's new urgency about the financial crisis didn't entirely clear his schedule this morning. My colleague Amie Parnes reports that he made it to his scheduled morning meeting with Lady Lynn de Rothschild, a Clinton backer who recently came out in support of him. All while Obama was waiting by the phone for a returned call."

• MyDD's Jonathan Singer: "Just how important was it for McCain to make time [for working on the economic crisis]? Apparently not so important to cancel a meeting with a very wealthy supporter this morning, as Ben Smith reports."
• AMERICAblog's John Aravosis: "McCain thought meeting a beautiful filthy rich member of royalty was more important than focusing on the economy today. Yet he now suddenly wants to cancel everything to focus on the economy."
• Marshall: "It seems that today during the time Barack Obama was waiting to hear back from Sen. McCain about their planned joint statement -- and while McCain says he was meeting with key advisors and becoming increasingly concerned about the financial crisis facing the country -- he was actually holding a special meeting with Lady Lynn Forester de Rothschild, the expat international financier who once supported Hillary Clinton but now is supporting McCain because she thinks Obama is 'elitist'."

Second, liberal bloggers are pointing out that McCain didn't fly to Washington immediately, but instead gave a speech this morning at the Clinton Global initiative in New York City:

• TalkLeft's Big Tent Democrat: "Can someone explain to me how time is of the essence requiring cancellation of the Presidential debate but it does not require McCain to cancel his appearance at the Clinton Global Initiative? [...] This makes no sense. Clearly this is a stunt by McCain."
• Benen: "I'm afraid I must be a little fuzzy on what it means to 'suspend' one's presidential campaign. As John McCain sees it, the crisis on Wall Street is so serious, he couldn't possibly recommend a proposal and seek the presidency at the same time, and the idea of taking 90 minutes to debate Barack Obama is just wrong. McCain can, however, stop by New York to address the Clinton Global Initiative, in part to talk about why he can't make any political appearances during the economic crisis."

MCCAIN V: Smart Politics Or Stupid Politics?

A few liberal bloggers also thought that McCain's move was politically savvy:

• digby: "I actually think this is pretty savvy. He doesn't want to give the country a chance to see the two of them together right now and make the logical comparisons. He also wants to show that he can 'take charge' in a crisis and the optics of this are that he's rushing back to to Washington to knock some heads together."
• Moulitsas: "It's not a bad political stunt. He gets to play at being 'bipartisan', at a time his campaign is getting pummeled. And he has yet another excuse to keep Palin hidden away in [Dick] Cheney's undisclosed location."

Others aren't so sure:

• FiveThirtyEight's Nate Silver: "Maybe I'm grossly misreading this, but I don't think McCain's decision to 'suspend' his campaign today self-evidently looks Presidential. It could look Presidential, or it could look like a stunt. [...] The cumulative audience between the three Presidential debates will likely significantly exceed that of the Super Bowl. [Americans] like watching them, and look forward to them. If McCain denies them that pleasure, they are likely to be angry with him, perhaps in ways they have difficulty expressing."
• Firedoglake's Spencer Ackerman: "John McCain started the day as a presidential candidate slightly down in the polls. [...He] ended the day as, literally, a national joke. I think he's done. Really. This is one unforced error atop another. The McCain campaign is now suggesting suspending the Biden-Palin debate. It's almost as if they think that compounding the initial mistake would wash the whole thing clean. Did McCain hire Bob Shrum and not tell anyone? [...] John McCain lost the election today. He looks erratic, panicked, utterly unable to assess a situation for what it is and mistaken about what his relationship to the electorate is. The only question at this point is how McCain rehabilitates his post-defeat reputation and continues in public life even as a fraction of the statesman he used to be."

MCCAIN VI: A Brilliant Maneuver!

Most conservative bloggers are praising McCain's move and panning Obama's response:

• NRO's Peter Kirsanow: "McCain looks like a decisive man of action and Obama looks like a guy who prefers to vote 'present' in the midst of a crisis."
• Townhall's Hugh Hewitt: "The contrast between McCain as a leader and Obama as a schemer has never been more clear than today, and it will be incredible if a majority of Americans forget this sharp contrast over the next six weeks. John McCain is absolutely right to focus on the legislation and to suspend his campaign until that solution emerges. McCain will never be accused of fiddling while the markets burned, while Obama now owns the consequences of putting his political ambitions ahead of the country's interests. I guess Obama's reaction to a terrorist attack would have been to hold another fund-raiser? Perhaps Obama just doesn't understand the significance of what is going on?"
• Townhall's Mike Gallagher: "I have never been prouder of John McCain. [...] John McCain made a decision to do his job. After all, like Obama, he is a sitting U.S. Senator. McCain announced that he's suspending his campaign, heading to Washington and doing everything he can to help get this economic calamity fixed. Sen. Obama wants to put on the make-up and and smile pretty for the TV cameras in Oxford, Mississippi, site of tomorrow night's scheduled debate. What a dramatic difference between these two men. John McCain is a natural leader, Barack Obama is a wanna-be."
• RedState's Pejman Yousefzadeh: "This is entirely the right thing to do. [...] The debate can be 'on' but why the need to have it this Friday night? Surely, there are more pressing issues -- like the resolution of any legislation to deal with the current economic crisis, nyet? We can have the debate later. For now, we need Senator McCain, Senator Obama and Senator Biden to attend to the duties they are currently being paid for and get to work with others from both parties in order to fashion a legislative compromise."
• NRO's Jonah Goldberg: "Politically, I think it is shrewd, even wise. It demonstrates McCain's willingness to make politics and partisanship a secondary concern. Obviously, some of McCain's detractors will see it as a gimmick. But politics is all about gimmickry in a sense. [...] As a matter of civics, I am at a loss to understand what the argument against this could possibly be. I didn't much like the cancellation of the first night of the GOP convention because of the hurricane. Democracy should go on, and all that. But postponing a debate so that the world's oldest deliberative body can tackle the most pressing domestic crisis in modern memory seems both democratic and appropriate. The debate in Congress isn't a photo-op. It's what Congress is for."
• Townhall's Matt Lewis: "This seems to me to be a very politically sagacious move. It shows McCain is putting the economy before politics and is putting his Senatorial duties before politics. By calling for this unilaterally, McCain is demonstrating bold and strong leadership -- and is once again defining the 'debate'. This may also serve to sort of recalibrate the political mood, which has been decidedly bad for McCain since the economic news broke."
• Power Line's Paul Mirengoff: "This seems like a good move. If Obama agrees, he's following McCain, not leading. Moreover, Obama seems to have 'momentum' on his side right now, so a 'time-out' might help McCain marginally. If Obama doesn't agree, he may be seen as unwilling to put 'country first.' And if a deal is negotiated (something I think most Americans would like to see, as a general matter), then McCain will receive credit and Obama won't. Finally, if Obama is campaigning while McCain isn't, the focus may shift back to him. In this race, staged conventions aside, increased focus seems to correlate with slippage in the polls. That was the case with Obama following his trip abroad and the case with McCain following the Republican convention."
• AmSpec Blog's J.P. Freire: "It's a smart move. McCain says, 'This goes further than politics.' He reaches out to Obama. Media attention suddenly forgets about his absurd thirst for Chris Cox's blood. Now, the media is talking about how McCain initiated a rise above campaign smears. So long to that line about 'McCain Is Running A Filthy Lying Campaign.' Symbolically speaking, McCain wins the news cycle today. Any possible campaign stops he'd have over the next few days wouldn't have yielded the kind of press he's going to get for doing this."
• NRO's Michael Ledeen: "I think we sometimes get so involved with inside baseball that it becomes impossible to see real leadership. McCain is right: if this crisis is as grave as most everyone says, it should be the only thing, not just the most important thing for those who would be president."

MCCAIN VII: This Was Probably A Good Move, But...

Other conservative bloggers offered more muted praise for McCain's decision:

• Townhall's Jonathan Garthwaite: "I tend to agree with Matt [Lewis], Hugh [Hewitt], et al that McCain campaign suspension and questioning of the debate schedule was a smart decision. It hasn't been a great couple of days for the McCain campaign and McCain had to make sure the American public knew he was taking the economic situation seriously. That being said, in my humble opinion, McCain needs to be careful not to take it too far. To disarm unilaterally in the ad wars and risk looking weak as a no-show to Friday's debate would be disasterous."
• Right Wing News' John Hawkins: "Was it a good move? Yes, but only if McCain takes advantage of the situation. If McCain goes to D.C. and ends up helping to push through a 700 billion dollar nightmare for the American taxpayers, I think it will remind conservatives exactly what they don't like about the guy: that he is very bipartisan, but 'bipartisan' to him means screwing conservatives. [...] However, if McCain, who does have a good reputation as a fiscal conservative, helps bring about a better, more fiscally responsible bill or even helps stop this bill and gets another debate at a better time, he has made this situation work for him. Whatever the case may be, he has shown leadership -- but, let's just hope he's not leading us down the road to perdition with this bill."
• NRO's Jim Geraghty: "I am not certain McCain is right on the politics of this, i.e., whether or not the public will agree with him that this is a good idea. But I think it's probably right as a matter of policy. There's still plenty of time to do three presidential and one vice-presidential debate. [...] Postpone the debate. Pass the bill. Get the toxic loans out of the system. Save the economy."
• NRO's Rich Lowry: "I'm a 'the show must go on' guy. I didn't like that McCain cancelled the first day of the Republican convention. So I don't see why we can't have a presidential debate even in the midst of this crisis. On the other hand, my preferences aside, there's the politics of McCain's move, which may work to his advantage. 1) He needed to change the story line and flush out the 'fundamentals of the economy strong' mis-step from last week, and this does it; 2) it's not going to strike most people as wrong or unreasonable for a senator to go to Washington and participate in a senate debate over this historic bailout package; 3) as long as it isn't perceived as gimmicky, people will like the anti-politics-as-usual feel of McCain 'suspending' his campaign; 4) they can still have the debate next week."

MCCAIN VIII: He Did What?

A few conservative bloggers were less fond of McCain's decision:

• AmSpec Blog's Philip Klein: "This is the latest bizarre move in a really erratic week and a half for the Republican nominee."
• AmSpec Blog's Robert Stacy McCain: "Let's not mince words. It's just plain crazy, is what it is. I can't think of any way to justify this move. Can anyone else?"
• AmSpec Blog's James Antle: "This move would make more sense if Obama had agreed to do the same thing or seemed likely to feel pressure to do so. I understand McCain wants to be the country-first problem-solver here. But being out there by himself asking for the debate to be delayed and attracting headlines that say 'McCain Suspends Campaign' just doesn't seem helpful."
• Hot Air's Allahpundit: "He's trying to siphon off some of Obama's strength with voters on the economy, obviously, but er...at the expense of a debate on foreign policy that would have played to his own strength? What does McCain gain by steering the campaign towards an issue for which the public blames his party?"
• The Next Right's Sean Oxendine: "(1.) I don't like the decision to suspend his campaign. For one thing, I think it is lose-lose for him. If there is a deal, it is going to be extremely unpopular with large swaths of the electorate. The politically savvy decision, at least in the short term, is to rail against Wall Street bailouts while hoping the deal goes through. If there is no deal, John McCain looks like he can't get things done. (2.) I also don't like it because it reeks of desperation. This is especially apparent at a time when the bottom really is falling out for McCain's polling numbers. It's still a long way to November, but it isn't THAT long. (3.) On the other hand, just because I don't like it, doesn't mean that he didn't have to do it. It's a desperate sounding move, but I do think with what's going on in the polls, he had to do something. And he may have already been in a no-win situation."

MCCAIN IX: The Rick Davis Files

Yesterday we noted that liberal bloggers were accusing the McCain camp of hypocrisy and corruption after The New York Times and Newsweek reported that the lobbying firm owned by McCain's campaign manager Rick Davis was receiving $15,000 monthly payments from Freddie Mac as recently as last month. McCain blogger Michael Goldfarb wrote a 700-word response attacking The New York Times and asserting that Davis "has seen no income from [his lobbying company] Davis Manafort since 2006." Liberal bloggers are arguing that Goldfarb's response is inadequate, pointing out that it doesn't deny the central revelation of the Times and Newsweek articles -- namely, that Davis's firm received "$15,000 monthly payments from Freddie Mac, which began while Davis was still running the firm":

• The New Republic's Jason Zengerle: "This is a nice bit of sleight of hand on Goldfarb's part. The NYT story doesn't allege that Davis himself was paid by Freddie Mac until last month; rather, it alleges that his firm -- from which, as the NYT story notes, he's been on leave during the presidential campaign -- was paid by Freddie Mac. [...] Goldfarb is basically answering an allegation the Times story doesn't make. Indeed, the central allegation of the Times story is that McCain was either misinformed or was lying when he recently said that Davis's work with the mortgage giant ended in 2005 when it dissolved its Homeownership Alliance, of which Davis served as president (for the princely sum of $30,000 to $35,000 a month). As today's NYT story reports, after the Homeownership Alliance was disbanded, Davis went to Freddie Mac and asked to be put on a retainer, for $15,000 a month. Nowhere in Goldfarb's rebuttal does he address -- or even acknowledge -- that charge."
• Benen: "The McCain campaign went to quite a bit of trouble this morning to offer a detailed denial that doesn't actually deny the charges at hand, and doesn't even try to answer any of the unresolved questions, including the fact that McCain's public statements now appear to contradict the public record on Davis' activities. [...] Remember, the McCain campaign walked right into this one, insisting that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were largely responsible for the Wall Street crisis, and any associations between a candidate and officials at the lending companies are necessarily scandalous. Talk about leading with one's chin...."
• Marshall: "At this point with Davis and the campaign caught in so many different lies, do they really have any credibility to make such claims absent actual evidence? I mean, just yesterday Davis was saying he hadn't had any contact with the mortgage giants since the front group he ran for them shut down in 2005. And now we learn that the following year he asked [Freddie Mac] to keep sending more checks, apparently in return for no services rendered -- a point, you should note, that Goldfarb appears unable to deny. Second, if I'm an owner of a company, I don't have to draw compensation today to reap benefits from the company's current success and profits."
• Firedoglake's Christy Hardin Smith: "Since the McCain campaign official statement denies that Davis was 'lobbying,' perhaps McCain can explain why Freddie Mac agreed to monthly payments of $15,000 per invoice which Davis personally requested from them? What exactly was Mr. Davis doing to earn this 'fee?'"

Open Left's Matt Stoller: "McCain's campaign manager Rick Davis is basically still on Freddie Mac's payroll. This is literally the most openly corrupt and dishonest campaign I've ever seen."

In a related development, Newsweek reported last night that Davis "has remained the treasurer and a corporate director of his lobbying firm this year, despite repeated statements by campaign officials that he had ended his relationship with the firm in 2006, according to corporate records":

• Marshall: "Seems like only yesterday the McCain was explaining to us, no, lecturing us on how Rick Davis has completely severed his ties from his lobbying firm that was taking $15,000 a month from Freddie Mac until August. Guess that didn't pan out. Turns out he's still a director and treasurer of the firm."
• Firedoglake's Lindsay Beyerstein: "If you are still a director of a company, you have not separated from it. The McCain camp is lying again."

PALIN: Another Interview Disaster

Liberal bloggers believe that Palin gave embarrassingly weak answers during the first part of her interview with Couric (video here, transcript here):

• The Atlantic's Ta-Nehisi Coates: "Not as bad as [her interview with ABC's Charles] Gibson, but good lord. This campaign is now officially surreal. If Palin is supposed to be the 'ordinary American' she passed that test -- she really does sound like an ordinary American. Her answers sound like the responses Couric would get if she interview one of my friends. At three A./M. After a night of drinking."
• dday: "Good God. I don't know what to say. [...] I think the wrong candidate decided to suspend their campaign. No wonder they're trying to spike the VP debate."
• Atrios: "Oh my is this a horror show."
• Moulitsas: "Trainwreck. She makes Bush look good. Amazing, but she does."
• Cole: "Good Lord. Sarah Palin's CBS interview with Katie Couric was a train wreck. [...] Now do you understand why they are trying to weasel out of the debate?"
• BooMan: "Look at Sarah Palin. Look at her. She has no clue. She has absolutely zero clue. John McCain wants to delay the first presidential debate and the vice-presidential debate. Does he think delay can help turn Sarah Palin into a credible public servert...a credible potential president? Please. No amount of training can cure Stupid."
• Daily Kos' Meteor Blades: "I am torn between wanting to watch and parse every word of this deliciously telling interview and wanting to turn away in nearly sympathetic embarrassment for Palin. Yet 76% of Republicans still believe she is 'prepared.' Prepared for what, exactly? Not only does she not get it. She doesn't get that she doesn't get it."

PALIN II: So This Is Why McCain Wants To Postpone The VP Debate...

Many bloggers believe the McCain camp is proposing to postpone the VP debate because they're afraid that Palin isn't ready:

• Benen: "The Couric interview reinforced what many already feared -- the notion that Palin is ready for primetime is ridiculous, and the idea that she's prepared to be one heartbeat from the presidency in four months is literally laughable. There's a very good reason the McCain campaign wants to delay the Palin-Biden debate, and it has nothing to do with Wall Street."
• Cole: "Sarah Palin is clearly not ready to debate next week, and the McCain campaign is desperate for a way to postpone her appearance."
• Moulitsas: "So we know the McCain campaign is maneuvering to cancel the vice-presidential debate. [...] I'm guessing it's the debate prep. They've had [Palin] in Wingnut U for the past two weeks, cramming for all the shit she needs to know but knows nothing about. And at some point, probably abetted by McCain's and Palin's collapsing numbers, the campaign realized that they'd be even more fucked than now if she went through with the debate. Because really, there's NO other reason why this would make sense. None."
• Aravosis: "A grander pattern is emerging as to what was motivating McCain's Hail Mary publicity stunt today. For starters, we now have the first look at Sarah Palin's interview with Katie Couric. Palin is in so far over her head, it isn't even funny."
• Mother Jones' Kevin Drum: "A couple of hours ago I suggested that maybe John McCain would try to postpone the first debate to October 2nd because that would then eliminate the vice presidential debate. (So sad....) I thought I was just being hackishly cynical when I said that, but no: according to CNN, that's exactly what McCain is proposing. The VP debate would then be 'rescheduled.' (Perhaps to November 5th, joked Dana Milbank.) My lesson for the day: No matter how hackishly cynical you think you are, you're no match for the hackish cynicism of the McCain campaign."
• hilzoy: "Like Kevin Drum, I had been saying 'ha ha, I suppose they'll try to reschedule the first Presidential debate for October 2nd', as a joke. Silly me, and silly Kevin, to think that the McCain campaign would manage not to make that ludicrous unforced error. I think I know why, though: after her interview with Katie Couric, they surely cannot want Sarah Palin to have one more moment of unscripted TV time than is absolutely necessary."

CLINTON: Bubba Spins For McCain

Bill Clinton is once again making waves with his kind words for McCain -- particularly his defense of McCain's decision to suspend his campaign and back out of Friday's debate. Conservative bloggers are enjoying Clinton's behavior:

• Allahpundit: "Think he's enjoying feeding The One this turdburger in bite-sized morsels as thanks for all the racial demagoguery thrown at him during the primary? The best part of this isn't the 'good faith' bit but his point -- which he repeats, so that no one misses it -- that Maverick actually wanted more debates, not less. That'll be a handy riposte tomorrow if McCain ends up skipping out and the left starts accusing him of being scared. Exit question that's really not a question: Dude, he's totally voting Republican this year, isn't he?"
• NRO's Kathryn Jean Lopez: "Bill Clinton [is] not very far away from campaigning for John McCain."
• Glenn Reynolds: "McCain's lucky to have such a supporter."

Liberal bloggers, on the other hand, are annoyed:

• Stoller: "Bill Clinton continues to praise McCain. The Clinton's are obviously split; they are helping Obama, but want Obama to lose so that she can run again in 2012. People are already informally lining up behind her in case Obama loses. Pathetic."
• Yglesias: "Recall that John McCain has been pretty rude to George W. Bush throughout his campaign, busy angrily denying that there's any similarity between the two GOP leaders and their policy agenda. Nevertheless, Bush is sufficiently committed to conservatism that as best I can tell he's been unfailingly helpful to McCain's efforts. Not sometimes helpful but always helpful."

The Atlantic's Andrew Sullivan: "Bill Clinton [is] now openly spinning for McCain. It doesn't surprise me, but it may surprise others."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: An Election About Nothing

The Atlantic's Ross Douthat:

"McCain's gamble may be politically smart, or it may be politically stupid, but like almost everything that's happened in this campaign since the two candidates locked up their respective nominations, it's primarily interesting on a tactical level; its substantive import is close to nil. Both McCain and Obama are almost certain, at this point, to end up supporting whatever bailout compromise is hashed out in Congress, which means that we'll be able to add the current economic crisis to the list of issues where the two candidates have managed to avoid anything like a sustained argument about policy. It's the Russo-Georgian War all over again: McCain responds boldly/impulsively, Obama responds carefully/overcautiously, but they both end up saying roughly the same thing, and the pundit class goes back to obsessing about whatever shocking poll or web ad has been released that day."

LEST WE FORGET: 'Boring,' Hillary Clinton Shouts From Senate Seat

From The Onion:

"WASHINGTON -- In a blatant show of disgust and indifference toward her senatorial duties, Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY) repeatedly yelled 'boring' from her seat Wednesday, interrupting New Mexico senator Jeff Bingaman's speech in support of S. 3125, a bill that would extend certain expiring provisions of the Internal Tax Revenue Code of 1986.

Clinton's declaration of boredom and the various iterations that followed—including shouts of 'Bored,' 'I'm bored,' 'This is stupid,' 'This is boring,' and 'Oh my God, I'm so bored' -- were not reportedly targeted at one person in particular but at the entire assembly. According to those senators present, Clinton delivered her unprompted remarks while she slouched in her chair, rested her head atop the back of her seat, and fixed her eyes on the Senate Chamber's ceiling. [...]

'Stop being boring,' Clinton added. 'Why can't we do something fun for a change, like run for president?'"

Posted by Ian Faerstein at 01:21 PM

September 24, 2008

9/24: This Isn't Going Over Well...

The Bush Admin.'s proposed $700 billion bailout of financial institutions continues to dominate the conversation in the political blogosphere. Many liberal bloggers have concluded that the Bush Admin. is exaggerating the severity of the financial crisis in order to push through the bailout plan with as little debate as possible, and they're growing increasingly angry about it. Atrios accuses the Bush Admin. of "attempting to steal $700 billion and give it to Wall Street." Markos Moulitsas warns of political consequences for lawmakers who support the plan:

"This ridiculous bailout plan needs to be immediately snuffed out. Anyone who votes for this thing won't face just trouble this November, but in 2010 when primary season comes around."

Most conservative bloggers are also opposed to the bailout, albeit not as fiercely as are liberal bloggers. Many righty bloggers believe that it's in John McCain's interest to vote against it. Matt Lewis writes:

"...This is a golden opportunity for John McCain. By opposing the bailout, he would be essentially be following the same recipe he used when deciding to pick Sarah Palin; it's both a bold move -- and a conservative move!"

$700 BILLION BAILOUT: The Numbers Just Don't Add Up...

Liberal bloggers reacted with anger to WH Deputy Press Secretary Tony Fratto's warning that provisions limiting executive pay would reduce participation in the bailout program:

"With respect to executive pay, again, I'm not going to get into specific, point-by-point details on what our views are on that, other than the Secretary of Treasury said it would make more difficult to make this plan work and effective if you provide disincentives for companies and firms out there who are holding mortgage-backed securities and other securities from participating in the program. You have to remember, these are not all weak or troubled firms that own mortgage-backed securities. A lot of them are very successful banks and investment houses that have done very well, have been responsible, are holding performing assets that have value. They were not necessarily irresponsible players, and so you have to be careful about how you deal with them."

Liberal bloggers are arguing that if financial firms truly needed this $700 billion bailout, then the Bush Admin. wouldn't be concerned about creating "disincentives" for participating in the program:

• Moulitsas: "'Careful how you deal with them'? How about you LET THE FUCKING FREE MARKET HANDLE IT then? If they want taxpayer funds to bail out their incompetence, they give up equity, they accept limits on executive compensation. If they don't want those conditions imposed on them, they don't take our money. Simple, right? And if they don't take our money, who cares? They are strong and successful! And the taxpayers don't have to give up a dime. Everyone wins! I am now certain that this is all a giveaway to the GOP's friends on Wall Street and an effort to financially handcuff the next administration. It has little to do with saving the economy. Otherwise, Treasury and White House officials wouldn't be talking about bribing and arm twisting these banks into taking government handouts."
• Open Left's Chris Bowers: "Deputy Press Secretary Ton Fratto tells us that the banks we are bailing out are actually good firms with a lot of profitable assets. [...] Um, then why are we bailing them out? I thought there was a crisis. Now the government has to step in and help out hugely profitable firms just because one aspect of those banks is as profitable as the rest? Whenever rich people make a mistake, taxpayers have to plug the gap, even if those rich people are still making huge amounts of money? This is all a lie. They are lying about how much trouble these firms are in. They are lying about their desire for oversight. It is just a big frakkin' lie. I doubt there is a crisis at all."
• TPM's David Kurtz: "The Democratic proposal for limits on executive compensation only applies to firms who participate in the bailout. But apparently the White House view is that 'very successful banks and investment houses that have done very well' should be bailed out, too, and they should be allowed to have their cake and eat it, too. Actually, as I think about it, it's even worse than that. Under its 'the more the merrier' plan, the White House doesn't want firms who are doing just fine to be discouraged from the participating in the bailout. Kind of like the way Republicans always want to make sure we maximize participation in Medicaid, welfare, and other social service programs, right?"

Think Progress' Matthew Yglesias makes a similar point: "I just heard [Fed Chairman] Ben Bernanke saying that there should be no 'punitive measures' for companies that participate in a bailout because that might discourage firms from participating. But that would be the point, right? That if some measure of bailing out is truly necessary then the money will be provided, but it shouldn't just become handouts for bankers. Punitive measures mean that only firms that genuinely have no alternative will enter into the program, and their corrupt or inept managers will be duly punished. Firms that would merely prefer free money to no free money will, by contrast, stay out of the program and avoid punishment but suffer some financial loss. What's the problem with that?"

$700 BILLION BAILOUT II: This Was Planned In Advance?!?

Liberal bloggers are also buzzing over Fratto's contention that "the plan was not slapped together and had been drawn up as a contingency over previous months and weeks by administration officials":

• Firedoglake's emptywheel: "So has the Bush Administration been formulating a plan to bail out their buddies, in secret, because they didn't want to let the voters know how badly they had fucked up the American economy before November? And if that is true, how much worse has the economy gotten -- and how much more expensive will the bailout be -- because the Bushies were trying to hide yet another colossal Republican failure? Or, did they simply not tell us about their fuck-up so they could spring the $700,000,000,000 surprise on us on a Friday and demand results by Monday? The Shock Doctrine at work!"
• digby: "If the Bush administration has been formulating this plan for months and never breathing a word to lawmakers about it, then there is a much bigger story here than we know. This is being presented as a response to an unpredictable crisis. If that's not the case then perhaps some of the conspiracy theories that are floating around are actually true."
• Bowers: "If this is such a sudden crisis, why is it that the Bush administration was drawing up the plan for this bill for months beforehand?"

$700 BILLION BAILOUT III: This Ain't A Real Crisis, People

Many liberal bloggers are concluding that the Bush Admin. is exaggerating the extent of the financial crisis in order to push through the bailout plan with as little debate as possible:

• Moulitsas: "This isn't a real crisis since, as they themselves have told us, they don't want to limit this giveaway to just failing banks, but to all of Wall Street, even the 'very successful banks and investment houses that have done very well'. So since the fate of the free world doesn't really reside on this bill, they can spring it at the most opportune moment. And in this case, it was in a shortened congressional session just days before final adjournment before the elections. They're so used to crying wolf and having Democrats jump at the site of men in suits carrying briefcases, that they were confident they could roll the Democratic leadership with their Chicken Little act, all the while keeping their own troops in line."
• Atrios: "It's quite possible that some sort of government action at some point might be desirable. But the way this was dropped on the Democrats is how everything has always been dropped on the Democrats by the administration. GOP Daddies In Nice Suits quietly explain that unless they do exactly what they demand, the world will blow up and it will be all the Democrats' fault. Usually the Dems fall for it, and initially it looked like they were going to fall for it again. Will they? Stay tuned."
• Bowers: "There no crisis. [...] I am not saying that there is no need for government intervention. I am saying that the case for a $700 billion bailout is far from having been made. Until the case is made, there is no need to go forward. We will elect a new President in 42 days. We swear in a new Congress in 103 days. What is the rush? Why does this all of a sudden need to be done while the Bush administration is still in charge? The case hasn't been made, and answers are slow in coming, if they come at all."

$700 BILLION BAILOUT IV: Only Fools Rush In...

Many liberal bloggers are urging lawmakers not to be hasty in passing bailout legislation of this magnitude:

• Yglesias: "Even if the strong version of the maybe there is no crisis theory is wrong, it's doubly unclear why [Treasury Sec.] Hank Paulson needs $700 billion this week since he's clearly not going to spend nearly that much by Halloween. If congress feels like taking Paulson at his word, they can appropriate some fraction of $700 billion deemed adequate to tide Paulson over until November, add on a second stimulus and some measures to start reorganizing mortgages, and then let everybody keep studying the issue. Then if Paulson wants more money after the election, he can send a request that's coordinated with the president-elect's transition team to the lame-duck congress. Why should a rushed process commit us to spending months from now?"
• Ezra Klein: "I'm very sympathetic to the point of view that says we shouldn't be rushed into anything. [...] If Wall Street were teetering on the brink of collapse, their only hope of survival a $700 billion emergency action from the government, they'd be in a state of total desperation and Paulson and Bernanke would be able to dictate terms. As it is, they're instead creating a package meant to entice firms into participating: They'll buy assets without demanding equity, purchased the assets at 'maturity' rather than current prices, protect them from congressional oversight, etc. If Wall Street is in a position to haggle, it's hard to imagine it's also about to collapse."
• digby: "The only responsible thing to do is to figure out a way to stanch the bleeding until the voters decide which candidate and party they prefer to lead them through this crisis. Ramming this through five weeks before an election, in the same way they rammed through the Iraq war resolution in 2002, with public fear mongering and threats to lawmakers that they will suffer at the ballot box if they don't go along, is a recipe for disaster."

Others are denouncing the Bush Admin.'s bailout plan in even stronger language:

• Moulitsas: "There are so many good reasons to oppose this plan -- on policy, on politics, on common sense -- that it's crazy to think that anyone is even remotely taking it seriously. It's not a bailout, it's a gift to the Wall Street elites who made a bad bet, and now want us to pay the bill. [...] This ridiculous bailout plan needs to be immediately snuffed out. Anyone who votes for this thing won't face just trouble this November, but in 2010 when primary season comes around. You want a bipartisan popular revolt on both sides of the ideological divide? This will do the trick."
• Open Left's Matt Stoller: "This is a wildly unpopular bill, and [Barack] Obama's already saying he's going to give up on some of his priorities to pay for it. And no one has explained why this bill needs to happen and why $700 billion is the magic sum. A 'hell no' is a really good answer to this lying gang of thieves, including their new GOP Daddy Hank Paulson, the shithead in charge of this scam who asked for unaccountable authority and then pretended he didn't."

$700 BILLION BAILOUT V: Standing Athwart History, Yelling "Stop!"

Many conservative bloggers also oppose the bailout, although they're not criticizing it as fiercely as are liberal bloggers:

• RedState's Erick Erickson: "How quickly the GOP has forgotten...They just adopted their darn platform for 2008. You can read it here. Let me pull out the key paragraph for you: 'We do not support government bailouts of private institutions. Government interference in the markets exacerbates problems in the marketplace and causes the free market to take longer to correct itself. We believe in the free market as the best tool to sustained prosperity and opportunity for all.'"
• AmSpec Blog's Robert Stacy McCain: "I believe in capitalism, which means I believe in profits and losses. This bailout plan is about the feds trying to pretend there are no losses from the housing bubble. As Sen. Richard Shelby says, there's not even any guarantee that the bailout will fix the problem -- we might pay $700 billion for nothing. So, forget it -- I'm against the bailout. Get the government out of the way and let the market fix itself. It always does. That would mean short-term economic hardship for a lot of people (your 401K is going to go south for a while), but in the long run, the preservation of free enterprise is more important that the immediate pain of the correction."
• Michelle Malkin: "We don't have to have this trillion-dollar bailout shoved down our throats. You can make a difference. [...] Make your voice heard now. Every second counts: 202-224-3121."
• AmSpec Blog's Philip Klein: "I don't think that conservatives who are supporting the plan have fully considered how it means the end of capitalism, and the beginning of European-style socialism in the U.S. I don't think I'm exaggerating. [...] In reaction to the Paulson plan, Democrats in Congress are moving to restrict executive compensation of companies seeking taxpayer help, as well as give the government shares in the companies. And within the logic of the bailout, can you blame them? If Paulson wants to socialize the risk that financial institutions have taken, than how could anybody argue that the resulting profits shouldn't be shared by all? The result, however, would be the government having an ownership stake in every major financial institution, as well as a say on who gets paid how much."
• NRO's Jonah Goldberg: "I've decided I'm against [the bailout]. [...] Basically, I think the bad paper should stay with the people who bought it. If we need to further capitalize the banks, create short term rules or cobble together other backstops, fine. But Paulson's plan basically says, 'I am the Lord thy God,' and that's crazy. Also, it seems to me that Newt [Gingrich] and the editors of NR are right when they worry that the Paulson plan essentially opens the door to unending government control of capital markets and that, too, is just crazy. Even if I completely trusted the wisdom of Paulson and his bureaucrats -- which I don't -- there's no way that I trust the Dodds, Franks or the next Treasury secretary. Every day the markets don't go off the cliff suggests to me that we can do this in stages and that Paulson's do-it-my-way-or-it's-the-Dark-Ages-for-us-all argument doesn't hold water."

$700 BILLION BAILOUT VI: An Opportunity For McCain?

Many conservative bloggers believe that McCain should oppose the bailout, for both political and philosophical reasons:

• Lewis: "I also think this is a golden opportunity for John McCain. By opposing the bailout, he would be essentially be following the same recipe he used when deciding to pick Sarah Palin; it's both a bold move -- and a conservative move! Moreover, he would essentially be the one offering change from the Bush/Obama bailout. Does Obama really want to be the one giving George Bush a blank check? In short, I don't think McCain should do this for political reasons. However, I think there are strong philosophical -- and political -- reasons for McCain to oppose this."
• Townhall's Amanda Carpenter: "There are a lot of good reasons to oppose the bailout, but McCain has already drawn a bright-line on oversight so I'll go with that. Here's Section 8 of Paulson's 3-page version of the bailout...that was being discussed in the comments on my bailout post below: 'Decisions by the Secretary pursuant to the authority of this Act are non-reviewable and committed to agency discretion, and may not be reviewed by any court of law or any administrative agency.' That's called a blank check made out to a guy, Paulson, whose buddies on Wall Street caused this whole mess to happen in the first place. Do you trust him? I sure don't. [...] John McCain should schedule a trip to the Senate floor without delay to bash this section to death and to knock down any Republicans who might consider handing over such unprecedented power over to Treasury."
• The Next Right's Patrick Ruffini: "People are going to have to bring themselves to admit that the political economy of this matters. There is an election in 41 days. And that the outcome of that election may count for as much or more as the outcome of the bailout. [...] The GOP's best hope of jamming up Obama's messaging on change was not necessarily to stop the bailout, but to seem like the side most hostile to it and to the status quo largely shaped by an an out of control Fannie and Freddie. Driving the fact that Fannie and Freddie were Democratic patronage mills was crucial from day one (instead we got the Chris Cox distraction, which had nothing to do with anything). Also throwing the President's 'ownership society' under the bus -- in which a lot of bad loans were encouraged in the name of showing good minority and low-income homeownership numbers. McCain and the GOP needed to use this to achieve clear separation from Bush and the corrupt Dodd/Rangel Congress, even if it was mostly symbolic on the question of the bailout itself."

MCCAIN: Freddie Mac Buys Some Influence Over Johnny Mac

Liberal bloggers are buzzing about today's New York Times article revealing that the lobbying firm owned by McCain's campaign manager Rick Davis was being paid $15,000/month by Freddie Mac as recently as last month (which directly contradicts an assertion made by McCain on Sunday night):

"WASHINGTON -- One of the giant mortgage companies at the heart of the credit crisis paid $15,000 a month from the end of 2005 through last month to a firm owned by Senator John McCain's campaign manager, according to two people with direct knowledge of the arrangement. The disclosure undercuts a statement by Mr. McCain on Sunday night that the campaign manager, Rick Davis, had had no involvement with the company for the last several years."

Liberal bloggers are also buzzing about a new Newsweek article revealing that Freddie Mac had paid "at least $345,000" to Davis's firm since 2006 under a consulting arrangement initiated by "Davis himself":

Some liberal bloggers are focusing on the fact that McCain made a false statement about his campaign manager's relationship with Freddie Mac:

• Daily Kos' Hunter: "Another day, another lie revealed. Turns out Rick Davis, McCain's campaign manager, was involved with Freddie Mac. Quite recently. [...] I'll just observe that if the McCain campaign is so ticked off at being called liars, they might try, well...not lying."
• MyDD's Todd Beeton: "What this means is that either John McCain was blatantly lying in his interview with [John] Harwood on Sunday or had no idea what his campaign manager was up to. Pick which is worse. [...] This should be absolutely devastating to McCain's bid for the presidency. At the very least, I really don't see how Davis continues on as McCain's campaign manager after tomorrow."

Other liberal bloggers are focusing on what they perceive to be the corrupt nature of the relationship between Davis and Freddie Mac:

• BooMan: "Rick Davis has received obscene compensation to represent the mortgage industry in exchange for basically nothing, no work, just access to John McCain. [...] John McCain has staffed his campaign with people that were being bribed (essentially) to do the bidding of a mortgage industry that has run the U.S. economy onto the shoals. And John McCain wants us to ignore that and trust him to clean up the mess? Please."
• AMERICAblog's John Aravosis: "Newsweek: McCain's campaign manager [was] paid by Fannie and Freddie to do pretty much nothing. The implication being that McCain's campaign manager, Rick Davis, was being paid money in order to keep him happy until McCain became president, and then Fannie and Freddie could call in favors. I'm sorry, but, if true, this story is corrupt as hell. It goes far beyond lobbying. We are talking about potentially buying someone off. And buying them off in order to buy John McCain."
• Obsidian Wings' hilzoy: "If the NYT and Newsweek are right to say that Davis did almost no work for Freddie Mac, that (to my mind) makes the story worse, not better. What McCain spends his time railing against on the campaign trail is 'the lobbyists, politicians, and bureaucrats who succeeded in persuading Congress and the administration to ignore the festering problems at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.' Paying someone to do nothing, because of his 'close ties to Mr. McCain, the Republican presidential nominee, who by 2006 was widely expected to run again for the White House', is about as clear an example of what McCain called 'the Washington culture of lobbying and influence peddling' as you could ask for. McCain is absolutely right to condemn it. He was just wrong about who was 'square in the middle of it.' It wasn't Barack Obama. It was his own campaign manager."

PALIN: The Press Revolts; The Netroots Cheer

The liberal blogosphere is abuzz over the news that CNN pulled its TV crew in protest after the McCain camp decided to exclude pool reporters from Palin's sessions with foreign leaders:

"NEW YORK -- Republican vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin, who has not held a press conference in nearly four weeks of campaigning, on Tuesday barred most pool reporters from her meeting with Afghan President Hamid Karzai, the first foreign head of state she has ever met.

Journalists protested the campaign's decision to exclude all but photographers and a TV crew from Palin's sessions with foreign leaders. CNN decided to withdraw its TV crew, effectively denying Palin the high visibility she sought for her initial foray into world affairs. The campaign then reversed course, saying pool reporters -- a small group that provides information to all media -- could attend the meetings planned after Karzai hosted Palin at his suite in The Barclay New York Hotel."

Liberal bloggers are praising CNN for taking a stand and are criticizing the McCain camp for trying to shield Palin from the press:

• Bowers: "Mark this down as a first. Upon hearing that reporters would be barred from attending Palin's staged meetings with a few international heads of state, CNN actually pulled its television feed in protest. In so doing, they were actually allowed access to the event. [...] Wow, this is an actual hopeful sign that the press is getting sick of the way they are being treated by the McCain campaign, and by the abject cynicism of choosing a one-line photo-op as a Vice-President. [...] If you are constantly insulted and deligitimized by one campaign, why continue to cover that campaign at all? If someone is scoring points off you by insulting you, how can you respect yourself if you just keep doing what that person tells you to do? Stand up and show some respect for yourselves. CNN has taken the first positive step in that direction."
• Mother Jones' Kevin Drum: "The purpose of [Palin's] visit [to the UN] is to, um, expand her already substantial experience in foreign affairs, and the McCain campaign wanted all the networks to cover it, of course. But they didn't want anyone asking Palin any questions. And then they decided they didn't even want reporters present, even if they kept silent. Just a camera, so that Palin's smiling face would show up on the network news deep in discussion with important foreign leaders. But what do you know? Apparently the networks actually balked at being used quite so baldly. So the McCain campaign backed down and is now allowing one (1) CNN producer in the room along with the camera operator. But still no questions, I gather. Wouldn't want to put Palin under too much pressure, after all."
• The Washington Monthly's Steve Benen: "The McCain campaign's overbearing handlers are panicked at the notion of a candidate for national office hearing an unscripted question for which she has not been prepped. As a result, they want the benefit of the images, without the risk of embarrassment. As it turns out, presidential campaigns in a democracy don't work this way."
• TPM's Greg Sargent: "Between the stiff-arm Palin has given the press, the constant lying from the McCain campaign, and the McCain camp's adolescent acting-out about the media's alleged mistreatment of longtime media fave McCain, it seems clear that relations between the McCain campaign and the media are approaching a breaking point. Whether this will materially impact the race is unclear, but that's where we are now."
• Marshall: "If Sarah Palin has to be treated with kid gloves to this extent how feeble must she be?"

The Atlantic's Andrew Sullivan urges the press to "demand access": "The press is beginning to resist the incredibly sexist handling of Palin by the McCain campaign. There is a simple point here: any candidate for president should be as available to press inquiries as humanly possible. Barring a press conference for three weeks, preventing any questions apart from two television interviews, one by manic partisan Sean Hannity, devising less onerous debate rules for a female candidate, and then trying to turn the press into an infomercial for the GOP is beyond disgraceful. Fight back, you hacks! Demand access. Demand accountability! It's our duty. If we cannot ask questions of a total newbie six weeks before an election in which she could become president of the country, then the First Amendment is pointless. Grow some!"

Aravosis makes a similar point: "Why is the corporate media continuing to subsidize John McCain's free photo opps by having staff on his bus and plane? It costs a fortune to have reporters embedded with the candidates. And for what purpose? When you travel with Palin and McCain you will not ever be permitted to pose a single question. You are window dressing, there to take pictures and parrot the Palin/McCain message of the day. [...] Why is the media putting up with this? [...] Pull your reporters from coverage of the McCain campaign until Palin and McCain start acting like big boys and girls, like potential future leaders of the free world."

BIDEN: Gaffe Machine

Conservative bloggers are mocking Joe Biden after the DE senator made a series of gaffes in the last few days:

• NRO's Yuval Levin: "So in the last 24 hours we have seen Joe Biden call an Obama campaign ad terrible and say it would never have happened if he had known about it; Barack Obama say Joe Biden should not have opposed the AIG bailout last week; and Joe Biden disagreeing with Obama's position on clean coal and telling a voter (rather unpleasantly) that his view, not Obama's, is the campaign's position. Not a great sign from the guys who argue that running a campaign is a substitute for executive experience."
• Townhall's Hugh Hewitt: "Obama's running mate is an absurd caricature of a pol, and his silliness has begun to illuminate Obama's lousy judgment -- again."
• Right Wing News' John Hawkins: "I guarantee you, after hearing Joe Biden pump out gaffes non-stop for 48 hours, Obama probably wishes he could send him to that hut his half-brother lives in until the election, to get him out of the media spotlight."
• NRO's Victor Davis Hanson: "While most forgive the silly slip like 'Barack America' or asking the wheel-chair bound to stand up, I think the Obama staff must have gone from amusement to embarrassment and now to serious concern whether Biden is up to the job. Had this been Palin, the election would now be over."
• Hot Air's Allahpundit: "That's twice now in about 18 hours that Biden's undermined his own campaign. Are they just not cc'ing him on the memos anymore? Has the surging tide of Palinmania caused even Obama HQ to forget that he's part of this campaign? Or is this all part of some dastardly Axelrodian plan to have him gaffe his way off the ticket, clearing the way for Her Majesty to come aboard and bring that stubborn 42 percent with her?"

Righty bloggers are devoting particular scorn to Biden's declaration that he does not support coal plants in America:

• NRO's Jim Geraghty: "By declaring 'no coal plants here in America,' Joe Biden has effectively ceded Western Pennsylvania to the McCain campaign. [...] Good luck winning the state with just Philly and some of the 'burbs, Senators."
• Robert Stacy McCain: "Hey, by the way, Joe, did you know that Pennsylvania's a swing state? Just thought I'd point that out."
• Glenn Reynolds: "There goes the U.M.W. endorsement."
• RedState's Moe Lane: "Thank you, Joe Biden!"

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: The Candidate Of Good And Evil?

Ezra Klein analyzes McCain:

"McCain is, at heart, a relentless personalizer. His attitude towards Russia, as John Judis has detailed at some length, is largely a bunch of Great Power rhetoric pasted atop a primal dislike of Vladimir Putin. His take on the financial crisis was a desperate and slightly comic search for good guys and bad guys. He found, in the 'evil' column, Chris Cox and Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. But he's been unable to explain why any of those players deserve more opprobrium than everyone else. Alan Greenspan, for instance, refused to regulate the subprime market, even after his underlings brought the problems to his attention and begged action from him. Fannie and Freddie were compromised institutions, but no dirtier than dozens of other major investment banks or lenders. And Andrew Cuomo, who McCain has decided is a 'good guy' in the crisis, was the government official who, as HUD Secretary had the power to regulate Fannie and Freddie in the 90s. Not only did he abdicate that responsibility, but he made a series of decisions that hastened their entry into the subprime market.

Of course, McCain's tendency to sort the world into good and evil has held him in good stead till now. It's why reporters love him: A politician willing to trash other politicians makes for a great quote. A candidate willing to enter into bitter feuds with everyone from Grover Norquist to Barack Obama makes for vibrant copy. If you're evaluating the politican-as-narrative-vessel, a tendency to personalize conflict is a tremendous virtue. The problem comes now that McCain is being asked to seriously understand world events and crises, and the public is looking for more than a good quote or an angry denunciation. They're looking for a compelling explanation. And McCain doesn't have any of those."

LEST WE FORGET: Audio Guide Clearly Hates Degas

From The Onion:

"LOS ANGELES -- According to museumgoers at Los Angeles' Getty Center, an automated audio guide for the 19th-century Impressionism art gallery obviously despises French painter Edgar Degas. 'The narrator wouldn't stop gushing about Monet's work with water or Pissarro's "Landscape In The Vicinity Of Louveciennes," but when we got to Degas, she called him a "master of the female form, if you like staring at a bunch of ballerinas and women sitting in bathtubs,"' said Natalie LaTouche, 32. 'And even though she did say that Degas was brilliant at depicting the subtlety of human bodies in motion, she said it really sarcastically.' Others added that when they got to Degas' self-portrait, the audio guide made no mention of the visible brushstrokes or the use of dark and light, instead saying only, 'Interesting fact, he really was that ugly.'"

Posted by Ian Faerstein at 01:01 PM

September 23, 2008

9/23: The Politics Of $700,000,000,000

Nearly all liberal bloggers (and a majority of conservative bloggers) remain fiercely opposed to the Bush Admin.'s $700 billion bailout plan. Some lefty bloggers are cautiously supporting CT Sen. Chris Dodd's alternative plan, but they're worried that congressional Dems will make too many concessions in order to get Dodd's bill passed. Arianna Huffington urges Dem lawmakers to stand firm:

"In the battle over the proper role of government, the forces of the Right, the high priests of the church of the Free Market -- including [George W.] Bush, [Treasury Sec. Henry] Paulson, and the Masters of Wall Street -- have suffered a monumental defeat. So why are we allowing them to dictate the terms of their surrender?"

While Huffington sees this as an opportunity for Dems, other liberal bloggers are worried about the politics of the bailout debate. After conservative blogger Patrick Ruffini urged GOP candidates (including John McCain) to run against the bailout plan (which he described as "the Bush-Pelosi Wall Street bailout"), many liberal bloggers expressed concern that GOPers could succeed in turning the issue against Dems. Like Ruffini, these bloggers believe that GOPers could effectively distance themselves from Bush and portray themselves as a friend to taxpayers if they were to aggressively oppose Bush's bailout plan. Consequently, the netroots are urging Dem lawmakers to proceed slowly with the negotiations.

$700 BILLION BAILOUT: Hell No!

Liberal bloggers remain fiercely opposed to the Bush Admin.'s bailout plan:

• Open Left's Matt Stoller: "Hank Paulson [is] a bad faith actor. This deal is bullshit. Progressives should pick a new number at random to start negotiations, say, $400 billion or $1.2 trillion, and start there with an entirely different framework. It doesn't matter. This is a political game of chicken, and the administration is acting like this is 9/11 and they have another opportunity to rob everyone blind and then run an election on law and order. Fuck them. Hell no."
• Huffington: "We've seen how negligent the Bush administration is with our money -- flushing billions on wasteful, mismanaged Iraq reconstruction and Katrina recovery projects. Now the same folks who brought us those no-bid, profit-guaranteed, crony-friendly, war-and-disaster-profiteering boondoggles want us to hand them control of a $700 billion Wall Street slush fund -- with no strings attached. How dumb -- or frightened -- do they think we are? [...] Let's hope Democratic resolve holds up against the inevitable charges by the Bush administration that demands for oversight, limits on executive compensation, profit sharing for taxpayers, and aid for struggling homeowners will lead to an economic Armageddon. There is no question that the need to address this crisis is urgent and that the issues involved are complex. But urgency and complexity cannot be allowed to become excuses for lawmakers, the media, and the public to throw up their hands and allow themselves to be bull-rushed into disastrous public policy."
• Daily Kos' Hunter: "The more we hear about The Mother Of All Bailouts, the worse it sounds. We can set aside the 'no strings attached' demands by Paulson and Wall Street -- that should obviously be a non-starter. [...] I'm more concerned about the overall premise of the bailout. It seems a bailout of Wall Street, written by Wall Street, benefiting nobody but the very people most at fault for the current financial conditions. [...] I think everyone recognizes that government intervention is necessary. But I'm surprised by the astonishingly narrow boundaries of the debate, which has over the weekend managed to get framed as a Paulson-premised megabailout, or nothing. The Congress would do themselves well to listen to other proposals, and any solution that revolves around bailing out the richest while doing nothing to fix the underlying economic or regulatory problems should be, in any rational world, a non-starter."
• Atrios: "Call your member of Congress. Politely suggest that giving Hank Paulson 700 billion dollars is insane."

$700 BILLION BAILOUT II: The Rightroots (Mostly) Balk

Most conservative bloggers are also opposed to the Bush Admin.'s bailout plan:

• Michelle Malkin: "The battle over the Mother of All Bailouts is a battle for the soul of the Republican Party. A few fiscal conservatives like GOP Rep. Mike Pence are daring to stand up against this disaster. And where is GOP Minority Leader John Boehner? Chastising the Right not to oppose it because 'This is not a time for ideological purity.' What?! When is there a better time for conservative ideological purity than now — now that we face the most massive taxpayer rescue in American history spearheaded by a phenomenally wrong-headed, ChiCom-promoting, liberal Democrat-installing, [Al] Gore global warming alarmist [i.e., Paulson]? Hell, yes, this is a time for 'ideological purity.'"
• Hot Air's Ed Morrissey: "The crux of the skepticism over the plan comes from an absurd protocol at the heart of it. It makes Henry Paulson a de facto financial czar, in charge of potentially a trillion dollars in taxpayer money with no accountability whatsoever for his actions. [...] We don't allow this kind of free agency from elected officials, let alone political appointees. Not even in his role of Commander-in-Chief does a President have a mandate that is completely unreviewable. Henry Paulson may or may not be the most brilliant thinker in high finance, but even if he was, why would Americans want to give him literally a carte blanche with the equivalent of one-third of our annual budget? With no review possible? It's absurd, and at its heart, it's un-American, in the sense that America exists precisely because of our desire to rein in government and make it accountable to the people."
• Townhall's Amanda Carpenter: "Today Congress will consider spending $700 billion of your tax dollars to bailout out a banking industry who did themselves by extending housing credit to people who weren't credit worthy. [...] This is an off-the-rails train wreck, brought to you in only two years by the Democratic Congress. Funny, some conservatives thought we'd have to wait for an Obama administration for socialism to be shoved down our throats. Who knew [Sen. Maj. Leader Harry] Reid and [House Speaker Nancy] Pelosi were so capable?"
• NRO's John Hood: "I understand that a governmental response to financial panic may have a political necessity that forces lawmakers to act in bothersome ways. But that doesn't mean the act itself has to be panicky and muddle-headed. There are quite a few alternatives to granting the next treasury secretary -- remember, it ain't Paulson -- unprecedented power over a wide swath of the American financial system. It is, indeed, possible to make a bad situation worse by adopting poorly thought-out policy responses..."
• AmSpec Blog's Philip Klein: "[SC Sen. Jim] DeMint calls bailout plan 'unacceptable.' Good for him."

Other conservative bloggers appear to cautiously support the plan, albeit with reservations:

• NRO's Rich Lowry: "It seems to me people opposing it have to do two things: 1) Explain why they think a financial meltdown in which the credit markets freeze up either wouldn't be as bad as most everyone thinks, or explain why the resulting mini-depression would be a lesser evil than the Paulson plan (personally, I can't see it); 2) If they aren't willing to do 1), explain what their alternative plan is to stem the financial panic. If they aren't doing either of these two things, opponents of the plan are just blowing smoke."
• NRO's Jonah Goldberg: "I think the bailout plan stinks from my limited and less-than-fully-informed vantage point. But lots of necessary things stink. World War Two was a major bummer, but it was better than the knowable alternatives. Likewise, I haven't seen an alternative proposal that delivers all of the components we seem to need: clarity, action, comprehensiveness etc."

$700 BILLION BAILOUT III: Will The GOP Go Populist?

Conservative blogger Patrick Ruffini generated a lot of buzz in the liberal blogosphere with the following post, in which he outlines a GOP strategy for dealing with the Bush Admin.'s bailout proposal:

"Republican incumbents in close races have the easiest vote of their lives coming up this week: No on the Bush-Pelosi Wall Street bailout.

God Himself couldn't have given rank-and-file Republicans a better opportunity to create political space between themselves and the Administration. That's why I want to see 40 Republican No votes in the Senate, and 150+ in the House. If a bailout is to pass, let it be with Democratic votes. Let this be the political establishment (Bush Republicans in the White House + Democrats in Congress) saddling the taxpayers with hundreds of billions in debt (more than the Iraq War, conjured up in a single weekend, and enabled by Pelosi, btw), while principled Republicans say 'No' and go to the country with a stinging indictment of the majority in Congress. [...] In an ideal world, McCain opposes this because of all the Democratic add-ons and shows up to vote Nay while [Barack] Obama punts."

Liberal bloggers find Ruffini's argument persuasive, and they're urging Dems not to embrace Bush's bailout plan so quickly:

• The Democratic Strategist's Ed Kilgore: "Ruffini is exactly right about the politics of this issue, especially for Republicans. [...] For McCain and other Republicans, voting 'no' on Paulson without accepting the consequences of that vote is the political equivalent of a bottomless crack pipe: it will please the conservative 'base,' distance them from both Bush and 'Washington,' and let them indulge in both anti-government and anti-corporate demagoguery, even as Democrats bail out their Wall Street friends and big investors generally. You simply can't imagine a better way for McCain to decisively reinforce his simultaneous efforts to pander to the 'base' while posing as a 'maverick.' Democrats are right to demand significant substantive concessions before offering their support for the Paulson Plan. But just as importantly, they need to demand Republican votes in Congress, including the vote of John McCain. If this is going to be a 'bipartisan' relief plan, it has to be fully bipartisan, not an opportunity for McCain to count on Obama and other Democrats to save the economy while exploiting their sense of responsibility to win the election for the party that let this crisis occur in the first place."
• digby: "Note [Ruffini's] framing of the 'Bush-Pelosi' bailout plan. Very crafty. [...] If they go this way, McCain gets to distance himself from Bush by standing on the sidelines wielding a phony pitchfork while Obama, as the head of the Democratic party and thus the leader of the congress, gets splashed in all this muck. It's quite ingenious and a very possible scenario in my opinion. [...] Let's hope the Democrats are thinking a few moves ahead on this and don't allow themselves to be trapped into being 'responsible' while McCain runs around like some avenging angel and demagogues his way into a victory."
• Daily Kos' Markos Moulitsas: "If Democrats want to throw away this election, there's no better way to do it than to join Bush in his 'Chicken Little' act, and raid the treasury to bail out those incompetent and greedy Wall Street assholes. [...] Yet bizarrely, Democrats are rushing headlong into those boondoggle, flailing their arms in blind panic at the behest of the Bush Administration, all for a proposal that will dump a trillion dollar budget deficit on Obama's lap before he's spent a single dime on anything else. Unlike Iraq, there's a real crisis here, that requires real governmental intervention. But like Iraq, waiting a few weeks for a better picture of the crisis to be painted would inject much needed reason into this process. I wouldn't go so far as to claim that this crisis is good for McCain. But for down-ballot Republicans desperate for a populist issue to grasp, this could be a gift from heaven. So there's a political reason to wait five weeks until after the election for a response, which will hopefully be more persuasive to some than the obvious 'good policy' reasons."
• TPM's Josh Marshall: "I think Kos, Digby and Kilgore have this about right. The Republican/McCain plan is to get the Democrats to bail out the GOP's Wall Street friends and then run against them for doing it."
• Mark Kleiman: "No one trusts John McCain to do anything except pursue John McCain's best political interests. I have no idea whether Patrick Ruffini reflects the thinking of the McCain camp, but someone who chose Sarah Palin as a running-mate simply can't be trusted not to throw a 'Hail Mary' pass as his otherwise losing campaign grinds toward its end. And [Sen. Min. Leader] Mitch McConnell is already laying the basis for the double-cross by expressing 'serious questions'. At minimum, Harry Reid should announce right now that no bill will reach the Senate floor unless both Presidential candidates have signed on as sponsors."

Atrios, who predicted that GOPers would run against the bailout plan, isn't surprised by Ruffini's proposed strategy: "They'll run against it. Of course they will. And, hey, what do you know, the economy's still here! Hasn't imploded yet! While I'm increasingly pleased at Dodd's new plan, a major boo to him and [NY Sen. Chuck] Schumer for playing right into the 'WE MUST DO SOMETHING NOW NOW NOW' crap from the administration. I don't know what exactly needs to be done or how urgent some sort of intervention is, but I do know that if someone asks you for $700 billion you'd better get something for it."

$700 BILLION BAILOUT IV: Dodd To The Rescue?

Most liberal bloggers like Sen. Dodd's alternative financial rescue plan, but some are worried that Dems won't play hardball during the negotiations:

• Think Progress' Matthew Yglesias: "These proposals from Chris Dodd seem like steps in the right direction to me. [...] Still, you need to watch the legislative mechanics here. If progressives start out by saying 'yes a bailout is needed' and then adding 'but we also need this other stuff' then what's going to happen is the conservative bloc will say 'well, you guys need to radically scale back your good stuff' and then progressives will be cornered. You need to insist on the provisions that could make this plan a good one."
• Firedoglake's Ian Welsh: "It's a good plan and it helps more than just the banks. It includes a lot of what outsiders were suggesting, especially with respect to help mortgage holders. It doesn't go quite as far as I would have liked -- I would have preferred to just buy up entire failed corporations rather than their assets, but if the share program is done properly the government could wind up with effective control of many corporations anyway. This is only reasonable, if the government has to bail you out for more than half your value, the government should own you. [...] The question now is how much of this will survive negotiations and if Bush will veto a good bill. Also in question is if Republicans will vote against a good bill, handing Democrats a club to beat them with."
• Atrios: "Devil's in details and things that I probably can't really know, but this sounds better. But no proposal matters as long as the plan is to surrender when Mr. 24% stamps his feet."
• The New York Times' Paul Krugman: "[Dodd's proposal] is a big improvement over the Paulson plan. The key feature, I believe, is the equity participation: if Treasury buys assets, it gets warrants that can be converted into equity if the price of the purchased assets falls. This both guarantees against a pure bailout of the financial firms, and opens the door to a real infusion of capital, if that becomes necessary -- and I think it will."

Balloon Juice's John Cole is more skeptical of Dodd's plan: "While I would gladly have voted for Dodd in the primaries, is it wrong for me to mention that one of the real and fair knocks against Dodd is that he is wholly in bed with the banking and insurance industries? But somehow, because we are a nation of morons, we will judge giving 700 billion to someone with no strings unacceptable, but giving 700 billion to someone with a few caveats about CEO pay is somehow teh awesome. And who will be the white knight to bring us this reform? The guy in the Democratic party most in bed with the people who screwed up."

Several conservative bloggers are upset that Dodd is writing the Dems' alternative bailout bill:

• The Heritage Foundation's Conn Carroll: "When the Senate went to write new accounting legislation after Enron's collapse, it did not invite disgraced Enron chief executive Ken Lay to draft the legislation. Why on earth is the Senate letting Chris Dodd, both Freddie and Fannie's biggest defender and benefactor, write this legislation? The integrity of the Senate is at stake. Again."
• Carpenter: "I'm glad I'm not the only one fuming over the fact Chris Dodd is in charge of writing this bill. Yeah, the guy who helped keep Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae's books in the shadows in return for a steady stream of donations and got a secret, discout mortgage on his own home from his friend Angelo Mozilo at Countrywide is heading up this bill."

MCCAIN: Steve Schmidt Calls The Whambulance

Liberal bloggers are mocking the McCain camp after they "convened a conference call [yesterday] to complain of being called 'liars'" yet made several "misstatements of fact" during the course of the call:

• AMERICAblog's John Aravosis: "[McCain strategist Steve] Schmidt held a conference call today to whine to reporters that they'd better stop calling John McCain a liar. Only problem? Most of what Schmidt told reporters during that call was, uh, a lie."
• Kleiman: "Note to Steve Schmidt: If you're going to hold a conference call to complain about being called a liar, you avoid lying in the course of the conference call."
• Moulitsas: "[The] McCain campaign lies when whining about being called liars."
• Cole: "[This was] pathetic, even by GOP and McCain campaign standards. [...] At some point it is going to settle in with the media that when the Republicans said they were making their own reality, what they really meant was that they were going to lie about everything."

Other liberal bloggers are accusing the McCain camp of whining:

• Atrios: "Does the McCain campaign do anything aside from throwing hissy fits? I mean, other than lying, of course."
• Daily Kos' BarbinMD: "If there's one thing the McCain campaign hates, it's being called out for their hypocrisy, and predictably, they are throwing a hissy fit over the New York Times' report on McCain's campaign manager Rick Davis having been paid nearly $2 million by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac for access to John McCain and his deregulating ways."
• tristero: "Get out the 700 billion smelling salts! Somebody hurt McCain/Bush's feelings and they just might swoon under the stress."
• Oliver Willis: "Steve Schmidt needs his diapers changed, apparently."

The Atlantic's Andrew Sullivan: "[The McCain camp's] interaction with the press is in complete disarray. Steve Schmidt even lies when trying to point out others' lies."

MCCAIN II: You Go, Steve!

Conservative bloggers, on the other hand, are defending Schmidt's allegation that the media (and specifically the New York Times) is biased against McCain:

• NRO's Jim Geraghty: "In the eyes of the left, the comments of McCain campaign manager Steve Schmidt on a recent conference call will be seen as a meltdown, a sign that the McCain camp feels its only hope is to 'work the ref.' In the eyes of the right, he's just coming out and saying about The New York Times what many have thought for a long time."
• Townhall's Matt Lewis: "Prior to winning the GOP nomination, McCain was the toast of the liberal media -- a group he famously referred to as his 'base'. And when his campaign was down and out, the NYT endorsed him. But just months later -- after winning the nomination -- the 'newspaper of record' launched a scurrilous attack against him, alleging affair with a female lobbyist. And their attacks have not let up. Of course, they claim McCain has changed -- which is more convenient than admitting that their coverage has changed because he now poses a threat to their favorite liberal candidate. Of course, the fact that we have a liberal bias in this country should not surprise anyone."
• Power Line's John Hinderaker: "The McCain camp's long-overdue retaliation against the Times was not entirely spontaneous. They must have calculated that the Times' reputation has fallen so low that it is now safe to call the paper's reporters and editors what they are: political operatives, not journalists. That has been obvious for a long time to anyone who actually reads the Times, but the McCain campaign apparently believes that some sort of tipping point has been reached, and that most people -- the sort of people who learn about press conferences, anyway -- will understand that as a news organization, the Times is illegitimate. The chickens, in short, may have come home to roost."
• RedState's Jeff Emanuel: "The Bush Derangement Syndrome, and schoolgirl crush on Obama, that has infected this country's Mainstream Media for a growing period has transformed the Times from a mostly-harmless left-leaning dead tree publication, to an anti-administration adrenaline junkie of a newspaper that lived for the thrill of pulling the cover back on classified government information -- preferably of the national security variety -- and informing the entire world about it, to, now, an effective surrogate for a candidate for President of the United States who appears to have done nothing to deserve the cheerleading but allow the Liberal intelligentsia a means of assuaging their White Guilt."
• Hot Air's Allahpundit: "[This is] not the first nuclear strike Schmidt's launched on the media this month, but certainly the most gratifying. Needless to say, we're a long way from Team Maverick touting the Times's endorsement on its home page. [...] When does Schmidt get around to taking on Newsweek?"
• Commentary's Jennifer Rubin: "There is a lot of downright antagonism [in the McCain camp] toward the MSM. Moreover, there is an obvious plan now afoot: spend the next 43 days 'educating' the public about Barack Obama and making this about leadership. Will it work? Perhaps, but it may be the only realistic counteroffensive McCain has available in a hostile media environment and a collapsing economy."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: A Tale Of Two Outsiders

The Atlantic's Ross Douthat:

"As a early Palin-booster who's expressed disappointment with what we've seen from John McCain's running mate to date, I think it's reasonable for me to explain what, exactly, I was hoping for from the Alaska governor -- who has, after all, been placed in an excruciatingly difficult situation over the last few weeks. The answer, I think, is something along the lines of what we saw from Mike Huckabee during the primary season. Huckabee was just as much of a political outsider as Palin (albeit one with more years in statewide office), he had the same sort of non-elite background -- the degree from Ouachita Baptist University, the distinct non-yuppie family life, etc. -- and the same dearth of foreign-policy experience, and he absorbed some of the same snobbish slings and arrows -- from conservatives more than liberals -- that have been hurled in Palin's direction. But in a highly-charged political environment, he also demonstrated enough of a facility for talking about politics and policy -- which is an imperfect way to judge a potential President, but nonetheless one of the more important ways to judge that we have -- to make himself a credible contender for the highest office in the land. Or at least I thought so. [...]

[Palin] has given one fine speech, and two lackluster interviews, and has otherwise dodged the sort of rough-and-tumble venues and conversations that Huckabee welcomed, and which he used to make his candidacy for president seem more plausible than it initially appeared. Palin needs to at least approach the standard Huckabee set; she hasn't yet; and that failure is showing up in her approval ratings. There's still time for her to turn it around, and as you might expect, I'm pulling for her to do it. But at this point, there's an awful lot riding on that one vice-presidential debate."

LEST WE FORGET: Checks And Bailouts

The Washington Monthly's Kevin Drum makes an observation:

"As near as I can tell, conservatives are outraged by the idea of a blank check Wall Street bailout because -- hey, Barack Obama might win in November, and God only knows what kind of insane nutball he might appoint as Treasury Secretary. Do we really want to trust $700 billion to whatever quasi-socialist we might end up with on January 20th?

Liberals, meanwhile, are outraged by the idea of a blank check bailout because -- hey, even if you trust Henry Paulson, it's possible that John McCain might win in November, and God only knows what kind of insane nutball he might appoint as Treasury Secretary. Do we really want to trust $700 billion to whatever quasi-lunatic we might end up with on January 20th? Phil Gramm, anyone?

This almost restores my faith in the political system."

Posted by Ian Faerstein at 01:15 PM

September 22, 2008

9/22: Consensus!

Conservative bloggers and liberal bloggers finally agree on something: the Bush Administration's $700 billion bailout plan is a bad idea. Michelle Malkin echoes the views of many righty bloggers when she denounces the proposal as "the death of fiscal conservatism." Many conservative bloggers are concerned about the "ideological consequences" of the proposal -- namely, that "it reinforces the idea of government as an all-powerful entity that can fix any problem".

On the left side of the blogosphere, the criticism of the bailout plan is even fiercer. Liberal bloggers are strongly opposed to the idea of forcing taxpayers "to take bad debts off the hands of financial institutions who were foolish enough to make the deals in the first place" -- particularly when the plan "demands nothing from these firms in return". Furthermore, many lefty bloggers do not want to give so much power to Treasury Sec. Henry Paulson, whom they believe is acting in the interests of his former (and possibly future) employees on Wall Street. Several bloggers are urging Barack Obama to take a stronger stand against the bailout plan.

$700 BILLION BAILOUT: The View From The Left

Liberal bloggers are overwhelmingly opposed to the Bush Admin.'s bailout plan:

• The American Prospect's Robert Kuttner: "The plan is outrageous on several levels. It demands nothing from these firms in return. It holds the Treasury Secretary accountable to no one. And it extends the most generous terms to Wall Street while offering nothing to Main Street. [...] Paulson is playing this more as the investment banker that he used to be, than as a steward of the public interest. This is a dubious deal, with all the gain going to Wall Street and all the risk going to taxpayers. Congress should not be intimated by his threats to hold his breath and turn blue of he doesn't get his way."
• TPM's Josh Marshall: "The more I look at this plan, the more wrongheaded it seems. But if I'm understanding this deal, the taxpayers are going to pony up close to a trillion dollars to take bad debts off the hands of financial institutions who were foolish enough to make the deals in the first place. And in exchange, I think the tax payers get nothing?"
• Atrios: "If the Democrats pass this piece of shit, look for Republican challengers to run against them on it."
• Firedoglake's Ian Welsh: "This is a stickup. Paulson is trying to stampede the Congressional herd into giving him powers and money that he knows they would never give if they had time to think it through carefully. It worked with the Patriot Act. It worked with the AUMF. He's betting it'll work again. Create a crisis (or lie one into existence) then demand dictatorial powers and unlimited spending authority to deal with it. Congress needs to not succumb to fear or to explicit or implicit blackmail. If the crisis was as severe as Paulson makes it out to be, virtually the end of market capitalism, he wouldn't be quibbling over whether or not CEOs get to keep their golden parachutes."
• TPMCafe's Dean Baker: "This is the domestic equivalent of the Iraq war authorization. The threat of financial collapse is analogous to the weapons of mass destruction. The markets will wait. Congress can give a proposal with real conditions and then it will be Bush's call if he wants to be responsible for collapsing the U.S. economy. Congress can't be taken yet again."
• Open Left's Matt Stoller: "This is a $700 billion blank check for the Bush administration and the financial elites. Glenn Greenwald notes the pacing of the discourse is identical to the run up to war. The political system is engaged in a massive transfer of wealth to corrupt actors with no debate (except in the foreign press and in the blogs) with no details made public. Furthermore, the Democratic leadership is entirely complicit in what is happening."
• Think Progress' Matthew Yglesias: "The bailout plan on the table right now seems to me like something of a crisis point for American liberalism. The plan is bad. But bad policies get enacted all the time. But we're at a point now where congress is, allegedly, in the hands of progressive leadership. Simply put, if congressional Democrats manage to acquiesce in a plan that spends $700 billion on a bailout while doing nothing for average working people and giving the taxpayer virtually no upside in a way that guarantees that even electoral victory would give an Obama administration no resources with which to implement a progressive domestic agenda in 2009 then everyone's going to have to give serious consideration to becoming a pretty hard-core libertarian."
• Mark Kleiman: "It looks as if Paulson has been spending too much time around [Dick] Cheney. The bill gives him unrestricted authority and only the vaguest guidance, and forbids any judicial review. It also lists as goals only protecting financial institutions and taxpayers. No mention of preventing housing abandonment, for example. I think our friends in Congress have some work to do. Given the history of Iraq, giving the dying Bush Administration $700 billion worth of unreviewable power seems a bit extreme."
• The Washington Monthly's Kevin Drum: "Why are we willing to fund an enormous RTC-like agency to bail out bankers, but not an enormous RTC-like institution to bail out ordinary people? Lack of lobbyists? Republican ideology? A desire to punish irresponsibility regardless of the disastrous sytemic consequences? Or what?"
• AMERICAblog's Chris in Paris: "The American taxpayer did not ask for this, but were forced into this dreadful situation due to the failures of Wall Street. We should not help Wall Street continue their lifestyle, especially if it's only a very short term boost, as many are suggesting. The panicked intervention will not stop this economy from unraveling and may only delay the inevitable."

While liberal bloggers liked Obama's initial criticism of the bailout plan, several want him to criticize the plan more strongly:

• Welsh: "While I was very happy with Obama's words against the Paulson plan, he needs to make it clear and unequivocal. [...] His principles are not compatible with Paulson's bill, he needs to come out against it in plain 'Hell No' language. It is the responsible thing to do, because it is not 'Hank's plan or the highway', Congress, of which Obama is a member, can pass its own bill meant to deal with this crisis. Indeed, let me suggest that Obama needs to suspend his campaign and return to Washington to propose his own Market Stabilization bill."
• Atrios: "Obama's people are making the right noises, but there's a difference between being on record as being kinda-maybe against and actually, you know, opposing. [...] Basically, you'd have to be insane to give Paulson a $700 billion blank check with no strings attached. The fact that this is what Paulson has asked Congress to do is enough reason to tell him to fuck off and come up with something better, with him utterly out of the loop."
• Sadly, No!'s Brad: "If Obama agrees to this nonsense, I will not vote for him -- it's as simple as that. In fact, I will not support any Democrat who gets on board with this."

$700 BILLION BAILOUT II: The View From The Right

Conservative bloggers are also criticizing the Bush Admin.'s bailout plan, although not quite as vociferously as are liberal bloggers:

• Malkin: "Bush Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson just wrapped up his press conference announcing the Mother of All Bailouts. He said a 'bold' approach was needed to achieve 'stability' in the market. Let me translate that. 'Bold' = Massively massive, taxpayer-funded rescue. 'Stability' = Privatizing profits and socializing losses on a scale we have never seen before in our lifetimes. [...] Fiscal conservatism has been on life support for quite some time. Bush/Paulson pulled the plug permanently today."
• AmSpec Blog's Robert Stacy McCain: "Wall Street has essentially blackmailed U.S. taxpayers into footing the bill for managerial greed, ineptitude and corruption. The alternative to the bailout is economic collapse, yet there's no prospect of recouping the millions collected by the executives who were (over)paid to run these institutions into bankruptcy. They reap the profits, taxpayers absorb the losses. And what 'reforms' are proposed to solve the inevitable problems caused by bad regulations, subsidies and corporate welfare? More of the same. Lather, rinse, repeat."
• NRO's Yuval Levin: "Even if Hank Paulson were the all knowing god of economics, would it make sense to give this kind of power to the treasury secretary for the next two years just forty days before an election? Shall we go through our mental list of who an Obama administration (or a [John] McCain administration for that matter) is likely to put in that post? And doesn't it make sense to establish some kind of process for deciding how specifically to use the money? To put in place some criteria of prioritization? Some real-time oversight? Isn't transparency crucial to the proper functioning of our modern financial system?"
• NRO's Jim Manzi: "This is obviously unfair. It bails out irresponsible behavior, and by implication, punishes responsible behavior. Longer-term, unless there is a lot of pain felt by financial company executives -- who, remember, don't look like they have to go bankrupt to dump their bad loans on taxpayers -- this creates a massive moral hazard problem. Further, if such a situation develops, it won't be lost on voters, who will likely demand greater socialization of consequences of reasonably-foreseeable bad behavior by people who don't make a million dollars per year. The ideological consequences of the last few weeks will take many years to play out, and conservatives are unlikely to happy about them."
• AmSpec Blog's Philip Klein: "One of the things that concerns me most about the pending $1 trillion bailout of the financial sector is that it reinforces the idea of government as an all-powerful entity that can fix any problem. [...] Americans who purchased homes that they couldn't afford, banks that made loans to those who they shouldn't have, financial institutions that made risky bets on derivatives even though they had no idea what they we betting on -- they're now all off the hook. And the bill will be paid by responsible working class Americans who either paid their mortgages or deferred purchasing property because they were priced out of the market by skyrocketing prices driven by irresponsible lenders and borrowers, and those who invested reasonably. The fact that Hank Paulson can snap his fingers and come up with $1 trillion to rescue financial institutions means Americans will assume government can dip into a bottomless well to cure any ill in society."
• RedState's Pejman Yousefzadeh: "The New Moral Hazard Deal is staggering and appalling in its scope. It promises to get even more staggering and appalling once Congress is finished adding Christmas tree ornaments to it, such as provisions regulating CEO pay [...] For all practical purposes, this Act gives the Treasury Secretary money to play with. And it radically transforms our economic structure."

MCCAIN: Glass Houses

Liberal bloggers are accusing McCain of hypocrisy for running ads linking Obama to ex-Fannie Mae CEO Franklin Raines despite the fact that McCain's campaign manager, Rick Davis, "was paid more than $30,000 a month for five years as president of an advocacy group set up by the mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to defend them against stricter regulations":

• TalkLeft's Big Tent Democrat: "Lying about Obama's advisors while doing that he claims to criticize. That is John McCain in a nutshell -- a lying, unprincipled, incompetent ideologue. McCain is a disgrace."
• The Washington Monthly's Steve Benen: "Obama met Franklin Raines once, for about five minutes, and McCain thinks the association is scandalous. Given this, shouldn't McCain necessarily feel compelled to fire his campaign manager immediately?"
• Oliver Willis: "That's right, John McCain's campaign manager was paid $2 million by Fannie Mae to specifically lobby John McCain. They were trying to fend off regulation and I guess they wanted to curry favor with the self-described 'deregulator'."
• Obsidian Wings' hilzoy: "I do not think it ought to be a problem for a campaign to ask for advice from people who have some connection to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. A lot of those people know a lot about the mortgage industry, and having no contact whatsoever with them would probably be a bad idea. I do get concerned when a campaign has people who lobbied against better regulation in its most senior positions. There is only one campaign of which that is true, and it's not Obama's."
• AMERICAblog's John Aravosis: "Earlier this decade [Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac] paid $2m to the man who is now John McCain's campaign manager in order to buy influence with John McCain as Senator and as possible president (they also paid him to derail legislation that would have increased federal regulation of the banking industry). There should be a campaign to demand that McCain's campaign manager, Rick Davis, give ever penny back to the American people. There had better be an ad about this out by COB Monday, and calls for Davis' resignation."

MCCAIN II: In The Ferrari Or Jaguar, Switchin' Four Lanes...

Liberal bloggers are mocking McCain after Newsweek revealed that he and Cindy McCain own thirteen cars (versus one car for Barack and Michelle Obama):

• Daily Kos' MissLaura: "If you're John McCain, you know you're losing your Man of the People image when Newsweek begins a story: 'When you have seven homes, that's a lot of garages to fill...' [...] Not to mention when it closes by noting that the car your wife actually drives isn't even registered in her name, but in that of her massive beer distributorship. But, uh, Obama is elitist because, uh, look over there! Arugula!!!"
• Willis: "John McCain is not like us."
• Drum: "The McCain family owns 13 cars, including 'three 2000 NEV Gem electric vehicles, which are bubble-shaped cars popular in retirement communities.' Mostly in Cindy's name, of course. Don't you wish you owned three bubble-shaped electric scooters?"
• Benen: "Truth be told, I really don't much care about McCain's lavish wealth. His second wife is part of a very rich family, and it stands to reason that the couple, in addition to owning a lot of homes, is going to own a lot of cars. I guess that's what extraordinarily wealthy people do. The problem, though, is that McCain is offering a policy agenda that presupposes everyone is doing as well as the McCains. He wants more tax breaks for the very wealthy. He's opposed increases to the minimum wage -- 19 times. He's insisted that we've experienced 'great progress' economically under the Bush administration's policies. In the face of a crisis, McCain wants everyone to believe the 'fundamentals of the economy are strong.' With 13 cars and more homes than he can count, McCain's credibility on these issues could be better."
• Firedoglake's Pachacutec: "Bet they'll love [McCain's] Honda in Michigan...."

Aravosis: "Is it dementia, confusion, or what that is causing McCain to atypically say repeated falsehoods -- from placing Spain in Latin America, to claiming that [Sarah] Palin was against the Bridge to Nowhere, to now saying that he's always bought American. We now know that at least 3 of the McCain's 13 cars -- yes, McCain has 13 cars -- are foreign cars (a Honda, a VW, and a Lexus). Now, I don't personally have a problem with someone buying a foreign car -- though you know the Republicans would be all over Obama if his car were foreign (it's not, Obama owns one car and it's a Ford hybrid). But the issue here is that McCain has once again lied about yet another fact in his life, in order to get elected."

MCCAIN III: Things He Probably Wishes He Hadn't Written...

Liberal bloggers are blasting McCain for writing the following passage in his recent article, "Better Health Care at Lower Cost for Every American" (which was first noted by New York Times columnist Paul Krugman, as Todd Beeton explains here):

"Opening up the health insurance market to more vigorous nationwide competition, as we have done over the last decade in banking, would provide more choices of innovative products less burdened by the worst excesses of state-based regulation."

Liberal bloggers believe that McCain made a big political mistake in writing this passage:

• Daily Kos' Markos Moulitsas: "He's going to regret writing that. A lot. And this isn't some long-ago passage. It's from the current Sept/Oct edition (PDF) of Contingencies, the magazine of the American Academy of Actuaries. So yeah, oops. I guess he was for financial sector deregulation before he was against it?"
• Marshall: "If the Obama folks are smart -- and they are -- they'll ride this one all the way to the election. But among ourselves let's admit that you could only be surprised by this statement if you were willfully ignorant to what McCain and his key advisors believe. Remember, his top economics advisor is former Sen. Phil Gramm, the legislative architect of the banking and financial services deregulation that led to the current crisis. And his health care proposals are all off-the-rack Heritage Foundation-style initiatives based on the premise that people have too much, not too little insurance. The only thing jarring about the statement is the degree to which it has been overtaken by events as McCain now tries -- a la Palin the Earmark-Killer -- to rebrand himself as a Mr. Wall Street oversight and transparency when he's been pushing deregulation for 25 years."
• Kleiman: "McCain, who has spent the latter half of this week playing Jeremiah, promising to drive greed out of Wall Street, has the solution to all health care problems: make the health care sector more like the financial-services sector. No, seriously."
• Ezra Klein: "John McCain is a died-in-the-wool deregulator. He's not going to come out and endorse the financial crisis, but if you press the rewind button for just a moment, and freeze frame right before the collapse, McCain was trying to give Wall Street more responsibility over pensions and paint the basket of deregulatory policies that led to the meltdown as a model for other industries. It's why his response to the financial crisis has been so tinny and confused: The collapse is directly disproving McCain's view of the world, and no man can replace a long-held ideology in a matter of weeks."

MCCAIN IV: Netroots To McCain: Leave Social Security Alone!

Liberal bloggers are criticizing McCain after his aides said that he continues to support the idea of privately investing a portion of Social Security dollars in the financial markets:

"Wall Street turmoil left John McCain scrambling to explain why the fundamentals of the U.S. economy remained strong. It also left him defending his support for privately investing Social Security money in the same markets that had tanked earlier in the week. [...] The Republican presidential nominee says all options must be considered to stave off insolvency for the government insurance and retirement program, and top McCain advisers say that includes so-called personal retirement accounts like those President Bush pushed in 2005 but abandoned in the face of congressional opposition."

• hilzoy: "I can't imagine anyone would accept the idea of investing their Social Security pension in the stock market with equanimity right now. Even after Thursday's and Friday's rallies, with the DJIA close to its previous levels, the rate of return on the DJIA since the state of the union address in which the President proposed instituting private accounts is around 2% a year, well below the rate of inflation. A couple of days ago, it would have been well below that. And the actual rate of return on an individual account would have been lower still, given administrative costs and so forth. This is exactly why we all went to the mattresses for Social Security back in 2005. No one's basic retirement security should be at the mercy of the stock market. We have just been reminded why that's such a stunningly bad idea. Apparently, the only people on earth who haven't figured it out are John McCain and his advisors."
• Willis: "John McCain: Time To Invest Your Social Security In Lehman Brothers, AIG, And Merrill Lynch!"
• digby: "It's one thing to tell 23 years olds that they get to have fun with their social security taxes. They are young and dumb and don't have clue about saving. But once people get into their 30s and have kids and old parents they start to think about the future. And one of the things that allows them to take some risk with their 401ks or their homes is the fact that they have a guarantee of some kind of modest retirement income. If these free market wizards want average people to continue to participate in the markets, they'd better make sure they aren't asking them to risk everything."

OBAMA: Scaring Seniors?

On a somewhat related note, conservative bloggers are criticizing the Obama camp for running a misleading ad warning Social Security recipients that their money would now be in the stock market if McCain "had his way" (in reality, McCain's plan would have only affected workers under age 58, not current retirees):

• Hot Air's Ed Morrissey: "Obama has spent over $8 million in Florida, while McCain just started attending to the Sunshine State. Neverthless, McCain leads Obama in Florida in all polling, and the gap has become wider, not smaller. The lie about McCain and Social Security intends to address that gap by scaring seniors into believing that their benefits are at risk. However, since the very beginning of the 2005 effort to partially privatize Social Security, it has always exempted people 55 and above, and some versions push that back even earlier."
• Yousefzadeh: "To quote campaign slogans, this isn't 'Hope and Change.' This is 'More of the Same.' Barack Obama is no different from any other Democratic politician around. This kind of cheap trick could be pulled by anyone with a 'D' at the end of their name."
• Power Line's John Hinderaker: "Is Barack Obama running the most disgraceful Presidential campaign of modern times? The evidence continues to mount, as Obama's ads and speeches are filled not only with exaggerations and distortions, but with outright lies: claims about John McCain that Obama must know are false."

OBAMA II: The Plot Thickens...

Righty bloggers are buzzing about The Jawa Report's Rusty Shackleford's allegation that an Obama-linked PR firm is "the source of smears directed toward [Palin]":

"Extensive research was conducted by the Jawa Report to determine the source of smears directed toward Republican Vice Presidential candidate Sarah Palin. Those smears included false allegations that she belonged to a secessionist political party and that she has radical anti-American views. Our research suggests that a subdivision of one of the largest public relations firms in the world most likely started and promulgated rumors about Sarah Palin that were known to be false. These rumors were spread in a surreptitious manner to avoid exposure. It is also likely that the PR firm was paid by outside sources to run the smear campaign. While not conclusive, evidence suggests a link to the Barack Obama campaign."

• Malkin: "The blogosphere is doing the job the MSM thinks no one else can do. A collaborative investigative effort by our friends at The Jawa Report to expose an apparently astroturfed, anti-Sarah Palin smear campaign seems to have caused late-night panic in Barack Obama-linked p.r. circles. The bloggers digging into the provenance of anti-Sarah Palin smears on the web got results last night/early this morning while most elite journalists were still in their pajamas sleeping."
• Morrissey: "If all of this is true and the Obama campaign can be connected to it, it would represent a massive set of FEC violations, as well as the ultimate repudiation of 'hope and change' and 'New Politics'. In fact, it would be a massive demonstration of Chicago Politics on a national scale."
• Dan Riehl: "Given the facts turned up by The Jawa Report in this must read post, it seems fair to ask if the campaign of Barack Obama funded a malicious and deceptive web-based smear campaign against Republican Vice Presidential nominee, Governor Sarah Palin. [...] It's important to keep in mind that this played out while the candidate, Obama himself was attacking Palin every day on the stump, such was the threat Obama perceived from her nomination."
• Confederate Yankee: "I'm not a lawyer and won't pretend to know which campaign laws (if any) were broken, but it certainly appears that Barack Obama's campaign manager is involved if not orchestrating these efforts, and people have certainly gone to jail on far less evidence."
• NRO's Jim Geraghty: "Sure seems like somebody's got something to hide."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Todd Palin = Hillary Clinton?

The New Republic's Michelle Cottle:

"So I'm reading the WaPo's front-pager today on Todd Palin, when it hits me: Todd Palin is Hillary Clinton circa 1992. As the WaPo lays it out, the major criticism leveled at Todd is that he's too involved in his spouse's governing duties but operates without any oversight or accountability. The couple is seen throughout the state's political circles as a team -- 'Sarah and Todd.' Todd sits in on high-level meetings. He's copied on official emails. He offers counsel on a wide range of issues. He travels on state business (often at taxpayer expense). He even unofficially lobbies lawmakers and outside interest groups on matters of importance to him. But because all of this is done under the auspices of his personal rather than professional relationship with Governor Sarah, the good citizens of the state have no real sense what Todd is up to.

All of this smacks of the two-for-the-price-of-one deal we were offered -- and which many people took such exception to -- in 1992 with the Clintons. Obviously, the times are different and the gender dynamics are scrambled this time around. But Todd clearly has his fingers in Sarah's bidness as much as -- if not more than -- Hillary ever did in Bill's. Just something to think about the next time the conservative punditocracy gets all self-righteous about the need to protect the candidates' families from public scrutiny. If anything, it sounds like 'Sarah and Todd' could use a little more scrunity."

LEST WE FORGET: Cash-Strapped NPR Launches 'A Couple Things Considered'

From The Onion:

"WASHINGTON -- Facing major cutbacks, National Public Radio has been forced to retool and relaunch its popular program All Things Considered as a truncated newscast that now only considers a couple, maybe three things per show. 'We'd love to consider all things, but the reality is we no longer have the resources necessary to do so,' host Michele Norris said following the new show's first broadcast, in which rising gas prices and jazz legend Wynton Marsalis were considered. 'We'll still be able to mention six or seven things, gloss over four, and reference five, but we cannot afford to give every single thing our full consideration. Perhaps we were biting off more than we could chew in the first place.' A Couple Things Considered is just one of many new shows brought about by budget constraints, along with NPR's recently launched Bicycle Talk and Public Radio International's This Tri-State Area Life."

Posted by Ian Faerstein at 01:44 PM

September 19, 2008

9/19: Turning A Gaffe Into Policy?

Yesterday we mentioned that the liberal blogosphere was abuzz over John McCain's recent interview with a Spanish-language radio station, in which he repeatedly refused to commit to a White House meeting with Spanish PM Jose Luis Zapatero. Liberal bloggers, along with the Spanish media and several American journalists, believe that McCain made a mistake and confused Zapatero with Latin American rogue leaders such as Fidel Castro and Hugo Chavez. Bloggers and journalists note that McCain never made any mention of Spain or Zapatero and instead referred to "this hemisphere," "Latin America," and "the entire region," which suggests that he wasn't aware that the question was about Spain.

However, McCain adviser Randy Sheunemann insists that McCain wasn't confused by the question and that his tough talk toward Zapatero was intentional. Liberal bloggers don't buy Sheunemann's explanation and are accusing him of trying to disguise the fact that McCain committed a gaffe. Moreover, lefty bloggers are outraged that the McCain camp is (in their view) willing to risk damaging America's relationship with a NATO ally in order to avoiding admitting a mistake. Max Bergmann fumes:

"Instead of just admitting that it was small gaffe late in the day, the McCain campaign has decided that they care so little about governing that they are willing to potentially nuke the U.S.-Spain relationship just to get elected."

MCCAIN: Face It, He Got Confused

Liberal bloggers don't believe Sheunemann's claim that McCain's tough talk toward Zapatero was intentional. They think Sheunemann is trying to cover the fact that McCain was confused:

• TPM's Josh Marshall: "Randy's attempted save here does not add up. If McCain knew who Zapatero was, why did he repeatedly refer to him as a Latin American leader? Spain is not in Latin America. [...] Read the transcript or listen to the interview. The most logical explanation of this gaffe is that McCain got asked about Zapatero right after being asked about Chavez, Castro and [Evo] Morales. Not remembering who Zapatero was, he assumed he must be some other Latin American tinpot dictator and answered the question accordingly. We could be generous and assume he was just upping the ante on the normal neocon line. But by repeatedly referring to Spain as a country in Latin America, McCain just doesn't make that interpretation tenable for any fair-minded reader. Face it, he got confused."
• TAPPED's Adam Serwer: "[Sheunemann's arguments] simply don't jibe with the transcript. [...] As Josh Marshall points out, the audio shows very clearly that McCain doesn't know Zapatero is a leader in Europe. He refers to 'Latin America,' 'this hemisphere' and 'the entire region.' Either he doesn't know where Spain is, or he doesn't know where Europe is, or he didn't recall who Zapatero was. But there's just no indication that he was articulating a policy towards Spain. [...] All the campaign had to say was that it was a phone interview and McCain couldn't understand the reporter's pronunciation, but instead, they've doubled down, [George W.] Bush style."
• AMERICAblog's John Aravosis: "The McCain campaign can't admit that John McCain appeared to have a senile moment, and that his dementia was caught on tape. Instead, the McCain campaign is now embracing the only argument they have left -- they're actually now claiming that McCain meant every word he said. Really? Let's analyze, then, what McCain said. (1.) When asked about Spain and the president of Spain, McCain responded about 'Mexico' (twice), 'Latin America,' and 'the hemisphere'...Why would McCain answer a question about Spain -- four questions about Spain, in fact -- by talking about Latin America? (2.) McCain is now claiming that he won't meet President Zapatero of Spain, should McCain become president. That's rather odd, since in April, McCain did an interview with the same Spanish newspaper saying bygones were bygones, it was time to 'look to the future,' and that he'd welcome Zapatero visiting him in the White House. So, why the sudden change now? [...] (3.) The reason McCain gives for not wanting to meet with Spain's president is that he only meets with leaders who embrace democracy and human rights. Uh, McCain thinks Spain doesn't embrace democracy and human rights? What does he think, it's the 1970s and General [Francisco] Franco is still in charge? On its face, what McCain said makes no sense. He thought he was talking about Chavez or someone in Latin America..."

Several bloggers believe that McCain had a "senior moment":

• The Huffington Post's David Goldstein: "Don't just read the transcript, listen to the audio, and listen to his halting words, the obvious fatigue in his voice and the confusion in his answers. He wasn't simply being evasive or vague, he was disoriented, and while this may have only been a transient episode it should be alarming nonetheless. There are those who caution that making age an issue in this race could hurt [Barack] Obama with senior voters, but honestly...it would be irresponsible not to."
• Aravosis: "What's going on is that McCain is so egotistical and so reckless that he'd rather risk major damage to our relationship with a lead US ally than admit that he misheard a series of questions during an interview. Somebody is seriously paranoid about giving voters any impression that his mind is slipping. And that only makes us wonder all the more if it is."

Meanwhile, The Washington Monthly's Steve Benen wonders: "Forgetting Zapetero's name is almost forgivable, though hard to explain for a candidate who claims to be an expert in foreign policy. But the interviewer kept using the word 'Spain.' She even gave him a big hint with the word 'Europe.' [...] What do you suppose the reaction would be from the political establishment if Barack Obama had made these mistakes over the course of the campaign? What would reporters, pundits, and Republicans have to say about Obama's ability to lead a complex world in a time of war and uncertainty?"

The Atlantic's Andrew Sullivan agrees: "It now seems indisputable: John McCain doesn't know who the prime minister of Spain is and thinks he's some anti-American leftist in South America. Now imagine if Obama made that kind of gaffe."

MCCAIN II: It's Hard For Me To Say I'm Sorry...

Liberal bloggers are outraged that the McCain camp is (in their view) willing to damage America's relationship with a NATO ally in order to avoid admitting a mistake:

• Bergmann: "Instead of just admitting that it was small gaffe late in the day, the McCain campaign has decided that they care so little about governing that they are willing to potentially nuke the U.S.-Spain relationship just to get elected. [...] This is beyond extreme. This is beyond reckless. This is insane. McCain won't meet with a NATO ally, that has nearly 1,000 troops in Afghanistan, that has lost more than 20 soldiers there, has been brutally attacked by Al Qaeda, is incredibly influential in Latin America, has the seventh largest economy in the world, is a DEMOCRACY, and is a large and influential country in the EU. Won't meet with them?"
• TAPPED's Tim Fernholz: "After John McCain's gaffe yesterday he had basically two potential responses: Either admit that he didn't know who Spanish Prime Minister Jose Luis Zapatero is, or pretend that his Spain policy is crazy. Apparently, he's chosen the latter."
• Marshall: "Randy Scheunemann would rather further inflame Spanish-American relations by ridiculously insisting that McCain knew exactly what he saying than admit the obvious -- that he didn't understand the question. [...] Given McCain has premised his whole campaign on foreign policy experience they've clearly decided it would simply be too damaging to admit he was either a) confused, b) ignorant or c) reckless enough to spout off aggressive remarks when he didn't even know who he was being asked about."
• Mark Kleiman: "McCain, not understanding a question, ran a bluff. Having been caught bluffing, his campaign doubles down, and choose to turn the mistake into a deliberate affront to an important ally which currently has troops in Afghanistan. This is completely consistent with the McCain conviction that admitting a mistake shows weakness, and with the 'Me first, country second' approach McCain has taken throughout this campaign. [...] This is a clear demonstration of McCain's unfitness for office."
• Obsidian Wings' hilzoy: "McCain and his campaign are willing to insult a foreign leader and damage an alliance, rather than admit to a moment of confusion."
• Atrios: "The dirty little secret about John McCain is that he really knows nothing about anything. He's as incurious and ignorant as George Bush, with less excuse. So, yes, it makes sense that his people would rather suggest and end of relations with our NATO ally than reveal the truth about their woefully inadequate candidate."
• Daily Kos' mcjoan: "It's about time America had a president who not only could learn from a mistake, but actually have the intelligence and integrity to recognize when they've made one, and 'fess up."

MCCAIN III: What's He Got Against Spain?

Several liberal bloggers are taking Scheueneman at his word, which would suggest that McCain is continuing Bush's policy of refusing to meet with Zapatero:

• Think Progress' Ben Armbruster: "The logic behind this particular policy is baffling, considering that Spain has long been a U.S. NATO ally and currently has troops in Afghanistan. So why would McCain shun Zapatero? If President Bush's actions towards the Spanish Prime Minster give some indication, the answer is Iraq. Zapatero withdrew Spain's troops from Iraq soon after his Socialist Party swept to power in March, 2004 in a wave of Spanish anti-war sentiment, a move that reportedly angered Bush. [...] Since then, the White House has said Bush has 'no plans' to meet with Zapataro. [...] McCain's incoherent answer to whether he would meet with Zapatero may indicate that he is interested in making Bush's grudge against Spain permanent U.S. policy."
• Mother Jones' Kevin Drum: "President Bush already has a policy of keeping Zapatero in the deep freeze, and I guess McCain has decided not to deviate from it."

That said, liberal bloggers find McCain's remarks needlessly confrontational:

• dday: "If [Scheueneman's explanation] is true, wow. I knew the neocons were belligerent, but this explanation makes them sound suicidal. Spain is a NATO ally. We would be obligated to go to war on their behalf if they were attacked. McCain wants to refuse to meet with their leaders? This is part of a pattern of the McCain campaign trying to cover up a bad moment with an even worse explanation."
• The Nation's Ari Berman: "[This] seems like a needlessly confrontational and reckless geopolitical posture, given that Spain has the world's 8th largest economy and 780 troops serving in Afghanistan alongside NATO allies. Huffington Post reminds us that Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice met with Zapatero last year and said that 'the United States and Spain are allies. We're in NATO together; we are serving together in Afghanistan.' McCain himself told Spain's El Pais in April that he'd meet with Zapatero. Why the change of heart?"
• TalkLeft's Big Tent Democrat: "Let me get this straight, McCain would risk war with Russia for the sake of an unhinged leader of Georgia, but he would not even meet with the leader of a longstanding US ally and member of NATO? This is grossly incompetent and irresponsible. This is more than a gaffe. This is a scandal. John McCain is unfit to be President."

MCCAIN IV: Get Your Act Together, John!

Several conservative bloggers are criticizing McCain's response to the turmoil on Wall Street:

• AmSpec Blog's Philip Klein: "McCain may have gained traction among social conservatives by naming Sarah Palin as his running mate, but his emotional and irrational reaction to the crisis on Wall Street risks alienating economic conservatives, and, as far as I'm concerned, it renews questions about whether he has the temperament to be an effective president. His reaction to this week's news has thus far been to huff and puff about greed on Wall Street, call for a commission to study the problem (very legislator-like), and to make vague promises about tough and aggressive regulation."
• AmSpec Blog's James Antle: "John McCain's descent (reversion?) into quasi-socialism is all the more perplexing given that he has done best in this race when he has actually sounded and behaved like a Republican."

Righty bloggers have been particularly critical of McCain's assertion that he would "fire" SEC Chairman Christopher Cox

• AmSpec Blog's Quin Hillyer: "McCain has lost his mind. Now [he] wants to fire Chris Cox from the SEC specifically because Cox supposedly 'allowed naked short-selling.' This is just the latest in a string of utterly panicky statements this week in which McCain has shown that he doesn't have a clue what he is talking about. The truth is, Cox actually did move to ban naked short-selling, and withstood harsh (but wrongheaded) criticism from almost all quarters when he did so."
• NRO's Nick Schulz: "At a time when the federal government is nationalizing big chunks of the financial services industry, it is odd that Sen. McCain would attack SEC chairman Christopher Cox and call for his head. The administration badly needs a smart, conservative, free market advocate weighing in during this crisis and Cox is that guy. There's lots of blame to go around for the mess we're in. Cox doesn't deserve it."
• Stephen Bainbridge: "I've never really trusted John McCain on the economy. On this issue, he's simply the lesser of two evils. Barack Obama knows what he wants to do to the economy and what he wants to do scares the crap out of me. McCain doesn't know very much of anything about the economy but I'm counting on him to appoint somebody sensible to handle the economy while McCain goes off to do National Greatness stuff. Unfortunately, McCain's shortcomings with respect to the economy are on full display in his attack on SEC Chairman Chris Cox. [...] This is McCain at his worst. Populist. Hot tempered. Shooting from the hip."

Meanwhile, Power Line's John Hinderaker offers McCain some advice: "McCain has a huge opportunity to convince voters that his is the steady hand we need to make sure that the miscalculations of investment bankers don't damage the prospects of ordinary American families. A big part of being a strong, steady leader is not panicking. McCain can afford to tone down some of his recent populism a bit. He can be a reformer without being maniacally anti-Wall Street. [...] A reaffirmation of free enterprise, with reasonably low tax rates, is entirely compatible with a righteous determination to drive the money-changers -- in fact, nearly all Democratic money-changers -- out of the federal temple. Someone needs to remind McCain that 'reform' is not synonymous with 'regulation.' On the contrary."

BIDEN: Say It Ain't So, Joe

Conservative bloggers are slamming Joe Biden for "say[ing] that paying higher taxes is the patriotic thing to do for wealthier Americans":

• Michelle Malkin: "Smirky: If you don't pay higher taxes, you hate your country! [Biden]'s the gift that keeps on giving."
• RedState's Pejman Yousefzadeh: "According to Senator Joseph Biden, if we roll over and play dead when the government wants to take even more money out of our paychecks to put in the Department of the Treasury so as to finance Bridge to Nowhere boondoggles, an education system that doesn't even come close to delivering a bang for the buck (even though we spend more per pupil than any other country in the world), a Medicare and Social Security system that are on the verge of collapse and more GSEs that could go the way of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, an ever-expanding government that takes away more and more autonomy from the state and local levels, we will be 'patriotic.'"
• Hot Air's Ed Morrissey: "Biden wants to tell us that paying higher taxes is patriotic. You know what would be patriotic? Congressmen like Barack Obama and Joe Biden attacking government spending, not trying to beef up government revenues (and doing so in the most destructive way, by attacking capital needed for investment). Biden could be patriotic by revealing his pork-barrel record, something he has consistently failed to do. Who gets Biden's earmarks? Why can't Biden be patriotic and forego earmarks?"
• Townhall's Carol Platt Liebau: "Remember when Barack refused to wear a lapel pin, calling it a substitute for 'true patriotism'? Well, now perhaps we know how he defines 'true patriotism.' His running mate, Joe Biden, believes that paying higher taxes is patriotic. Certainly, not all Democrats would agree with them. But it is noteworthy that, taken together, the Dems standard-bearers this year see pride in America as less important than the willingness to hand more of your hard-earned money over to the politicians to spend as they see fit."
• NRO's Ed Whelan: "Ah, now I get it. I had found it puzzling that Democrats kept saying that you can't question the patriotism of someone who has a record of consorting with unrepentant Weather Underground terrorists, of selecting as his pastor and spiritual mentor a spewer of anti-American screeds, and of generally blaming America first. But now that Joe Biden has explained that higher taxes are patriotic, I finally understand the sense in which Barack Obama's patriotism is beyond question."
• NRO's Ramesh Ponnuru: "[Biden] means that a patriot should support raising taxes. But of course any public policy can be supported for patriotic reasons—because the advocate of the policy thinks it would advance the national interest. I tend to think that raising the top marginal tax rate would set the country back (although I am not necessarily averse to other ways of making high earners pay more). So I disagree with Biden about what patriotism requires here. The invocation of patriotism does no analytical work here. You could just as well say 'good people should support tax increases.' You would merely be dumbing down the debate in a way liberals usually find objectionable."

PALIN: You Can Give A Dude A Subpoena, But You Can't Make Him Comply

Liberal bloggers are criticizing Todd Palin's refusal to comply with the subpoena issued last week by the AK legislature:

• Kleiman: "A valid subpoena from a legislature, just like a valid subpoena from a court, is not an invitation. It's a legally binding order. Ignoring that order is a crime: contempt. Todd Palin is committing a crime, and the McCain campaign is encouraging him to do so. I think we've had about enough of contempt for the rule of law on the part of executive-branch officials, haven't we?"
• AMERICAblog's Joe Sudbay: "Palin fits right into the GOP 'culture of corruption.' And, I think we're going to keep learning a lot about Todd. In many ways, he's a natural successor to Lynne Cheney."
• TalkLeft's Jeralyn Merritt: "Instead of taking the 5th, something we could respect as his constitutional right, [Palin]'s claiming he can't get a fair hearing. Republican politics as usual. [...] So, Palin and McCain have derailed the investigation -- but it also means she will run for Vice-President with a cloud of suspicion of impropriety over her head. Sarah Palin: Ethically challenged, Polarizer in Chief. Run, Sarah, Run."
• Benen: "Let's not lose sight of the extent to which Palin has broken her word here. She vowed total cooperation, and the investigation enjoyed broad, bipartisan support. Since the McCain campaign got involved, Palin has decided she won't answer questions, subpoenaed state employees won't answer questions, and Palin's subpoenaed husband won't answer questions. Five Republicans in the Alaskan legislature, who never had a problem with the probe before, have even filed a lawsuit, asking a state judge to end the probe altogether. This didn't stop Palin from boasting to voters this week, 'We're going to make everything more open, and more accountable, and more attractive to those who want to serve.' (There's no word on whether she was able to say the line with a straight face.)"

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Macro Factors vs. Micro Factors

FiveThirtyEight's Nate Silver offers some thoughts on the state of the race:

"There are now 46 days left until the election. The Obama campaign must feel like, if they can spend 35-40 of those days talking about the economy, they are in a very strong position. Excepting the three or four days surrounding the foreign policy debate in Mississippi next week, and the residual possibility of an unanticipated foreign policy crisis, the inertia of the campaign probably means that they will have the opportunity to do so.

Unless, of course, the McCain campaign can throw up some roadblocks and distractions. McCain's is a creative campaign -- more creative in many ways than the Obama campaign. As such, we should not discount the possibility of their finding an effective way to alter the momentum, perhaps one -- like their 'celebrity' critique of Obama -- that was difficult to envision in advance.

At the same time, the campaign cost itself a lot of credibility -- certainly with the media, and to a lesser extent with voters -- with some of their shenanigans of the past week, most notably Lipstickgate, 'Thanks, but no thanks', and the Obama kindergarten commercial. To use a crude metaphor, the McCain campaign may have blown its wad too early. Organic shifts in the momentum of the race can and probably will still occur, but they may find it more difficult now to synthesize one."

LEST WE FORGET: Area Man Committed To Being Spicy Food Guy

From The Onion:

"NEWTON, KS -- Auto salesman Royce Flankingston -- known to frequently question waitstaff as to whether or not food is 'actually' spicy, always ordering the spiciest dish on any menu, and then complaining that it is not spicy enough—recently renewed his commitment to being the spicy food aficionado in his group of friends. 'Jalapenos, habaneros, those are some weak-sauce peppers, man -- you got anything spicy in that salsa?' Flankingston asked his fellow Chrysler dealership employees at a company picnic last weekend, to which he brought his own sampler selection of hot sauces and dared everyone present to try them. 'The famous asbestos Flankingston tongue doesn't notice anything under 10,000 Scoville units, so spare me that Heinz ketchup stuff, okay, buds?' Those close to Flankingston said that, while obnoxious, his latest obsession isn't half as bad as when he attempted to be the small-batch bourbon guy."

Posted by Ian Faerstein at 12:46 PM

September 18, 2008

9/18: The Hits Just Keep On Comin'

Conservative bloggers are in an angry mood today. First of all, they're furious that hackers broke into Sarah Palin's Yahoo! email account, which they're portraying as part of a larger anti-Palin campaign being conducted by the left. Second, they're furious that the Barack Obama camp is running a misleading Spanish-language ad linking John McCain to Rush Limbaugh, a fierce foe of comprehensive immigration reform. Righty bloggers are calling it "the most hateful ad ever" and are accusing Obama of "race-baiting".

Meanwhile, liberal bloggers are keeping up a steady stream of buzz about the McCain camp's efforts to shut down the Troopergate investigation. The defensive tactics being employed by the McCain camp are clearly infuriating the netroots, who are accusing Sarah Palin of trying to cover up her wrongdoing and are comparing her to Dick Cheney. Josh Marshall complains: "I'm not sure I've ever seen an instance of a president, let alone a presidential candidate, quite this nakedly doing everything in his power to shut down an investigation."

Liberal bloggers are also buzzing about McCain's recent interview with a Spanish-language radio station, in which McCain refused to commit to a White House meeting with Spanish PM Jose Luis Zapatero and appeared to lump Zapatero together with controversial Latin American leaders Fidel Castro and Hugo Chavez. Liberal bloggers, along with much of the Spanish press, believe that McCain did not know who Zapatero was and mistakenly assumed that he was the leader of "one of those troublesome Latin American states". But the McCain camp claims that McCain's tough talk was intentional. So was McCain's remark a gaffe, or was he really dissing a NATO ally?

MCCAIN: Did He Just Diss Spain?

Liberal bloggers are buzzing (as is the Spanish press) after McCain conducted an interview in which he refused to commit to a White House meeting with Spain's PM. Time's Lisa Abend reports:

"...During an interview in Miami earlier this week with Spanish-language station Union Radio, a reporter asked McCain whether, if elected, he would receive Zapatero in the White House. McCain answered, 'Honestly, I have to analyze our relationships, situations, and priorities, but I can assure you that I will establish closer relationships with our friends, and I will stand up to those who want to harm the United States.'

Ouch. The question about Zapatero, clearly framed by the reporter as a question about Spain, came after inquiries on Venezuela, Bolivia, and Cuba. As a result, much of the Spanish press has decided that the Republican candidate, who hails himself as the experienced foreign policy choice in this election, confused Spain -- a NATO member and key ally in the fight against terrorism -- with one of those troublesome Latin American states. That was certainly the interviewer's impression, for she followed up with a gentle reminder that Spain was a country in Europe. As Spanish newspaper El País put it, 'In the best-case scenario, [his answer] demonstrates his ignorance with respect to Zapatero.'"

• TPM's Marshall: "So McCain is the candidate with the foreign policy experience ready to lead on day one. But he doesn't know who the leader of Spain is. He gets confused in an interview, apparently thinking Zapatero is someone from Latin America who is an enemy of the United States and manages to create a minor international incident."
• AMERICAblog's John Aravosis: "This isn't funny. It's actually quite serious. We may have the first evidence, on tape, that McCain's age, or illness, or both are catching up with him and he's losing his mental faculties."
• Think Progress' Matthew Yglesias: "Either [McCain] doesn't realize that Spain is a NATO ally located on the other side of the ocean or else (more plausibly) he doesn't know the name of the Prime Minister of Spain. That's not a hanging offense, I suppose, but certainly an oversight for the candidate of experience and national security credibility."
• Obsidian Wings' hilzoy: "This is a big gaffe. It's not like Bush's not knowing who the head of Pakistan was in 2000. In that case, Bush was asked a surprise question. In this case, McCain was being interviewed by Spanish media. If he wasn't briefed on Spain, including the name of its Prime Minister, before he sat down for that interview, then he has completely incompetent staff, who should be fired on the spot. (Avoiding mistakes like this is part of what they're paid for.) If he was briefed on that, then it's not just that he forgot, in the sense of not being able to recall the name when asked. That happens sometimes, but it's not what happened here. Here, he didn't recognize the name when someone else said it."
• Oliver Willis: "So, an interviewer asks John McCain about José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero, the prime minister of Spain. Bizarrely, McCain starts talking about Latin America. [...] Conservatives have been pretty proud of actual and feigned ignorance...but the President of the United States should really f*****g know where Spain is."
• Mark Kleiman: "Apparently John McCain isn't clear whether Spain is an enemy or an ally. Shouldn't a candidate who proposes to expand the membership of NATO first figure out which countries are currently in NATO?"

MCCAIN II: A Deregatulor In Regulator's Clothing?

Liberal bloggers are portraying McCain's new economic message as dishonest, noting that he is now embracing increased regulation of the financial markets after opposing it for years:

• Daily Kos' DemFromCT: "John McCain, the Keating Five Guy, [is] to lead us into a new era of bailouts."
• TPM's David Kurtz: "McCain continues with his new-found populist message in a new ad promising financial system reform. (I guess Phil Gramm will oversee that?)"
• The Washington Monthly's Steve Benen: "McCain personally gave the financial industry a green light to do exactly what they did. And now he's outraged. It's precisely why McCain's economic message has been so oddly incoherent this week. Turning on a dime, he's gone from supporting fewer regulations to supporting more, from supporting less oversight to supporting more. McCain is slamming Wall Street execs for playing a dangerous game after McCain helped throw out the rules."
• The Nation's Ari Berman: "Before he was for more government regulation of the economy (as of yesterday), John McCain was adamantly against it. In the wake of the latest economic tumble, McCain has suddenly discovered his inner populist. But for most of his political career, McCain was just another Republican cheerleader for corporate deregulation. [And, in the case of Charles Keating, he improperly intervened to protect the Savings & Loan magnate from federal regulators.]"
• Firedoglake's Blue Texan: "Watching McSame and Palin, both gubmint-regulation-is-the-devil [George W.] Bush/[Dick] Cheney Republicans, talk about the implosion of the financial industry is a riot."
• Open Left's David Sirota: "On 11/19/93, McCain took to the Senate floor to support an early financial deregulation bill and decry what he called 'the tremendous regulatory burden imposed on financial institutions.' [...] Ten years later, McCain was bragging to the Associated Press that 'I have a long voting record in support of deregulation,' and to CNN that 'I am a deregulator. I believe in deregulation.' And, during this year's presidential campaign taking place in the shadow of financial meltdown, McCain was only months ago insisting on PBS that 'we need less government [and] less regulation' and that 'I'm always for less regulation'. [...] McCain's 180 on regulation opens up an obvious chance for Democrats to label him a against-it-before-I-was-for-it, say-anything-to-get-elected hypocrite."

On the right side of the blogosphere, AmSpec Blog's Philip Klein thinks McCain is making a mistake: "McCain and Palin have been going around the country talking about how they're going to 'shake up Washington' and 'put government on the side of the people' and 'fight for you,' but they haven't really explained what they are going to actually shake up or fight for. As inexperienced as Obama is on economic policy, in recent days McCain has been more about fire and brimstone directed toward Wall Street 'villians' than about anything else. McCain thinks that the only way to distance himself from President Bush is to keep flaring his nostrils about greed and self-interest. If the American people want a president who will take on Wall Street like a schoolyard bully, they'll just vote for the Democrat."

PALIN: The Stonewalling Continues

Liberal bloggers are buzzing about the news that AK's GOP AG said that state employees would refuse to honor subpoenas in the Troopergate investigation:

"JUNEAU, Alaska -- Alaska's investigation into whether Gov. Sarah Palin abused her power, a potentially damaging distraction for John McCain's presidential campaign, ran into intensified resistance Tuesday when the attorney general said state employees would refuse to honor subpoenas in the case.

In a letter to state Sen. Hollis French, the Democrat overseeing the investigation, Republican Attorney General Talis Colberg asked that the subpoenas be withdrawn. He also said the employees would refuse to appear unless either the full state Senate or the entire Legislature votes to compel their testimony."

• Kurtz: "Remember, the game here is to delay, delay, delay until after the election."
• Daily Kos' Kagro X: "For Republicans, government is no longer about law. It's about physics. Subpoena? Well, I'm not going unless you can actually drag me in there."
• TalkLeft's Jeralyn Merritt: "Palin stonewalls just like Dick Cheney and George Bush. First she agrees to cooperate, then she tries to delay and derail the investigation by moving it to an agency under executive rather than legislative control. Losing that battle, she says 'Never Mind' and refuses to cooperate. Now, her employees are doing the same. We've had enough of Dick Cheney-style politics. If Alaska wants to put up with Palin's antics, that's its business. But there's no reason to inflict her lies and distortions of her record or her lack of preparedness and qualifications to lead on the rest of us."
• TPM's Kate Klonick: "The legal action surrounding the investigation into Palin's firing of former Public Safety Commissioner Walt Monegan, known as Trooper-Gate, has markedly increased since Palin was named the Republican vice-presidential nominee. When the investigation began just two months ago, Palin pledged the full-cooperation of herself and her staff."

PALIN II: Pretext Worse Than The Crime?

Liberal bloggers are harshly criticizing Palin after her lawyer claimed that she fired public safety commissioner Walt Monegan because he tried "to seek funding for a new, multimillion-dollar sexual assault initiative the governor hadn't yet approved":

• TAPPED's Tim Fernholz: "It turns out that one of the reasons cited by Sarah Palin for firing Public Safety Commissioner Walt Monegan is worse than why we previously believed she fired him: merely abusing her power to take revenge on a former brother-in-law. [...] She did it because Monegan was going to Washington to ask for money to combat sexual assault -- Alaska has more forcible rapes per capita than any other state in the Union -- and Palin didn't want Monegan's request to interfere with her earmarks requests going through now-indicted Senator Ted Stevens. [...] Between this and her refusal to subsidize rape kits for sexual assault victims, a pattern is clear."
• Yglesias: "Sarah Palin's critics say she fired Alaska Public Safety Commissioner Walt Monegan in an abuse of power related to her desire to abuse the powers of her office to pursue a vendetta against a family enemy. The McCain campaign counters that, no way, the real problem is that Monegan was too zealous in pursuing his extremist anti-rape agenda. [...] That doesn't sound like the kind of thing you'd fire a well-respected public servant for, but Tim Fernholtz points out that there's a pattern here of Palin taking a strong stand against anti-rape measures (Alaska leads the nation in such crimes) what with her make rape victims pay for evidence collection scheme, so maybe she really did find Monegan's anti-rapist activities to be beyond the pale."
• Kleiman: "The latest story is that she fired [Monegan] because he wanted to put more effort into rape cases and she didn't want him to. That's creativity; no normal person, looking for an excuse, would have come up with that one."
• Aravosis: "Creepily, McCain's running mate, Sarah Palin, has an increasingly bad record when it comes to being on the side of those who have been raped and sexually abused. First, we learned that while mayor, she charged rape victims for their rape kits (she was the only mayor in the state to do so, and the state had to pass a law to get her to stop it). And now we learn that Palin says the reason she fired the trooper in her Troopergate scandal is because he was too aggressively trying to stop child predators. So twice now we have Palin siding with rapists and child molesters. Anybody else smelling an ad campaign?"

PALIN III: What's She Hiding?

Liberal bloggers are buzzing about reports that (1.) "Palin is effectively turning over questions about her record as Alaska's governor to John McCain's political campaign", and that (2.) Ed O'Callaghan, a former U.S. Attorney now working for the McCain campaign, "has been helping to direct an aggressive legal strategy aimed at shutting down [the Troopergate investigation]":

• Marshall: "Presidential candidates usually have to wait until they're elected to start obstructing investigations into their own wrong-doing. But ready on day one as he is, John McCain and Sarah Palin are getting a jump on this front too. I'm not sure I've ever seen an instance of a president, let alone a presidential candidate, quite this nakedly doing everything in his power to shutdown an investigation. [...] Meanwhile, the claim that the Obama camp has 'tainted' the trooper-gate investigation is truly risible. This investigation was well underway and already looking bad for Palin and her husband well before John McCain picked her as his running mate. (We know: we were already covering it.)"
• Yglesias: "I remember watching MSNBC on what I think was the morning before Sarah Palin was announced. Someone or other floated the idea of Sarah Palin as McCain's VP choice. Then Andrea Mitchell dismissed that idea out of hand on the grounds that there was an open investigation into some alleged misconduct and nobody would pick a VP choice who was already the target of something like that. Well, that made sense to me, and I thought no more of Palin until...John McCain picked her. But it's still a crazy idea. Now she's into some major league stonewalling. And she doesn't even really have the fig leaf of holding that the whole investigation is somehow root-and-branch illegitimate, either, because she initially welcomed the investigation and swore she would cooperate with it."
• Merritt: "TrooperGate is no longer just about Palin's possible abuse of power in seeking the removal of her brother-in-law. It's now about her and the McCain [campaign's] attempts to derail the investigation. McCain-Palin, Bush-Cheney, what's the difference?"
• Kleiman: "Sarah Palin: a leader in the tradition of Dick Nixon, Dick Cheney, and George W. Bush. Ready to abuse power on Day One."

Benen wants to know why this story isn't getting more press: "I'm not sure why Sarah Palin's 'Troopergate' scandal isn't getting more play right now. The still largely unknown Republican VP nominee is in the midst of a fairly serious ethics controversy, and after giving her word to cooperate as part of a transparent process, Palin and her team are acting like they have a lot to hide. Usually, for the national media, this would be like waving red meat in front of a hungry dog."

PALIN IV: Despicable

Conservative bloggers are furious that "hackers broke into the Yahoo! e-mail account that [Palin] used for official business as Alaska's governor". They are portraying this cyber-attack as part of a larger attack on Palin being conducted by liberals:

• Townhall's Hugh Hewitt: "Yesterday's cyber-mugging of the governor and her family was just another episode demonstrating the unhinged nature of many of the Obamians, another reminder to the country that it doesn't really want to hire on the Obama team to run the nation's security, its finances, and its future."
• Power Line's John Hinderaker: "Liberals have hacked into Sarah Palin's private Yahoo email account, stolen the contents thereof, and are gleefully posting emails, photographs of the Palins' children, and so forth on cesspool liberal web sites. [...] Just another reminder that there is no sense of decency on the Left."
• Townhall's Amanda Carpenter: "What are the odds these people are supporting the Obama campaign? When is Obama going to make a statement denouncing this illegal, invasion of privacy? And how soon is the FBI going get these hackers and the bloggers over at Gawker who promoted this illegally obtained information?? Lastly, when is the media, outside of Fox News, going to start holding people accountable for so viciously invading the Palin family's privacy? If the DailyKos fabrication about Palin 'covering up' her daughter's pregnancy wasn't enough, surely uploading Bristol Palin's cell phone number and personal contact information for Todd [Palin] and Track [Palin] should be. It's not like everyone doesn't know exactly what side of the political spectrum these smears are coming from."
• NRO's Jay Nordlinger: "The attempted destruction of Gov. Sarah Palin -- by some of the worst forces in this country -- is making me sick. You? For most of our lives, we have heard squawks from the left about civil liberties. Also about the 'politics of personal destruction.' I know they hate her, politically and personally. But won't some of them stand up against what is happening now? Just for the sake of a semblance of integrity?"
• Michelle Malkin: "The law will catch up to the hackers, but what about the lowlifes who are now gleefully splashing the alleged contents of Palin's private e-mail account all over the Internet? [...] Gawker knowingly and deliberately published illegally obtained photos of the Palin children. Where are the privacy absolutists now? You think Palin Derangement Syndrome is bad now? These by-any-means-necessary lunatics are just warming up."
• RedState's Moe Lane: "This angered me, until one of my fellow Contributors reminded me of a little, small, surely insignificant detail that apparently everyone involved with hacking the account, publishing the hack, and favorably publicizing the hack seem to have forgotten. Sarah Palin is now under the protection of the United States Secret Service, which means that they are going to very interested in this attack. Let me put this succinctly: everybody who had a hand in this is [expletive deleted]ed. Have a nice day!"

On the left side of the blogosphere, Daily Kos's Markos Moulitsas condemns the cyber-attack: "[This is] not cute, funny, righteous, or justifiable in any way. This is just as odious as the gross violations that spurred the FISA battle. I hope whoever hacked into her email gets caught and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. At least one Republican personally knows how it feels to have someone look into her private communications without proper cause or approval. It would be nice if that spurred a renewed conservative embrace of privacy issues and support for those key Constitutional principles designed to protect us from the tyranny of government. But I won't hold my breath."

OBAMA: Who's Launching Unfair Attacks Now, Barack?

Conservative bloggers are slamming the Obama camp for launching a misleading Spanish-language ad linking McCain to radio show host Rush Limbaugh:

• Hinderaker: "I don't think I've ever seen a more deeply contemptible political ad. Apart from the fact that the ad slanders Rush Limbaugh...Limbaugh and McCain were opponents on the subject of immigration. [...] In the mainstream media, the last week has been consumed by tut-tutting over the supposed 'lies' perpetrated by two McCain ads -- which, however, were inconveniently true. It will be interesting to see how liberal pundits react to what must be the most dishonest, racist and hateful campaign ad published in many years."
• Townhall's Carol Platt Liebau: "The Obama ad is race baiting, pure and simple. It's designed to divide Americans along ethnic lines -- based on false pretenses -- for Obama's political advantage. Let's hear no more about Willie Horton. At least that ad was accurate."
• NRO's Yuval Levin: "There is nothing wrong with attack ads. Pointing out your opponent's positions, statements, or weaknesses is an entirely appropriate element of political campaigning. But outright lies, let alone race baiting lies like this, are surely not."
• Hot Air's Allahpundit: "What's the bigger lie here, the nutroots-worthy distortions of what Limbaugh said or the suggestion that Rush Limbaugh and John McCain, of all people, are fellow travelers on the topic of immigration? Or is it rather the idea that Maverick, who two days ago reaffirmed his desire to push comprehensive immigration reform on his first day in office, has somehow 'abandoned' the amnesty lobby?"

On a somewhat related note, several conservative bloggers are noting with dismay that McCain promised to present a comprehensive immigration reform package to Congress "the first day" he is in office:

• Allahpundit: "[McCain] promise[d] to present a new comprehensive immigration bill to Congress 'in the first day' he takes office -- which isn't the first time he's said that, his many empty soundbites about securing the border first notwithstanding. Exit question: You do understand we're going to see amnesty with President McCain in office, right? And Vice President Palin's likely to be cheering all the way."
• Right Wing News' John Hawkins: "I would be surprised if even John McCain introduced comprehensive immigration reform right out of the gate because that betrayal would lead to open warfare with the conservative wing of the party right out of the gate. [...] That being said, with McCain you can never say never. I'd also note that I do think he will try comprehensive immigration reform at some point, probably after some face saving attempt to claim that the border is now secure -- and whether it will pass or not is indeterminate. [...] In any case, whether McCain or Obama gets into office, we have a fight coming on this issue."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Did Obama Make An "Epic Mistake" By Turning Down Public Financing?

Patrick Ruffini thinks so:

"...With an over 2-to-1 Obama spending advantage, McCain is keeping pace with Obama in ad spending. How does he do it? [...] McCain's $84 million in public finance is just the tip of the iceberg. The real action is at McCain-Palin Victory 2008, the joint fundraising committee that includes the RNC, state parties in Michigan, Missouri, Ohio, and Pennylvania, and McCain's GELAC (or compliance) committee. According to their website, Victory can raise up to $67,800 per donor (and presumably, up to $135,600 per couple). [...] Yes, Obama is theoretically capturing more money into his committee by going private, but at a massive opportunity cost. All of his fundraising energies from now until the election will be spent fundraising for an account with a $2,300 fundraising limit, vs. McCain and Palin, who will be fundraising for a committee with a $67,800 limit (and presumably, $135,400 for couples). Obama has essentially turned down $84 million in free money in exchange for nothing [...]

What are the tradeoffs? Legally, Victory has to spend half its time talking about Republican candidates, not just McCain. From a GOTV perspective, this hardly matters. If you are turning out Republicans, you are turning out McCain people. Only the ads are a little awkward. Legally, they must attack obscure Congressional liberals as well as Obama. [...] But how bad is this really? A disporportionate amount of Republican energy from now till election day will go towards lifting the Republican tide generally, branding Congressional Democrats, and tearing down the Democrats generally. This will help bring Republican candidate performance in line with McCain (this is already happening) while hardly any national Democratic ads will say 'vote Democratic for Congress.' When a message is uncontested like this, watch for it to move the needle."

LEST WE FORGET: Palin Unveils 9/11 Firefighter Cousin, Reformed Lesbian Niece, Naturalized Mexican Half Brother

From The Onion:

"CARBONDALE, PA -- Less than two weeks after introducing to the nation her developmentally disabled newborn and her 19-year-old son preparing for military service in Iraq, Republican vice presidential nominee and conservative Christian woman Sarah Palin delivered a speech Monday flanked by three heretofore-unknown relatives, including a naturalized Mexican half brother, a formerly lesbian niece, and a New York City firefighter cousin who saved several lives during the 9/11 World Trade Center attacks. 'John McCain and I will take on the Washington establishment and give the government back to the people,' said Palin, who several times gave the 'thumbs-up' sign to her African-American coal-miner uncle seated in the audience. 'We envision a better and brighter future for hardworking, selfless Americans like Ted, Anne, and Guillermo here.' Palin has a campaign stop scheduled next week in Texas, where she is expected to introduce her stepsister Linda, a $35 barrel of offshore-drilled crude oil wrapped in an American flag."

Posted by Ian Faerstein at 01:35 PM

September 17, 2008

9/17: McCain Goes Populist

Liberal bloggers spent the early part of this week portraying John McCain as out of touch after he claimed that "the fundamentals of our economy are strong". Now they're accusing McCain of flip-flopping after he called the current economic situation a "crisis" and blamed it on "the greed of Wall Street and the lack of federal oversight". Lefty bloggers are arguing that McCain's embrace of increased federal oversight is nothing more than a political ploy, noting that he has boasted about being a "deregulator" on multiple occasions in the past.

Liberal bloggers are also wondering how McCain reconciles his belief that Wall Street is in "crisis" with his support for diverting some Social Security dollars into private accounts. Oliver Willis writes: "Shorter John McCain: 'Wall Street is filled with robber barons and thieves, that's why I voted for us to put your social security in their hands!'"

Most conservative bloggers have been quiet about McCain's populist turn; perhaps they feel that McCain is simply doing what he needs to do to win. That said, a few righty bloggers have been vocal in their criticism of McCain's rhetoric. Ramesh Ponnuru writes that "McCain's embrace of 'regulation' as the answer to Wall Street's ills is vacuous," while John Hinderaker complains, "Is it too much to expect a Republican Presidential nominee to forgo demagoguery on the economy?"

MCCAIN: Now He's Supposed To Be A Populist?

Liberal bloggers are accusing McCain of flip-flopping after he gave a speech yesterday in which he "blam[ed] the greed of Wall Street and the lack of federal oversight for the current financial meltdown".

• The Washington Monthly's Steve Benen: "McCain has always supported the casual oversight he's now railing against. He's never lifted a finger to rein in Wall Street's excesses -- indeed, he's actively opposed anyone who tried."
• Willis: "'The Greatest Deregulator.' That's what John McCain called himself a little over a year ago. But you should totally totally totally believe him when he promises today to bring regulatory oversight to the collapsing financial system. Real believable."
• Think Progress' Ryan Powers: "With regard to the current economic crisis, the McCain campaign is now arguing for 'strong regulatory oversight of Wall Street.' McCain, however, has long held that he is 'fundamentally a deregulator.' As he told the Wall Street Journal in March: 'I'm always for less regulation...I am a fundamentally a deregulator. I'd like to see a lot of the unnecessary government regulations eliminated.'"
• Mother Jones' Kevin Drum: "This is pretty laughable. [...] McCain has been running ads for weeks saying that he'll 'reform Wall Street and battle Big Oil' -- claims that usually prompt me to burst out laughing when they pop up on my TV. If there's a person in the entire country less likely than John McCain to reform Wall Street or battle Big Oil, I'm not sure who it is."

Think Progress' Matthew Yglesias thinks McCain's words are all bluster: "It's interesting how much weight McCain wants to put on greed as the causal factor here. [...] I suppose nobody's going to speak out in favor of 'greed,' but just like when McCain was bashing Mitt Romney in the primaries for having spent time in the private sector, this is pretty strange stuff. Does McCain really think it's that terrible for people in the business world to be motivated by self-interest? Does he really think that as president he's going to find a way to put a stop to greed? Unless this means nothing at all, then it's incredibly utopian. My suspicion is that it means nothing at all. Just like how McCain is against crazy CEO compensation packages but doesn't intend to do anything about it, he's also against greedy Wall Street types but doesn't intend to do anything about them, either. He's long on moralism, and short on practical policy solutions."

MCCAIN II: Enough With The Teddy Roosevelt Shtick!

While most conservative bloggers were quiet about McCain's populist turn, a few criticized his rhetoric about Wall Street:

• Hinderaker: "While I'm pretty sure that as President John McCain would do less damage to the economy than Obama, his response to the current crisis hasn't been inspiring, either. McCain sees the downfall of Lehman Brothers as a morality play. [...] When McCain is done eradicating greed, he's going to take on lust and gluttony. McCain's actual policy proposals, as far as I've studied them, don't seem too bad. But is it too much to expect a Republican Presidential nominee to forgo demagoguery on the economy?"
• Ponnuru: "Senator McCain's embrace of 'regulation' as the answer to Wall Street's ills is vacuous: He isn't telling us what rules he would put in place, let alone how those rules would have helped in the past or would help in the future. He is, so far, getting away with it because journalists treat 'regulation' in the same content-less way. [...] McCain has certainly talked about excessive regulation in the past and sponsored some deregulatory initiatives such as Gramm-Leach-Bliley. [...] But he has not in practice shown anything close to a generalized hostility to regulation. He has shown a penchant for regulation, often inspired by moralism. He has taken a leading role in promoting regulation of airlines, HMOs, campaign finance, stock options, and boxing, for example. His instinct seems to be to view our financial turmoil solely as a morality play: 'Greed' led to excess, and now we need 'regulation.' Bad idea."
• NRO's Jonah Goldberg: "What I don't understand is why McCain is making this primarily about Wall Street (though I'm not saying Wall Street should get off scot free, rhetorically, politically or otherwise). Isn't this Wall Street crisis ultimately a byproduct of the mortgage crisis, and isn't the mortgage crisis ultimately more in Fannie and Freddie's column? And isn't that a much more natural target for McCain's wrath. Denouncing the 'greed' of investors strikes me as silly. Denouncing the greed of a Washington political class that allowed this to happen is not only fair game, but totally in McCain-the-reformer's wheelhouse."
• The Weekly Standard's Dean Barnett: "I understand that knee-jerk populism from the candidates probably focus groups better than 'stuff happens.' My big concern is that neither candidate has the private sector experience to understand the most basic facts of our economy. In a free market economy, some market players will inevitably make mistakes. Big ones. Those market mistakes will lead to corrections. Painful ones. [...] What's happening on Wall Street right now is actually quite complex and delicate -- simple slogans won't help, and knee-jerk demagoguery will hurt. Unless something more constructive occurs to them, I urge the campaigns to return to lipstick and pigs."

MCCAIN III: If Wall Street Is Broken, Then Why Does He Trust It With Our Social Security Dollars?

Several liberal bloggers are arguing that McCain's harsh criticism of Wall Street is inconsistent with his support for partially privatizing Social Security:

• Ezra Klein: "Three years ago, John McCain signed on to George W. Bush's efforts to privatize Social Security. He surveyed Wall Street and decided that it was a stable enough institution to entrust with the nation's pension funds. Three years ago. And this wasn't just an attempt to cozy up to Bush: McCain was arguing for privatization in 1999. So McCain's argument is that Wall Street is built atop an unstable regulatory foundation and is shot through with most of the seven deadly sins. That the situation has been allowed to fester so long is evidence that 'people were asleep at the switch.' Even so, McCain has consistently argued that much of Social Security should be turned over to...Wall Street. Either he wanted to tank the nation's pensions funds or he was one of the people asleep at the switch. But those are really the only two options here."
• The Huffington Post's John Neffinger: "Plenty of people are losing plenty of their retirement savings as it is. But if we had let Bush and McCain privatize social security, some of those people would be losing a lot more. [...] This is something Americans understand: social security is secure, and the stock market is anything but. There are few more personal or dramatic ways to illustrate McCain's terrible judgment than to imagine the nightmare scenario so many Americans would face if McCain and Bush had gotten their way on this -- or if McCain were to get his way as President."
• Benen: "Maybe now would be a good time for the McCain campaign to clarify McCain's willingness to trust Wall Street when it comes to Social Security."
• Willis: "Shorter John McCain: 'Wall Street is filled with robber barons and thieves, that's why I voted for us to put your social security in their hands!'"
• AMERICAblog's Chris in Paris: "[This] brings us back to McCain's radical plan to send our Social Security money to Wall Street. Yes, the same Wall Street who just lost $700 billion yesterday. Imagine the consequences of an unchecked market controlling our Social Security money..."

MCCAIN IV: A Commission? A Friggin' Commission?

Liberal bloggers are mocking McCain's call for "a high-level commission to study the current economic crisis".

• AMERICAblog's Joe Sudbay: "Yesterday, John McCain said 'the fundamentals of our economy are strong.' His campaign been trying to dig out from that statement since the words left the candidate's mouth. McCain has no economic agenda. He's just going to follow the [George W.] Bush path, which led us to where we are. But, knowing that Americans are freaking out, the McCain brain trust has been scrambling to come up with an economic plan. Their grand solution: McCain will form a commission. Yep, that's it. Pretty much the most inside-the-beltway answer to any problem is: Form a commission. McCain's been in Washington for a very long time."
• Benen: "Is it me, or is this message a little disjointed? McCain knows precisely why this crisis unfolded, and he wants a commission to help him determine precisely why this crisis unfolded. McCain saw this coming two years ago (for which we're supposed to give him credit), but as a policy maker and presidential hopeful, he didn't lift a finger to try to prevent or address it before it became a crisis (for which we're not supposed give him credit)."
• Firedoglake's Scarecrow: "John McCain is desperately trying to spin his way out of the blunder of repeatedly insisting that the 'fundamentals of our economy are strong,' even as Americans watch Wall Street crash and hang on by its fingernails and their economic security disappear in a blizzard of bad economic news. [...] It's obvious that McCain doesn't have a clue about what's happening on Wall Street, nor how it might affect ordinary Americans. This morning, he first clamied that we need a '9/11 Commission' to find out what went wrong and how to fix it, and in the same breath bragged that he knows how to fix it without explaining how."
• dday: "If there was ever a do-nothing solution to a problem, it's to convene a commission of insiders to write a paper that'll sit on a shelf unread."

MCCAIN V: He's Taken On Tougher Guys Than This Before

Conservative bloggers are analyzing McCain's latest ad, "Foundation", in which McCain tells the audience:

"You, the American workers, are the best in the world. But your economic security has been put at risk by the greed of Wall Street. That's unacceptable. My opponent's only solutions are talk and taxes. I'll reform Wall Street and fix Washington. I've taken on tougher guys than this before."

Some righty bloggers like the ad:

• Hot Air's Ed Morrissey: "Instead of offering fear and loathing, McCain exudes calm and confidence, and reminds people that he has faced tougher foes in the past. This may be one of McCain's best ads of the campaign. Direct, optimistic, forceful, and serious, he's making the case for tested leadership in a crisis."
• RedState's Moe Lane: "As Ed notes, it's pretty effective: it tries to talk to the viewer and is notably more optimistic than whatever his opponents are throwing at the wall today (mind you, it'd be hard for us to keep a straight face if Obama/...Biden, right...tried optimism, given that their entire campaign is based around how the universe will implode unless you give him five bucks). It should be interesting to see which approach works better. I'm trying to remember the last time that optimism didn't, but no doubt that's in the eye of the beholder."

AmSpec Blog's Robert Stacy McCain is a bit more critical of the ad: "Vague and calmly reassuring -- a positive message. But we're probably past the point in the campaign when positive messages have much impact. It's now a duel fought with chainsaws at close range, the object being to cut the other guy off at the knees. I suppose Team Maverick wants to leave that ugly business to the 527s."

MCCAIN VI: You're Looking At The Miracle John McCain Helped Create

Liberal bloggers are mocking McCain after his top economic adviser, Douglas Holtz-Eakin, claimed that the AZ senator helped create the BlackBerry:

"Move over, Al Gore. You may lay claim to the Internet, but John McCain helped create the BlackBerry.

At least that's the contention of a top McCain policy adviser, Douglas Holtz-Eakin. Waving his BlackBerry personal digital assistant and citing McCain's work as a senator, he told reporters Tuesday, 'You're looking at the miracle that John McCain helped create.'"

• Willis: "'The Miracle John McCain Helped Create'. BWAHAHAHAHA!"
• Daily Kos' Markos Moulitsas: "Isn't it awesome how McCain invented the Blackberry? I always thought it was some Canadian company..."
• Balloon Juice's John Cole: "After two weeks of being condemned in the media as a liar, the narrative of John McCain as a liar and serial exaggerator just got better."
• TAPPED's Tim Fernholz: "Here's the really funny part: Let's say that McCain's time on the Commerce Committee really did support industries that developed Blackberry-type technology, as Al Gore's time in the Senate really did support internet development. It still doesn't work! Why? Research-in-Motion, the company that invented the Blackberry, is Canadian. Whoops."
• TPMCafe's Reed Hundt: "John McCain is so out of touch that his economics adviser thinks he deserves credit for creating a Canadian company."
• Sudbay: "As one of our readers wrote, 'Not only did McCain invent the BlackBerry -- he outsourced it!'"
• Yglesias: "What on earth is Holtz-Eakin talking about here? I'm sure McCain's work on the Commerce Committee has had impact on the course of our telecom-related gadgets, but he's hardly been doing this stuff all alone, and the device in question was developed by a Canadian company so it's hard to see how it hinged crucially on any particular aspect of US telecom policy. More to the point -- how would John McCain's putative expertise in telecom regulation help him understand the turmoil in the financial markets?"
• MyDD's Jonathan Singer: "This story perfectly fits into the meme that has been developing in recent days, namely that McCain and his campaign will say anything -- even lie through his teeth -- in order to win the Presidency."

Meanwhile, Daily Kos' Devilstower criticizes McCain's record on telecommunications issues: "With the Telecommunications Act of 1996, the Senate passed the first major revision to telecommunications law in 62 years which provided the foundation for much of the cell phone and Internet regulation over the next decade. The bill passed 81-18 and was signed into law by President [Bill] Clinton. McCain voted against the act. In 2002, McCain authored the 'Consumer Broadband Deregulation Act of 2002' which eliminated the requirement of the 1996 law that telecommunication companies provide access to competitors. It didn't pass. [...] So, McCain's 'guiding hand' seems to consist of opposing the legislation that laid the groundwork for the communications we have today, and authoring failed legislation designed to benefit big carriers."

PALIN: What Happened To Accountability?

Liberal bloggers are condemning the McCain camp's efforts to derail the pending ethics investigation known as "Troopergate." They are particularly annoyed by reports that Palin is "unlikely to speak with an investigator hired by the state legislature to look into the matter", even though she previously said that she welcomed an investigation:

• Firedoglake's Christy Hardin Smith: "The Troopergate investigation began with a unanimous vote in the Republican-controlled legislature in Alaska to proceed in this investigation of Palin's alleged abuse of power. And Palin repeatedly vowed to cooperate fully with the investigation back in July. Now? Not so much -- and not without a nudge from the McCain campaign to state GOP folks urging help with Palin's resistance efforts. [...] Welcome to politically motivated stall tactics 101, kids. And it looks like they are taking a page or two from Dick Cheney and Karl Rove's bag of tricks."
• AKMuckraker: "Palin refuses to cooperate with ethics probe. What a surprise. [...] I have yet to have anyone explain to me how a Republican dominated Legislature could have voted unanimously to proceed with the investigation by special investigator Stephen Branchflower, and have been 'hijacked by Democrats.' That story may cut it with [Palin's] new-found friends in the Lower 48, but it's not cutting it here in Alaska. [...] The only reason Palin was not issued a subpoena, is because the Legislature actually believed her when she said she would cooperate. They actually took her at her word."
• Benen: "When Sarah Palin's 'troopergate' scandal first broke, the investigation was supposed to go smoothly. Everyone involved emphasized the importance of 'transparency.' The governor told state lawmakers and the public that she welcomed the investigation, saying, 'Hold me accountable.' The support for the probe was bipartisan, the governor's office was anxious to cooperate and clear the air, and there wasn't even any need for subpoenas. So much for that idea."

PALIN II: Digging Deeper...

Many liberal bloggers aren't buying Palin's claim that she fired public safety commissioner Walt Monegan "because he resisted Gov. Sarah Palin's budget policies":

• Open Left's Paul Rosenberg: "The latest line of defense for John McCain's running mate, Sarah Palin, on the Troopergate Scandal, simply doesn't hold up one millisecond for those who know the story so far. [...] The AP is reporting that Palin's administration has released a batch of emails supporting a claim that Public Safety Commissioner Walter Monegan was fired over budget disagreements, not because he refused to fire Palin's ex-brother-in-law, Mike Wooten. [...] If it were true, there would have been no 'Troopergate' in the first place. The whole scandal began when Palin had a subordinate fire Monegan, without giving any reason. If this were truly why he was fired, then why didn't she just say so? Particularly since the failure to explain her actions caused an immediate stir in Alaska at the time."
• Cole: "The McCain campaign is firmly behind her defense now, and are trumping up charges of insubordination against Monegan after the fact, and then circulating the coverage, as this email to the Politico's Ben Smith from campaign flack Brian Rogers demonstrates. [...] They are scared to death of this, and you should ask yourself why."

Other bloggers are surprised that "the last straw" leading up to Monegan's firing -- according to Palin's lawyer -- was his effort "to seek funding for a new, multimillion-dollar sexual assault initiative the governor hadn't yet approved":

• Daily Kos' Kagro X: "In her effort to 'protect her family' from domestic violence, [Palin] fired the state's leading advocate for domestic violence prevention. Because he wouldn't agree to fire her ex-brother in-law, State Trooper Mike Wooten, on her say-so. How she hoped to protect her family by making it more difficult for Wooten to pay his bills, nobody has yet figured out. But in the meantime, the victims of Alaska's absolutely scandalous rate of violence against women and children -- not to mention the one guy who actually cared -- are paying the price for a governor who puts her obsession with using the trappings of high office to settle personal scores ahead of protecting public safety."
• Firedoglake's Lindsay Beyerstein: "The possibility that Palin clashed with the public safety commissioner over sexual assault prevention funding is intriguing. We already know that while Palin was mayor of Wasilla, her administration rewrote the budget to charge rape victims for the processing of their own rape kits. [...] Why did Palin, who never seems to have encountered a D.C. dollar she didn't crave, object to Monega's trip to Washington?"
• Talking Points Memo's David Kurtz: "Sarah Palin is having trouble keeping her stories straight about why she fired her public safety director in Trooper-Gate. At one point, she went so far as to say she hadn't fired him at all: he'd quit. But now, with help from the McCain campaign, she's come up with a new justification for what is again being called a firing: insubordination. And what, you ask, did he do that was supposedly insubordinate? He was too aggressive in trying to go after sex offenders, specifically child molesters. Seriously."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: The AIG Bailout

AmSpec Blog's Philip Klein thinks the $85 billion AIG bailout will have significant political repercussions:

"I don't think conservatives have truly grasped what these means for the big picture. The fact that federal authorities had to essentially nationalize the largest mortgage companies and the largest insurance company within weeks makes the government's role in our financial markets unprecedented. My former employer, Reuters, estimates that when you combine all of the bailouts and other rescue deals orchestrated in the past year, taxpayers could be on the hook for up to $900 billion. Now, all of those people who are always clamoring for more regulation of the free market can argue that if taxpayers are going to come to the rescue anyway, why don't we place more restrictions on private enterprise to protect taxpayers from huge market failures? On this, McCain and Obama both agree -- regulation needs to be overhauled -- there's no stopping it now. The only question is how intrusive.

Beyond that, liberals now can point to this huge rescue of Wall Street, and ask, what will we do for 'Main Street'? They'll argue that if we have hundreds of billions of dollars to dole out to Wall Street finance companies that mess up, how come hard working Americans can't get government health care? They can fill in the blank for any government program that choose."

LEST WE FORGET: Night Of Watching Game Show Network Leaves Man Concerned About Life Insurance

From The Onion:

"BRIDGEWATER, IA -- Shortly after watching back-to-back episodes of Love Connection, The Newlywed Game, and Lingo Monday night, local resident Fred Grossman, 26, began suddenly to worry about finding the life insurance policy that is right for him. 'Who is going to care for my loved ones when I am gone?' said the unemployed, unmarried Grossman, who also thinks he may have an enlarged prostate, and is wondering why he's been picking up his pet medication at the vet when he could have it delivered right to his door for just a small monthly fee. 'Isn't it about time I gave my family the peace of mind they deserve?' The following afternoon, after sitting through a three-hour block of daytime talk shows, Grossman announced an abrupt decision to pursue an exciting career in either criminal justice or air conditioning and refrigeration repair."

Posted by Ian Faerstein at 01:33 PM

September 16, 2008

9/16: Does McCain Feel Your Pain?

Liberal bloggers are blasting John McCain for repeating his claim that "the fundamentals of our economy are strong" -- a statement that they're calling "bizarre" and "politically tone-deaf". They also don't buy McCain's defense of his remark, in which he suggested that he was referring to the American workers as the "fundamentals" of the economy. Liberal bloggers clearly smell blood in the water, and they're hammering McCain for his economic proposals and his ties to ex-Sen. Phil Gramm, whom many hold responsible for the current crisis. Meanwhile, conservative bloggers appear divided: some are praising McCain's remarks about the economy, while others are criticizing them.

MCCAIN: You're Out Of Touch, I'm Out Of Time

Liberal bloggers are criticizing McCain for repeating his assertion that "the fundamentals of our economy are strong":

• Daily Kos' BarbinMD: "Well, sure. If you ignore today's Wall Street meltdown, the $7.7 trillion in national debt, the $10 or so billion we're spending in Iraq every month, and the recent taxpayer-funded bailout of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, things are going great. Once again, John McCain just doesn't get it."
• MyDD's Todd Beeton: "What makes this truly a bizarre statement for him to make today is not only that the real world events would seem to strongly contradict the claim, but also, as Joe Biden calls McCain 'Bush 44', McCain trots out a line that has been one of George W. Bush's stock bromides regarding the state of the economy. Does this sound familiar? Bush in August, 2007...In September, 2007...In February, 2008 [...] And I'm sure avid googlers can find still more."
• The Washington Monthly's Steve Benen: "There's being politically tone-deaf, and then there's being this politically tone-deaf. It's almost as if McCain wants to make it easy for Obama to call him out of touch."
• The Huffington Post's Sam Stein: "The line may seem like GOP boilerplate, save for the fact that this morning, the McCain campaign released a television ad that began: 'Our economy is in crisis.' Moreover, with financial and job markets in disarray, and with Lehman Brothers, the troubled investment bank, filing for bankruptcy, it may not be the wisest political message to tell voters that the fundamentals are a-okay."
• Think Progress' Matthew Yglesias: "Given the amount of crap he's taken for it, I find it pretty shocking that John McCain is sticking with his 'the fundamentals of our economy are strong' line [...] Now the 'to be fair' thing you're supposed to say is that he follows up the fundamentals are strong line with acknowledgment that 'these are very, very difficult times.' But this of course raises the question, even being as fair as possible to McCain, of what the heck he thinks this means. [...] The underlying financial system certainly doesn't seem especially sound. To my ear, the current line just sounds like a compromise between one adviser who wants to appeal to the [Donald] Luskin/[Sean] Hannity element in the base and another adviser who wants McCain to sound normal, and nevermind if the resulting text makes sense."

MCCAIN II: Doubling Down

Later in the day, McCain defended his earlier statement by suggesting that he was referring to Americans workers when he said that "the fundamentals of our economy are strong":

"My opponents may disagree, but those fundamentals of America are strong...Our workers have always been the strength of our economy, and they remain the strength of our economy today."

Liberal bloggers are criticizing McCain's explanation of his earlier statement:

• Atrios: "McCain has now defined the fundamentals of the economy as 'workers and small businesses,' so if you suggest something is wrong with the economy you're insulting workers. This follows the Bush strategy of saying that criticizing his Iraq policies is insulting the troops."
• TAPPED's Adam Serwer: "By this measure, the fundamentals of the economy have always been strong, and will always be, unless McCain thinks that The Great Depression was caused by American workers simply becoming selfish layabouts."
• Benen: "Fascinating. Most policy makers would look at 'fundamentals' like economic growth, wages, unemployment, inflation, trade imbalance, value of the dollar, budget deficit, interest rates, etc. But not McCain, who believes the 'fundamentals' of the economy are the American people. I see. So, by McCain's reasoning, the only time the 'fundamentals' of the economy are weak is when Americans are awful. [...] I realize there are some sycophantic supporters of the McCain/Palin ticket, but I have a hard time imagining how any reasonable person could actually believe McCain's nonsensical spin. He got caught saying something foolish -- it would have been much smarter of him to walk it back, rather than double down on it."

On the right side of the blogosphere, Jonah Goldberg thinks McCain shouldn't have defended his initial statement in the first place: "McCain shouldn't apologize for his initial statements. Indeed, McCain should stop being defensive about his political instincts in areas like this. Obama wants this to be about 'the economy.' McCain's instinct is to make this about leadership in a crisis. That's the right instinct. Obama sees nothing wrong with screaming that the sky is falling during a stock-market meltdown in order to score political points. McCain's impulse was to argue for calm at the moment when it is needed. McCain's response to Obama's attack shouldn't be to ratchet-up his own panic language to keep up with Obama, but to scold Obama for making the situation worse."

MCCAIN III: The Right's Reaction

Conservative bloggers are criticizing the Obama camp for quoting the first part of McCain's statement ("The fundamentals of our economy are still strong...") but not the second ("...but these are very, very difficult times."):

• Townhall's Matt Lewis: "[The] new Obama ad selectively edits McCain. [...] McCain's controversial line was preceded by talk of a difficult economy. And McCain's next line was: '...but these are very, very difficult times.' Of course, that part did not make it into Obama's ads, which is why the ads are fundamentally misleading. Just as Obama spent months spreading the falsehood that McCain wanted a '100 year war' in Iraq, Obama is once again misrepresenting McCain's statements. Think the media will call him on it?"
• NRO's Jim Geraghty: "If the new standard is that you can pick and choose which parts of the sentence you want to quote, can we point out that Obama admitted that McCain has not talked about 'my Muslim faith'?"

Other righty bloggers are praising McCain's remarks about the economy:

• RedState's Kevin Holtsberry: "McCain's argument is that the American economy is strong because it is based on the hard work and innovation of American workers. He is saying that our free market economy works because it allows for this innovation and hard work to pay off. The problem is that those with power in Washington and Wall Street (and elsewhere) often subvert this system for their own gains. When this happens the problem isn't the system but those who are abusing it. [...] Obama wants to run on an America on the brink of disaster, but voters need to be aware of both the real challenges and the real strengths of the American economy. A knee jerk lurch towards big government liberalism is not the answer."
• Hot Air's Ed Morrissey: "McCain gets off to a good start, focusing his efforts on the lack of oversight enabled by the lobbying efforts from the financial sector. He continues to exude optimism and promises a robust effort to force players to stick to the rules. We need to hear more specifics, but what we don't need are plans to take capital out of the system at a time when we need to reward honest risk-taking."

Still others are criticizing McCain's remarks:

• AmSpec Blog's Philip Klein: "McCain has it completely wrong. The United States has the most prosperous economy in the world not as a result of the sheer awesomeness of the American people, but because of a free market system that allows them to take risks in the name of their own self interest. Allowing people to make decisions freely can result in failures like we're witnessing today, but it has also led to the greatest creation of wealth in the history of humankind. In McCain's populist view of things, only Washington and Wall Street got it wrong -- but none of the blame rests on the shoulders of Americans who bought houses that they couldn't afford. As president, McCain would govern not based on any understanding or belief in free markets, but on his own level of outrage."
• AmSpec Blog's James Antle: "This is why this election is so depressing for supporters of free markets and limited government. Obama is overtly hostile to anti-statist arguments and McCain doesn't understand them, basing his ad hoc economics entirely on his sense of justice and outrage. That makes the federal government likely to receive new powers to solve economic problems it played a large role in causing."

MCCAIN IV: Gramm For Treasury Secretary? No, Thanks

Many liberal bloggers are focusing on McCain's economics adviser, ex-Sen. Phil Gramm, who they believe enabled the current crisis through his efforts to deregulate the financial industry:

• TPM's Josh Marshall: "The man most responsible for the financial services and banking deregulation that made today possible, fmr. Sen. Phil Gramm, is the man John McCain wants to put in charge of the whole economy."
• Daily Kos' Hunter: "Given that Enron-linked former senator, McCain economic advisor, and mortgage-industry-specializing banking lobbyist Phil Gramm has been credited as mover and shaker behind the very law that allowed the current financial meltdown to happen, I'd love to hear what McCain and Gramm think should be done to solve this crisis."
• AMERICAblog's Chris in Paris: "McCain has ZERO history to suggest he will properly regulate Wall Street. [...] McCain has relied on Phil Gramm, former Senator who set up the economic problems on Wall Street today and who now works for exclusive Swiss bank UBS. Gramm helped rescue a failing McCain campaign last year and McCain has repeatedly referred to Gramm as his economic brain and his rumored Treasury Secretary. Gramm has a long history of changing Wall Street rules, creating an 'anything goes' atmosphere that never, ever, never includes regulation. So for McCain to suggest he is now in favor of regulation is a ridiculous assertion."

MCCAIN V: His Ad Was Right!

Although several news organizations and fact-checkers have criticized McCain's "Education" ad (which accuses Obama of supporting legislation to teach comprehensive sex education to kindergartners), NRO's Byron York argues that the ad is accurate:

"Obama's explanation for his vote [that he voted for it because of his concern over inappropriate touching] has been accepted by nearly all commentators. And perhaps that is indeed why he voted for Senate Bill 99, although we don't know for sure. But we do know that the bill itself was much more than that. The fact is, the bill's intention was to mandate sex education, especially concerning contraception and the prevention of sexually-transmitted diseases, for children before the sixth grade and as early as kindergarten. Obama's defenders may howl, but the bill is what it is."

• AmSpec Blog's Shawn Macomber: "Once again, Byron York does right what the rest of the media does wrong and finds out -- surprise, surprise! -- the much maligned McCain 'comprehensive sex education' ad is totally accurate. Hopefully York's reporting here gets the attention it deserves because the idea that the ad is a scurrilous lie has already become an article of faith out in the national echo chamber."
• Townhall's Carol Platt Liebau: "Barack has tried to peddle the meme that McCain is 'lying' about his support for the bill -- and that his support for the bill was predicated on a desire to do nothing more than to protect little children from unwanted touching by sexual predators. As York points out, the facts are different. There is plenty of other stuff the bill handles -- including removing any normative language in sex education, along with any overt expectation of abstinence (which becomes just one choice among many). It seems more focused on protecting children from peers than from adult predators. It also calls for AIDS education, yes, in kindergarten. The content of the entire bill seems completely consistent with Barack's far left world view. [...] Much of the press, which has gleefully denounced the ad, owes Senator McCain an apology."

PALIN: Her Assault On The Truth Continues

Liberal bloggers are disgusted that Palin repeated her debunked line about telling Congress "thanks, but no thanks" for the infamous Bridge to Nowhere. Palin has now made this false claim ten times, even though it has been debunked by multiple news organizations:

• Marshall: "[This is] brute force lying. [...] You'll note that while Palin is continuing to restate the lie, there's a tone of defensiveness in her voice this morning, since they clearly know they've been caught."
• Atrios: "That, my friends, isn't straight talk we can believe in."
• Benen: "I suspect the McCain campaign assumes that it's easier to get away with a brazen lie by repeating it ad nauseum -- reporters will simply get tired of calling the liar out. No news outlet wants to republish the same story -- 'Palin still lying about infamous bridge' -- every day for three weeks. And so, Palin just keep telling the lie, hoping her supporters are fools, and thumbing her nose at reporters who clearly, by now, know the truth. It remains breathtaking."
• Balloon Juice's John Cole: "Did I mention that after dropping her Bridge to Nowhere lie for three days while she was in Alaska and people know better, Palin was out west yesterday repeating the lie again? Pathological liars."

Meanwhile, liberal bloggers continue to assail McCain and Palin for distorting the truth in their recent statements and ads:

• Marshall: "The big press story of the campaign is shaping up to be how reporters are and will react to McCain's deliberate strategy of full-court-press lying. The corrupt, though normal, approach is for reporters to try to dig up whatever Obama exaggerations they can find to try to balance the coverage. If that doesn't work, then they will try to hang the charges on Democrats -- i.e., 'what Democrats are calling "lies"' etc. And of course using the dictionary term -- 'lies' -- for repeated and intentional misstatements of fact is almost always forbidden. But the lying is so extreme in this case that a few reporters are beginning to actually report the story accurately."
• Cole: "Apparently some crazy people at the DNC have decided to attempt the herculean endeavor of counting and chronicling all of the lies coming from the McCain campaign. I have no idea how they have time to sleep, but here is what they have so far. They might want to head over to Think Progress, where we learn that even Fox news reporters are calling the McCain campaign liars. [...] Maybe this is the McCain campaign's unemployment solution -- lie so much that an army of fact checkers is needed to keep up with all the bullshit."

PALIN II: How To Get A Tan In Alaska

The netroots are mocking Palin after liberal blogger Al Giordano reported that Palin installed a private tanning bed in the AK Governor's Mansion (The Politico's Ben Smith confirmed Giordano's report):

• Ezra Klein: "Sarah Palin had a tanning bed installed in the Alaska governor's mansion? Seriously? That's like knocking the eight ball into the pocket on the break. Isn't there some CNN rulebook whereby that ends the election right now?"
• Yglesias: "Nothing says 'just folks' working class credibility like owning your own tanning bed."
• TPM's Kate Klonick: "The news of Palin's luxurious purchase -- beds can cost as much as $35,000 -- presents a sharp contrast to the blue-collar persona she projects on the campaign trail."
• AMERICAblog's John Aravosis: "Remember, the media had no problem making fun of John Edwards' $400 haircut..."
• Jonathan Zasloff: "Her spokesman claims that it wasn't paid for with state funds. Do you believe her? What about the workers who had to install it? What about the rewiring in the mansion? How many community organizers do you think can afford a tanning bed? Or would want one?"

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: The Moral High Ground

NRO's Ramesh Ponnuru:

"One of the themes of the liberal commentariat over the last few weeks, in addition to the claim that McCain is 'lying' about various things, is that what his campaign has been saying, even if true, is a distraction from the 'real issues' that ought to concern voters. We have been talking about lipstick and flag pins instead of health care and housing. Whatever you make of this point, can liberals really make it in a partisan way with a straight face? Are they prepared to maintain that the truly important issue in this election is how often McCain uses email? (Or how many houses he owns?) Now of course liberals could retort that the email 'issue' is a stand-in for the larger question of whether he is out of touch. But the flag-pin and lipstick controversies involve larger concerns about Obama, too. I don't mind that liberals want to win this election, but do they have to affect so much moral superiority about their tactics?"

LEST WE FORGET: I Can See Your Lips Moving, But...

From Overheard in the Office:

Employee (during global teleconference with CEO): I don't have a question, but I just wanted to thank you for the opportunity to work here. Although I am deaf, it hasn't stopped me from having a chance of proving myself.
CEO: I appreciate your comment. That is a subject that is near and dear to my heart, since I have a son who is deaf.
Employee: What?

Posted by Ian Faerstein at 01:17 PM

September 15, 2008

9/15: Pants On Fire

Liberal bloggers continue to assail John McCain for distorting the truth in his recent statements and ads. The netroots are pleased that several news organizations are treating McCain's repeated falsehoods as a story in itself. Lefty bloggers are hopeful that a narrative is developing about McCain's willingness to make false claims, just as a similar narrative emerged about Al Gore (unfairly, in their view) during the 2000 presidential race. But will this message stick, or is McCain's "straight talk" image too deeply ingrained in the public consciousness?

MCCAIN: A Pathological Liar?

Liberal bloggers continue to call McCain a liar due to his campaign's repeated distortions of the truth:

• Atrios: "[McCain is a] liar. And the lies will continue until the bobbleheads start repeating over and over again that John McCain is a liar, has a trouble with the truth, doesn't care who he deceives, etc."
• TPM's Josh Marshall: "How can we trust a liar as big as John McCain? I'm using the L-word. So that may come across as a slashing blog remark. But let's slow down and look at the facts that are not being disputed. John McCain is telling lie after lie. Not off the cuff remarks that can be excused as accidents or flubs but the same lies consistently and many of them. Serial liars are never trustworthy people -- that is a truism. But it also demonstrates a deeper character flaw. A normal job applicant would be disregarded out of hand after such a record became clear."
• Ezra Klein: "McCain has truly given up every last shred of his honor, every last whisper of his dignity, to win this election. He's reached a point where he could win the office he's been seeking for a decade, but have lost everything he once recognized and admired in himself."
• Balloon Juice's John Cole: "Put aside the avalanche of lies from Sarah Palin and John McCain the past few weeks, and answer this for me: 'How do they do it?' How do people lie so easily and effortlessly? [...] At least when Pat Buchanan is lying and he gets caught, he laughs and you know he is just bullshitting. But folks like Palin, who lie repeatedly about the Bridge to Nowhere (and conveniently drop the lie when in Alaska and people will know better) just shock the shit out of me."
• TPMCafe's Reed Hundt: "In 2000 Al Gore was pilloried by the mainstream media ('MSM') for his alleged untruths or exaggerations -- Love Canal, Love Story, Internet, Who he visited in Texas. In every instance, at the very most he had chosen the wrong word or failed to clarify the misunderstandings of others. Now in 2008 the McCain-Palin ticket revels in inaccuracy, wallows in whoppers, lies like a pair of rugs, buys ad time to tell still more lies. So tell me why the MSM doesn't talk about their dishonesty endlessly, turning them from celebrity stars into pathological figures?"
• AMERICAblog's Joe Sudbay: "There was a time (I never believed it, but there was a time) when McCain was considered a 'straight talker.' He's abandoned all pretense of the old John McCain to become the next George Bush. We've already had eight years of a president who thought so little of the American people that he lied to us repeatedly. McCain is has proven he can match Bush on lying and distorting the truth."
• TAPPED's Adam Serwer: "John McCain simply has no trouble lying to people's faces about his record or his opponent's record. None at all. McCain is comfortable lying blatantly to the American people. This is not what most people are looking for after eight years of George W. Bush. The ease with which this man engages in deceit is downright disturbing."

The Atlantic's Andrew Sullivan: "I'm in two minds whether John McCain has lost his mind or never had a soul. But I have to say I am surprised by the barrage of lies and distractions his campaign is throwing out. The farce of the Palin candidacy is one such distraction -- but the lies about sex education, the lies about Palin's pork record, the lies about 'tiny' Iran, the lies about the lipstick-pig nonsense, the lies about the bridge to nowhere, the lies about the oil pipeline...I mean, what is going on? Some believe this is just GOP hardball. But it actually isn't. They're usually not this stupid. If you are going to broadcast a series of outrageous, demonstrable lies to smear your opponent, you tend to to that in the last two weeks of a campaign, so the lies can actually stick before they are debunked. But in September?"

MCCAIN II: When Dishonesty Is The Story

Liberal bloggers have been hoping that the McCain camp's repeated distortions of the truth would provoke a media backlash, and now they believe that it's beginning to happen. Lefty bloggers are pointing to several recent news articles as evidence of a developing narrative about McCain's willingness to make false claims:

• Daily Kos' Hunter: "Blowback is beginning...in the form of numerous articles like this one. Media figures, like all of the rest of us, do not like being lied to, and knowing that this is conscious strategy makes it all the more infuriating. This is, truly, a test for the press: if a candidate is knowingly lying, repeatedly, and everyone knows it -- what, if anything, can be done about it?"
• MyDD's Jonathan Singer: "Back in 2000, one of the real drags on the Gore campaign was the perception pushed forward by the establishment media that the Democratic nominee was less than truthful. Interestingly enough, it's looking increasingly possible that John McCain may be being tagged with the label of 'liar', which might cause some real headaches for his candidacy going forward."
• Mark Kleiman: "McCain's rather fraught relationship with the truth is finally becoming a central issue in this campaign, as it deserves to be. 'Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.' Great God, do I miss Pat Moynihan just about now!"
• The Washington Monthly's Steve Benen: "There's just something breathtaking about John McCain's 2008 campaign, and it's not just because he's running in part on his reputation for candor and integrity. We're talking about a candidate who's been lying about everything -- his record, his running mate, his opponent, his agenda, his past, and his policies. He'll lie, get caught, and then repeat the same lie. He'll lie, get caught, and then lie about lying. [...] It's reassuring to know others have noticed the same thing, especially over the last 24 hours. [...] John McCain has a problem telling the truth. There's no reason this shouldn't be just as big a campaign narrative as Gore's so-called 'exaggerations,' or [John] Kerry's so-called 'flip-flops.'"

Along that same vein, liberal bloggers are buzzing about Karl Rove's admission that McCain had "gone one step too far, and [was] sort of attributing to [Barack] Obama things that are, you know, beyond the 100 percent truth test":

• Singer: "You know it's rough times when even Rove says a Republican candidate isn't being truthful enough."
• Atrios: "When Rove says you're a liar, maybe you have a wee problem."
• Oliver Willis: "Karl Rove says John McCain is lying in his ads. This is a little like a crack dealer saying you ought to lay off the crack a little bit."
• dday: "....Even Rove said that McCain went a bit too far in some of his ads this week about Obama. That's really scraping the bottom of the barrel when Rove is critiquing your fact pattern."

MCCAIN III: Stay Classy, Obama Team

Conservative bloggers are assailing a new ad by the Obama camp which mocks McCain because he "can't send an email." Several righty bloggers are pointing to a 2000 Boston Globe article asserting that "McCain's severe war injuries prevent him from...typing on a keyboard":

• Jeff Emanuel: "That's right. John McCain doesn't use computers or type emails because the injuries inflicted on him by his Vietnamese captors over thirty years ago rendered him permanently unable to type. Does that still seem like a great line of attack, Team Obama? Especially since you're already so sensitive about being called anti-military and unpatriotic?"
• Townhall's Carol Platt Liebau: "Think of it this way, Barack: McCain's willingness to risk that injury you've tried to ridicule is what gave you the freedom to serve as a 'community organizer.'"
• RedState's Pejman Yousefzadeh: "McCain's decision to stay away from the computer is necessitated by his war injuries. Yes indeedy. The Obama campaign went to the Land of Let's Mock The Veteran For Having Suffered For His Country. I hope that they get their just desserts for the journey."
• Hot Air's Ed Morrissey: "Making fun of a war hero's severe injuries -- smooth move, Team O. Talk about computer illiteracy! Doesn't anyone on the Obama campaign know what they're doing? Didn't it ever occur to them that a man who can't raise his arms above his head might have a physical barrier to using a computer? If this is what happens when they takes the gloves off, maybe they should just keep them on in the future."
• NRO's Jonah Goldberg: "Lord knows I think the chicken-hawk arguments are stupid. And I don't think the fact that Obama never served in the military should count against him in and of itself. But how stupid is it for the Obama campaign to claim that McCain is unqualified to be president because he can't grasp cyber-security issues based on the fact he has never sent an email when the McCain campaign can just as easily say Obama can't understand first order national security issues because he's never fired a rife, flown a plane, commanded men in battle, or faced an enemy? I mean which prepares someone to be commander in chief better, hitting 'send' on AOL or fighting a war?"
• Hot Air's Allahpundit: "What's especially stupid about the spot is that it's a line of attack with a lot more downside than upside: No one outside of The One's core nutroots constituency is going to be offended at the thought of McCain relying on one of his thousand aides or secretaries to answer messages, but there may be some offense taken by the 20 percent of Americans who don't use e-mail themselves -- many of whom are no doubt senior citizens. And senior citizens are known for high turnout, aren't they, Barry?"
• Power Line's John Hinderaker: "I've always thought that Barack Obama is unqualified for the office of President -- he isn't qualified to be a Senator, either -- but I've never thought he was particularly mean-spirited. Until now."

MCCAIN IV: The POW Defense Won't Work This Time

Several liberal bloggers are pointing out that there is considerable evidence that McCain is physically able to use electronics, contrary to the Boston Globe's assertion that "McCain's severe war injuries prevent him from...typing on a keyboard":

• The Huffington Post's Nico Pitney: "The Drudge Report and several conservative blogs are working themselves into a lather over the new Obama ad noting that John McCain doesn't know how to use a computer. Their claim is that McCain is simply unable to use a computer because of his POW injuries, citing a March 2000 article in the Boston Globe that states, with no supporting evidence. [...] Of course, this directly contradicts what McCain and his campaign manager have said. McCain told the New York Times in July. [...] Campaign manager Rick Davis said in June that McCain would grab Blackberrys from reporters and tool around on the internet. [...] And in a Politico interview, McCain said again that he uses a blackberry and plans to go online."
• AMERICAblog's John Aravosis: "McCain can't use a computer because...he's a former POW! No one could have guessed that was coming! Yeah, unfortunately John McCain already admitted that he's trying to learn how to use a computer, there was no mention of war injuries stopping him prior to today (and Huff Post has a nice photo of him using those itty bitty buttons on a cell phone). Good try, though."
• Willis: "See! John McCain operate a Blackberry! Watch! John McCain use a cellphone! You see, there is no physical impediment to John McCain using these tools of the now, he's just intellectually uncurious across the board and makes the active decision even with his vast fortune and position of power within our government, to be uneducated in the basics of the 21st century."

PALIN: Gibson Screwed Up, Not Her!

Conservative bloggers are promoting Charles Krauthammer's column as evidence that the definition of the Bush Doctrine is ambiguous and that Palin's apparent lack of familiarity with the term is understandable:

• Michelle Malkin: "Charles Krauthammer, the man who coined the phrase 'Bush doctrine,' turns the table on the condescending Charlie Gibson. Take off your smart glasses, Charlie. Because you've been schooled."
• Morrissey: "During his interview/college boards with Sarah Palin, Charles Gibson demanded that Sarah Palin explain the Bush Doctrine. However, according to the man who coined the phrase, Gibson doesn't know what it means, and ABC apparently didn't bother doing any research on the topic before posing the question."
• Yousefzadeh: "Charlie Gibson and ABC flubbed it. Royally. And now they have the nerve to sit idly by while other people claim that it was Sarah Palin who flubbed the interview. Gibson and ABC knew what questions they were out to ask, had the opportunity to do the research and failed completely at the task. The ridicule that should follow for this incompetence will come soon, won't it?"
• The Next Right's Soren Dayton: "There is no 'Bush Doctrine.' At best it is a squishy idea. That may be the grounds for a critique in its own right. But not of Sarah Palin."

Other conservative bloggers are less forgiving of Palin:

• AmSpec Blog's James Antle: "This is a fascinating discussion of the Bush Doctrine by Charles Krauthammer, but it doesn't change the fact that Palin seemed utterly unfamiliar with the term. I'm not sure saying the Bush Doctrine is unknowable is the best defense."
• NRO's Rich Lowry: "[Palin] somehow bluffed her way through the Bush doctrine question. Gibson apparently didn't want to go into full 'gotcha' territory by asking flat-out if she knew what it is. And then he muddled things further with his dubious definition of it, so she was never truly nailed and there was enough ambiguity there for conservatives to defend her. The fact still remains that she very likely didn't know any of the possible definitions of the Bush doctrine. I can't imagine if Obama had picked Gov. Tim Kaine and he had had a similar moment, conservatives would have rushed to say that the Bush doctrine is just too amorphous and complicated for him to know anything about it."

On the left side of the blogosphere, Salon's Glenn Greenwald disputes the argument that Palin's confusion is understandable: "Before it became clear that Sarah Palin had never heard of it, nobody -- including the presidential candidates themselves -- ever had difficulty answering questions about what they believed about the Bush Doctrine, nor ever suggested that this Doctrine was some amorphous, impossible-to-understand, abstract irrelevancy. [...] It's certainly reasonable to argue that, in some respects, the Bush Doctrine has no precise meaning and is subject to debate, and Gibson provided some vague definitional parameters when asking the presidential candidates about it. None of that negates that Palin appeared quite clearly never to have even heard of the term 'The Bush Doctrine' before ('His world view?'), leading one to wonder if she has paid any attention at all to the central foreign policy debates over the last eight years and whether she even watched or was vaguely aware of the presidential debates this year and many of the most critical expressed differences between the candidates -- including the one with whom she's running."

PALIN II: Morally Unfit To Be President?

Liberal bloggers are buzzing about Saturday's New York Times article detailing how Palin "pursued vendettas, fired officials who crossed her and blurred the line between government and personal grievance" throughout her political career:

• Daily Kos' BarbinMD: "When John McCain and Sarah Palin aren't busy lying about their own records or about Barack Obama, they spend most of their time trying to convince voters that only they can bring change to Washington. But as an article in today's New York Times makes clear, Sarah Palin represents a small town version of the worst kind of backroom, good old boy politics that we've gotten from the Bush/Cheney administration for the past eight years."
• Marshall: "I've been meaning for a while to write a post explaining just why Trooper-Gate matters -- a lot. And I will. But for now read this piece just out from the Times on Palin's governing style. In a different way it tells the same story -- a small-minded person who populates her administration with cronies and grade-school friends, fires those who dare to criticize her and uses the power of her office to pursue personal vendettas. In other words, someone in the habit of abusing official power who should not be let within a mile of being president."
• Benen: "Palin's political style is more than a little frightening. She attacks critics, pursues petty vendettas, ignores mayors and state lawmakers, blurs the line between government business and personal grievances, demands strict secrecy in all matters, refuses to engage in policy matters in any real depth, tries to fire state employees who dare to challenge her demands, and insists on surrounding herself with childhood friends and church members, appointing unqualified allies to key government posts. [...] Reading the piece, and realizing that Sarah Palin may very well be one heartbeat from the presidency in just three months, is nothing short of chilling. It's hard not to think Palin would be a poor choice to help lead a convenience store, worse yet the executive branch of the United States government."
• Kleiman: "Remember, the issue here isn't Palin. It's not her fault she was nominated to a position she is intellectually and morally unfit to fill. The issue here is the character, judgment, and commitment to the national interest of the man who chose her."

Conservative blogger Hinderaker accuses the authors of the Times article of bias: "The Obama campaign has a long article about Sarah Palin in today's New York Times. Jo Becker, Peter S. Goodman and Michael Powell wrote it for them. The Times reporters evidently scoured Alaska, looking for people who don't like Governor Palin, and pieced together every negative quote they could come up with in the form -- more or less -- of a newspaper article. Remarkably enough, the reporters/Obama campaign staff couldn't find room for a single good word about Governor Palin. Thus, while they acknowledge that Palin currently has an approval rating of 80% (86%, actually), making her perhaps the most popular politician in the country, the reader is left to puzzle as to what her constituents could possibly like about her."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Are The Netroots Being Played?

Andrew Sullivan posts an email from a reader who thinks the netroots "are being played" by the GOP:

"...It also occurs to me that in a way McCain and Rove have actually simply taken over the liberal blogosphere in some way. They are being played. Just a few examples -- yesterday Obama gave a fantastic interview at the Service Forum. Did the liberal blogs even cover this? No. He gave a great speech on the trail. Are his town halls even posted or excerpted? No. [...] The liberal bloggers have become McCain central. They make people click on his ads, make the world spin around him instead of focusing on our candidate and what he is trying to do. There is ZERO coverage of what Obama is actually doing every day talking tough on the issues."

Daily Kos' Markos Moulitsas responds:

"Let me get this straight -- if we all sat around and talking about how great Obama's speech was, then things would be much better for him? Really? People believe this tripe? I'll give Sullivan a pass. He was a winger not too long ago, so he hasn't seen, first hand like many of us have, just how effective 'ignoring the other side' has worked. Just ask Kerry and the Swift Boat Vets. [...]

To all the concerned people emailing me about 'being played', don't waste your time. I'm not about to revert to writing puff pieces about Obama thinking that his magic 'new politics' bullshit will carry us to victory. He may or may not believe that crap, but I don't. We're going to win this thing the way campaigns are won -- by playing hardball. Politics is a blood sport. Republicans understand this and never flinch from flinging the shit. We won't win until we learn to fight back in kind. And I'm more than happy to get down in the mud with our friends on the Right so Obama doesn't have to."

LEST WE FORGET: McCain's Energy Plan Emphasizes Elbow Grease, Sleeve-Rolling-Up

"HOUSTON -- While campaigning in Texas Monday, Sen. John McCain delivered a speech outlining his personal energy policy, a plan that offsets rising gas prices and dependence on foreign oil with a 38 percent increase in the national get-up-and-go. 'Developing an intelligent energy policy is not only an environmental concern, but a national security concern as well, which is why I have developed a comprehensive plan to make hay while the sun's still shining,' said the Republican presidential nominee, pulling out a dustpan. 'If we are going to stave off another energy crisis, it is essential for all Americans to put your shoulders into it, wipe the sand out of your eyes, and reduce our dependence on foreign oil by 20 percent over the next five years.' Sen. McCain said he has no doubt his energy plan will be successful, as he enacted a similar strategy in October when he had to clean out his garage."

Posted by Ian Faerstein at 01:43 PM

September 12, 2008

9/12: Mixed Reactions To Palin's First Interview

Liberal bloggers are panning Palin's performance in her first interview with ABC's Charles Gibson. They're describing the interview as "embarrassing" and arguing that Palin's answers demonstrated a shallow understanding of foreign affairs. Liberal bloggers are focusing on two exchanges from the interview: (1.) Palin's apparent lack of familiarity with the term "Bush Doctrine", and (2.) her remarks about the possibility of the U.S. going to war with Russia over Georgia.

While most (but not all) conservative bloggers believe that Palin slipped up on the Bush Doctrine question, they're defending her response to Gibson's question about Georgia and NATO. Overall, most righty bloggers believe that Palin did a fairly good job of answering Gibson's questions, and they expect her to do better in tonight's interview, which focuses on domestic issues.

PALIN INTERVIEW: Moose In The Headlights?

Liberal bloggers are panning Palin's interview with Gibson, arguing that her performance was "embarrassing" and that she clearly has little understanding of foreign policy:

• Mother Jones' Kevin Drum: "Honest, I'm trying not to write endlessly about Sarah Palin. I really am. But this interview with Charlie Gibson is just embarrassing. Is the Republican Party really serious about this?"
• Firedoglake's Scarecrow: "Sarah Palin gave an interview tonight to ABC's Charles Gibson. It should end John McCain's hopes to be President. [...] In the interview Palin made the jaw-dropping suggestion that 'maybe' we should go to war with Russia over Georgia's break away provinces. She then added the equally provocative notion that the US should automatically accept Israel's decision to start a war with Iran, without mentioning any caveat about its impact on US interests or any desire to avoid war if possible. She then showed that she doesn't even know what the Bush doctrine is, the centerpiece of Republican foreign policy."
• Obsidian Wings' publius: "Well, now we know why they've been hiding her. That interview was embarrassing. What I'm about to say I don't mean in any sort of personal way. But as a selection for Vice President of the United States, she is a complete joke. I'm sorry to be so snarky, but it's hard to convey the utter absurdity of the whole thing in a respectful tone. I know Democrats have a million different strategies for countering the Palin phenomenon. Should we avoid talking about inexperience? Should we recognize what a talented politician she is? Well, I'm through walking on eggshells. That interview confirmed what's become even more clear in the past few days -- McCain's selection was a joke. She (like me) has absolutely no business being a vice-presidential nominee."
• MyDD's Jonathan Singer: "We're starting to see just why the McCain campaign has been working so hard to shield Sarah Palin from the media..."
• The Atlantic's Ta-Nehisi Coates: "Forget about Trooper-gate and creationism. Forget about the truly low, cynical people who think that being the target of 'liberal ridicule' neccessarily means you're qualified to lead the country. Forget about moose-hunting and pipelines. You simply can't be a credible VP nominee and have no idea what the Bush doctrine is."

PALIN INTERVIEW II: Sarah Smile

Most conservative bloggers believe that Palin did a fairly good job in her interview with Gibson:

• Townhall's Hugh Hewitt: "Charles Gibson threw fastballs -- fair, but hard fastballs -- and Sarah Palin connected on every one save the Bush Doctrine and even there she recovered nicely, demonstrating a poise that will serve her very well in the next 54 days."
• Power Line's John Hinderaker: "I didn't get home from work in time to see Governor Sarah Palin's performance on ABC tonight...but I've read the transcript, and it appears to be an excellent job by Governor Palin. [...] Today's interview dealt almost exclusively with foreign affairs, presumably Governor Palin's weak spot. Nevertheless, she did very well."
• AmSpec Blog's Robert Stacy McCain: "The important thing about the Gibson interview [is] to try to look at it through the eyes of the undecided independent voter, who doesn't care if she can describe the Bush Doctrine or not. [...] This election won't be decided by foreign-policy wonks. It will be decided by ordinary people who see a mother concerned about Islamic extremism. Charlie Gibson's 'gotchas' won't bother those people, who like Sarah Palin a lot more than they like Charlie Gibson. [...] America likes [Palin] a lot, and she's good on TV. So if ABC wants to show Sarah Palin on TV for 10 minutes, it doesn't really matter what questions they're asking her, and it doesn't matter what the pundits say about her responses."
• CBN's David Brody: "Her answers seemed short, not full of policy depth but the bet here is that since her answers seemed to cut to the heart of the matter she'll probably get a pass on a lot of them. Plus, when she answers questions you really don't get the sense that she is a typical politician who bloviates for 3 minutes and doesn't say a thing. You can tell that she doesn't hang out in Washington. That may be the best thing that comes from her interviews."
• AmSpec Blog's Wlady: "All in all, in part one, she did fine, other than in badly answering a rather trick question on the 'Bush Doctrine' -- when's the last time that was in the news? It's not as if Charlie and his colleagues have been spending much time these last several years talking about it. For all inents, it's, if not defunct, in deep freeze."
• Townhall's Matt Lewis: "[Palin] did well tonight."
• NRO's Kathryn Jean Lopez: "Sure, I wish she answered some things better, I'm sure everyone watching, wanting to cheer her on and know her better, did. But, bottom line? In that first part of her interview with Gibson, Sarah Palin expressed poise and confidence. She kept her voice. She kept to the mission."
• NRO's Jonah Goldberg: "I think she seemed a bit nervous and offered some phrasing that will cause the people who already hate her irrationally to irrationally hate her some more. Beyond that, she did herself little to no harm and came across as a real person put in an unreal situation which is pretty much the reality of things. She beat the expectations her biggest detractors set for her and at least met the expectations of everyone else. There were no huge gaffes (though her answer on the Bush Doctrine came close I thought), despite what lunacy you may read at TPM or elsewhere."

An exception is AmSpec Blog's Philip Klein, who felt that Palin displayed a shallow understanding of foreign policy issues: "[I] just got through watching the first segment of the Palin interview, and I have to say, she did pretty awful. It wasn't a matter of an obvious gaffe you could point to -- though she did draw a complete blank when asked whether she supported the Bush Doctrine as she clearly had no idea what it was, and seemed to endorse strikes within Pakistan if there was actionable intellegence, which [Barack] Obama was mocked for by conservatives last year. But overall, she looked so rehearsed and scripted, and just kept repeating catch phrases without displaying any depth of understanding about the complexity of the national security issues being discussed. She came off very nervous, like a student who had crammed for an exam and was speaking in generalities becuase she doesn't have an understanding of the specifics."

PALIN INTERVIEW III: Maybe She Should Have Looked Up Bush Doctrine On Wikipedia...

Liberal bloggers are criticizing Palin after she "appeared unsure of the Bush Doctrine" in the following exchange with Gibson:

Gibson: Do you agree with the Bush Doctrine?
Palin: In what respect, Charlie?
Gibson: The Bush -- well, what do you -- what do you interpret it to be?
Palin: His worldview.
Gibson: No, the Bush Doctrine, enunciated September 2002, before the Iraq war.
Palin: I believe that what President Bush has attempted to do is rid this world of Islamic extremism, terrorists who are hell bent on destroying our nation. There have been blunders along the way, though. There have been mistakes made. And with new leadership, and that's the beauty of American elections, of course, and democracy, is with new leadership comes opportunity to do things better.
Gibson: The Bush Doctrine, as I understand it, is that we have the right of anticipatory self-defense, that we have the right to a preemptive strike against any other country that we think is going to attack us. Do you agree with that?
Palin: Charlie, if there is legitimate and enough intelligence that tells us that a strike is imminent against American people, we have every right to defend our country. In fact, the president has the obligation, the duty to defend.

• Democracy Arsenal's Ilan Goldenberg: "Clearly Palin did not have the foggiest idea what Gibson meant. This is absolutely huge. The Bush doctrine of preemption and the National Security Strategy of 2002 was the central element of debate for almost 2 years in the foreign policy community and in the country during the run up to the invasion of Iraq and in the years after. It was probably the single greatest shift in U.S. foreign policy in a generation. [...] For her to not know what it is, raises serious questions about her experience and preparation to potentially be the leader of the free world."
• The Atlantic's James Fallows: "...Gov. Palin's answer to the 'Bush Doctrine' question...implies a disqualifying lack of preparation for the job. [...] Many people in our great land might have difficulty defining the 'Bush Doctrine' exactly. But not to recognize the name, as obviously was the case for Palin, indicates not a failure of last-minute cramming but a lack of attention to any foreign-policy discussion whatsoever in the last seven years."
• Daily Kos' georgia10: "How absolutely, head-in-the-ground oblivious do you have to be to our national politics to not be familiar with the Bush Doctrine, the very cornerstone of this administration's foreign policy and the doctrine that led us into the most disastrous foreign policy decision in American history?"
• The Washington Monthly's Steve Benen: "Palin doesn't have the foggiest idea what the Bush Doctrine is. Literally, not a clue about the guiding U.S. foreign policy principle of the last seven years. When she tried to fudge it, her ignorance on the issue was even more glaring."
• Obsidian Wings' hilzoy: "This matters not because I think a whole lot turns on whether or not someone can correctly identify the Bush Doctrine, in particular, but because it is not a hard question to anyone who has been following foreign policy for the last few years. I want someone who might end up being President to have a reservoir of background knowledge to draw on in times of crisis. And Sarah Palin just doesn't have one."

Several liberal bloggers were surprised that Palin said that the U.S. has the right to launch a preemptive strike when intelligence indicates that a threat is "imminent" -- which appears to be a stricter standard than the one implied by the Bush Doctrine:

• Think Progress' Matthew Yglesias: "As we know, George W. Bush has outlined a doctrine that he calls 'preemption' but that's really prevention or 'anticipatory self-defense.' It holds that we should attack other countries that might attack us at some future point even if we have no particular evidence of a specific or imminent plan to do so. As we also know, John McCain agrees with this doctrine. Sarah Palin doesn't seem to know that this is what the Bush doctrine is, and, once recovered from her deer-in-the-headlights pose she outlined a different position, advancing an imminent threat standard. [...] Which naturally raises the question of whether or not McCain discussed the issue of the Bush doctrine, or preventive war, or anticipatory self-defense, before putting her on the ticket."
• Mark Kleiman: "Sarah Palin doesn't know what the Bush Doctrine is, but she's for it anyway. When she explains what she's for, it turns out to be the opposite of the Bush Doctrine: pre-emptive war (striking to forestall an imminent attack) not preventive war (striking a regime that might be mean to us at some undetermined future moment)."

PALIN INTERVIEW IV: Rattling Sabers?

Liberal bloggers are also criticizing Palin for saying "perhaps so" when Gibson asked her about the possibility of the U.S. going to war with Russia over Georgia:

"Palin told Charles Gibson of ABC News that she'd favor including Georgia and Ukraine, both former Soviet republics, in NATO despite opposition by Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin. Asked whether the United States would have to go to war with Russia if it invaded Georgia, and the country was part of NATO, Palin said: 'Perhaps so.'"

• Goldenberg: "No sane American or European leader would ever ever ever give an answer like that. You do not get into hypotheticals about nuclear war. You just don't. [...] Barack Obama would never give that answer. Joe Biden would never give that answer. They would say that we don't discuss those types of hypotheticals. That might sound like a cop out, but think of the Palin alternative and what kind of alarm bells that sets off in Moscow. Prescisely the type of alarm bells that could one day lead to mushroom clouds."
• publius: "[Palin] was way too specific on the Russia-Georgia stuff -- good politicians and diplomats never say so specifically that we would go to war with...RUSSIA!"
• Firedoglake's Ian Welsh: "The US has spent damn near 70 years avoiding a war with Russia, because it was understood that both nations have the ability to destroy the other nation utterly. The Ukraine and Georgia are both deep inside Russia's sphere of influence. The equivalent would be for Russia to say 'If the US ever invades Panama again, we'll declare war!'"
• AMERICAblog's John Aravosis: "Sarah Palin today threatened to declare war on Russia if they invade Georgia, the country that hired John McCain's top foreign policy aide as a lobbyist. [...] Georgia is also the country that John McCain recently declared 'we are all Georgians.' These people are nuts. Oh, and don't forget, as McCain said today, Russia is her strong suit -- she lives next door, you know -- and she's threatening to declare to war on Russia. [...] We're screwed, people."
• Kleiman: "Sarah Palin talks casually of going to war with Russia, which last time I checked had several thousand nuclear warheads deliverable on the U.S. Maybe there's no target in Alaska worth hitting."

PALIN INTERVIEW V: What's Wrong With Keeping Our NATO Commitments?

Conservative bloggers are defending Palin's remarks about the possibility of the U.S. going to war with Russia over Georgia:

• Lewis: "The operative word is 'perhaps' -- she said we would 'perhaps' go to war. Second, the question assumed that the country invaded would be a member of NATO. We are obliged to defend any member of NATO. Third, what should she have said...that if she were president, Russia could do whatever the heck they want without fear of any consequences? That would have emboldened Russia to do as they please..."
• The Next Right's Conn Carroll: "If Georgia joined NATO, and then, if Russia then invaded Georgia, Palin would defend Georgia. This isn't news. This is decades old mainstream U.S. foreign policy. The real news would be if Barack Obama believed otherwise. So we look forward to ABC News asking Obama whether he would honor America's militarty commitments under NATO, or if he plans to abandon the foundation of post-WW II U.S. national security."
• NRO's Mark Hemingway: "Palin says that she supports putting Georgia and the Ukraine in NATO [...] Once they're in NATO and if they're attacked, we might -- stress might -- have to defend them. But obviously a major part of the reasoning in letting them join NATO is that it might make Russia less likely to attack, no? [...] As much as [Josh] Marshall would like to construe Palin's sentiment as needlessly bellicose, that's just not the case."
• RedState's Dan McLaughlin: "Gov. Palin has simply reiterated the central and foundational element of the NATO Charter. Article 5 of the NATO Charter, to which Gibson and Gov. Palin refer here, 'states that an armed attack against one or more of the Allies in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all.'. Article 5 is the reason for NATO's existence, and of course it was originally drafted in 1949 precisely to deal with the situation of a Russian (then Soviet) invasion of the easternmost frontier of NATO, which is precisely what Georgia and/or Ukraine would become if their NATO membership is approved next year. [...] No responsible American leader would offer a different answer to Gibson's question. Any other answer would simply be a declaration of intent to withdraw from NATO."
• Hot Air's Allahpundit: "She simply means admitting Georgia and Ukraine to NATO and bringing them under the aegis of the all-for-one principle, which is McCain's position."

PALIN: That Doesn't Sound Like Compassionate Conservatism

Liberal bloggers are buzzing over the news that during Palin's tenure as Mayor of Wasilla, the town required rape victims to pay for their own forensic tests:

• hilzoy: "[This is] abhorrent, especially when you note that as mayor of Wasilla, Sarah Palin had no problem raising money to build a sports center, but drew the line at paying for rape victims' forensic exams. [...] You'd think that $5,000 to $14,000 a year would be a small price to pay for putting violent sex offenders behind bars. Apparently, Sarah Palin disagrees."
• BooMan: "I've heard the 'she had it coming' rape defense before, but I've never seen a town before that handed the victim a bill for their post-rape forensic exam."
• Daily Kos' Scout Finch: "In a state with the highest sexual assault rate in the nation, nearly three times the national average, [Palin] allowed sexual assaulted victims the opportunity be victimized twice: once by their attacker and again by the cold concept of justice (or lack thereof) that Wasilla offered."
• Atrios: "I actually haven't mentioned this story because there were a few details I wasn't quite sure about so I wasn't sure if it's as bad as it sounded. I guess it was."
• Ezra Klein: "Like Atrios, I'd stayed away from the rape kits story because some of the details seemed shaky and it was explosive enough to ignore until it firmed up. Now it has. Eight years ago, the Alaskan Legislature had to pass a bill that banned towns from charging rape victims for the kits used to prove the crime and capture the perpetrator. These kits cost between $300 and $1,200 a piece, and are an essential portion of the investigation. There was only one town in the state doing this: Wasilla, where Sarah Palin was mayor. This was the same town that received tens of millions of dollars in pork, and had the money to hire a high-priced lobbying firm to bring in yet more."
• TPM's Marshall: "While Gov. Palin was Mayor of Wasilla, Alaska in the late 1990s, the city's policy was to charge rape victims for the cost of the 'rape kits' used to collect forensic evidence to help prosecute the rapists. Eventually the state had to step in and pass a law banning the practice. And according to former Gov. Tony Knowles, the law was passed specifically in response to Wasila's policy. 'There was one town in Alaska that was charging victims for this, and that was Wasilla,' says Knowles."
• Aravosis: "She's a barracuda all right. What a great issue to explode and showcase how bad McCain and Palin really are. How extreme she truly is. How anti-women they really are. What a great issue to make McCain cringe. To drive a wedge between him and women and independents. To put McCain and Palin on the side of rapists versus rape victims."

MEDIA CRITICISM: Is The Post Smearing Palin?

Conservative bloggers are criticizing today's Washington Post article by Anne Kornblut, entitled "Palin Links Iraq to Sept. 11 In Talk to Troops in Alaska." Kornblut writes:

"Gov. Sarah Palin linked the war in Iraq with the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, telling an Iraq-bound brigade of soldiers that included her son that they would 'defend the innocent from the enemies who planned and carried out and rejoiced in the death of thousands of Americans.'"

• Confederate Yankee: "When Palin referenced '...the enemies who planned and carried out and rejoiced in the death of thousands of Americans,' is was an obvious reference to al Qaeda in Iraq, an offshoot of the parent al Qaeda organization that plotted and executed the 9/11 attacks, and while still funds and loosely controls the failing Iraqi branch. [...] Sarah Palin was obviously addressing the living al Qaeda terrorists that soldiers would face in Iraq, no the ghosts of a regime long dead. How biased or simply dishonest does a reporter have to be to twist that?"
• Michelle Malkin: "[Palin] simply said that Iraq-bound U.S. troops would 'defend the innocent from the enemies who planned and carried out and rejoiced in the death of thousands of Americans.' As McCain Campaign blogger Michael Goldfarb notes, 'It seems we are to assume that this group [al Qaeda in Iraq], despite sharing a name and leadership with the group responsible for the 9/11 attacks, has nothing at all to do with those who "planned and carried out and rejoiced in the death of thousands of Americans."' No connection at all?"
• RedState's Streiff: "One would have thought after five years of war reporterette Anne E. Kornbut would be somewhat clear on who exactly the combatants are in Iraq but then one would be working under the assumption that basic honesty and integrity are useful traits when you are in the tank for Barack Obama and writing a tawdry hit piece in his support. [...] That brigade will be going to Iraq to fight the people that planned and executed and, indeed, rejoiced in the attacks of 9-11-01. Those people being al-Qaeda. Under any other interpretation Kornblut has to believe that Palin is talking about fighting the ghosts of the hijackers."
• Hinderaker: "News flash to Ms. Kornblut: the Alaska National Guard isn't going to Iraq to fight 'the Iraqi government under Saddam Hussein.' Saddam is dead, and the government of Iraq is now our ally. The only organized opposition these troops will encounter in Iraq comes precisely, as Palin said, from 'the enemies who planned and carried out and rejoiced in the death of thousands of Americans,' al Qaeda."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: On Liberal Condescension

Ta-Nehisi Coates:

"...I've always thought the What's The Matter With Kansas thesis to be condescending, but that's because as black person, I know what is to be subject to stick-figure, crude algebraic analysis. Of course because such condescension comes from conservatives, nobody calls it that. But really, what was the 'welfare queen' trope but condescension to poor black women? [...] Conservative bloggers have been in quite a lather over alleged liberal sneering toward Sarah Palin. But if Palin's sneering toward 'community organizers' wasn't condescension, then the word has no meaning. [...]

This is a numbers game -- there are simply more white people then blacks, thus the market for righteous outrage and umbrage is bigger in white America. Ditto for the gays. This is why we can agree that the Manhattanite who disses NASCAR having never seen it is condescending. But the exurban church-goer -- armed with no evidence -- who says two men marrying is an abomination is 'traditional.' This despite the fact that both views are ultimately rooted in ignorance, and ultimately seek to employ that ignorance to define someone else. Condescension happens, no doubt. But it's a lazy, weak, and ultimately dishonest, thinking that sees the white working class (to the extent that such a thing exists) only as targets of condescension, and everyone else as authors of victimology."

LEST WE FORGET: Female Fans Out For Season With Tom Brady's Knee Injury

From The Onion:

"FOXBOROUGH, MA -- More than 90 percent of female football fans were lost for the season on Sunday when New England Patriots quarterback Tom Brady suffered a left knee injury that will require extensive treatment. The Patriots announced Monday that Brady, the 2007 NFL Most Valuable Player and arguably the NFL's most handsome man, will be placed on injured reserve, where despite being no less attractive than before his injury, he will only be partially visible for the rest of the 2008-2009 season. [...]

Brady left Sunday's game against Kansas City after suffering an ugly anterior cruciate ligament tear in his incredibly handsome left knee after being hit by merely average-looking Chiefs safety Bernard Pollard.

'We feel badly for the nation's women about the injury,' [Patriots coach Bill] Belichick said. 'And for Tom, of course. You hate to see anyone with that kind of masculine yet boyish appeal go down. No one has worked harder or done more for this team's female fan base than Tom has, and we expect him to set his rugged, chiseled jaw, keep his twinkling blue eyes on the prize, and be ready to get back on the field and in front of the cameras by next year.'"

Posted by Ian Faerstein at 01:29 PM

September 11, 2008

9/11: It's Happening Again...

Liberal bloggers are growing increasingly disgusted by what they perceive to be John McCain's willingness to lie. The netroots were already annoyed by Sarah Palin's distortions of her role in opposing the Bridge to Nowhere, but the McCain camp's latest ad has sent them over the top. Liberal bloggers are furiously criticizing the McCain camp for releasing this ad, which falsely implies that Barack Obama wants children to learn "about sex before learning to read." Josh Marshall complains: "This is ugly stuff. And this is an ugly person. There's clearly no level of sleaze this guy won't stoop to to win this election."

Meanwhile, the frustration in the liberal blogosphere is palpable. Lefty bloggers feel like they've seen this movie before -- a GOP candidate who uses gimmicks ("Celebrity" ads; lipstick) in order to throw the Dem candidate off-message. Many bloggers are complaining that Obama is spending too much time responding to McCain's attacks and isn't launching enough attacks of his own. David Kurtz is exasperated:

"The McCain camp is running an ad linking Obama to sex and children -- and Obama is taking valuable time at the beginning of his speech to explain how he wasn't really indirectly calling Sarah Palin a pig? As [Paul] Begala says: Attack! Attack! Attack!"

MCCAIN: Defender Of Pedophiles?

Liberal bloggers are pushing back against McCain's misleading ad claiming that Obama wants children to learn "about sex before learning to read." They are pointing out that the legislation in question actually "gave schools the ability to warn young children about inappropriate touching and sexual predators":

• Open Left's David Sirota: "McCain has done something I never thought I would see: He has sponsored a new television commercial that effectively declares his support for child molestor rights. I'm dead serious here: The ad explicitly criticizes Obama for supporting state legislation that the Kansas City Star notes was designed to give 'schools the ability to warn young children about inappropriate touching and sexual predators.' So by basic logical deduction, then, McCain's ad attacking Obama for supporting that bill means McCain would have opposed it -- meaning he would have taken the side of the Pedophilia Lobby that wants young children to not understand when they are being molested."
• TalkLeft's Jeralyn Merritt: "So, John McCain opposes teaching kindergartners how to recognize molestation. John McCain doesn't care about preventing sex assaults of children? If I were a parent of a kindergartner, he wouldn't get my vote based on that alone."
• TAPPED's Adam Serwer: "Yesterday the McCain camp released an ad accusing Obama of wanting to teach 'comprehensive sex education to kindergarteners.' But of course, the bill Obama supported would actually teach kids how to avoid things like 'inappropriate touching.' [...] Does the McCain campaign not believe children should be taught to avoid 'inappropriate touching' or sexual exploitation? If so, why?"

Conservative blogger Ross Douthat also criticizes the ad: "[The ad] feels more appropriate to a failing, flailing right-wing campaign than a confident, rising conservative ticket. [...] There's no reason to think that the bill envisioned five-year-olds putting condoms on a banana, which is the image that the McCain ad seems designed to summon up. Moreover, Obama didn't write or co-sponsor the legislation (he voted for it in a party-line vote) and it never became law, so calling it 'his one accomplishment' on education is just false. And even if aspects of the sex-ed claim are technically defensible, the whole thing just feels bullshitty and gross -- like a parody of a culture-war ad. I have no problem with campaigning on culture war issues, and God knows Obama has vulnerabilities, but there's a right way and a wrong way to do it, and this ad falls into the second category."

However, conservative blogger Jim Geraghty defends the ad: "McCain's ad is right on the sex education bill. [...] Having now looked at the text of the sex education bill in question...it's clear that one of its key purposes was to change existing law that said 'Each class or course in comprehensive sex education offered in any of grades 6 through 12 shall include instruction on the prevention, transmission and spread of AIDS' to 'Each class or course in comprehensive sex education offered in any of grades K through 12 shall include instruction on the prevention of sexually transmitted infections, including the prevention, transmission and spread of HIV.' Yes, the legislation permitted parents to take their children out of the class. But that was already existing law."

MCCAIN II: How Low Can He Go?

Liberal bloggers (and a certain "conservative of doubt") are denouncing McCain's recent tactics in some of their harshest words to date:

• TPM's Marshall: "All politicians stretch the truth, massage it into the best fit with their message. But, let's face it, John McCain is running a campaign almost entirely based on straight up lies. Not just exaggerations or half truths but the sort of straight up, up-is-down mind-blowers we've become so accustomed to from the current occupants of the White House. And today McCain comes out with this rancid, race-baiting ad based on another lie. Willie Horton looks mild by comparison. (And remember, President George H.W. Bush never ran the Willie Horton ad himself. It was an outside group. He wasn't willing to degrade himself that far.) [...] This is ugly stuff. And this is an ugly person. There's clearly no level of sleaze this guy won't stoop to to win this election."
• The Atlantic's Andrew Sullivan: "For me, this surreal moment -- like the entire surrealism of the past ten days - is not really about Sarah Palin or Barack Obama or pigs or fish or lipstick. It's about John McCain. The one thing I always thought I knew about him is that he is a decent and honest person. When he knows, as every sane person must, that Obama did not in any conceivable sense mean that Sarah Palin is a pig, what did he do? Did he come out and say so and end this charade? Or did he acquiesce in and thereby enable the mindless Rovianism that is now the core feature of his campaign? So far, he has let us all down. My guess is he will continue to do so. And that decision, for my part, ends whatever respect I once had for him. [...] McCain has demonstrated in the last two months that he does not have the character to be president of the United States."
• The New Republic's John B. Judis: "McCain himself has clearly demonstrated that he'll do anything to win. In 2000, he ran an honorable campaign. Leave aside what he advocated -- he tried to win on the merits. This year, he has been willing to distort and lie about his opponents. It really started with the way he dealt with Mitt Romney's positions on the Iraq war. But he has gone all out since the convention. That, combined with his choice of entirely unproven Palin for vice-president, has been enough to remove whatever lingering sympathy I had for the man."
• Mother Jones' Kevin Drum: "Steve Schmidt has obviously been responsible for some of the recent change in tone of the McCain campaign, but it didn't start with him. It started with McCain himself, who, in the days leading up to Super Tuesday, cheerfully and repeatedly smeared Mitt Romney as a guy who wanted to surrender to the terrorists in Iraq. It was a plainly bogus charge, but it was one that McCain peddled without compunction for an entire week -- and it was one of the things that put a final nail in Romney's coffin. McCain's revolting campaign style isn't something he had to be talked into by a cabal of ruthless advisors. He genuinely likes this stuff."
• Daily Kos' BarbinMD: "Every single day now we are seeing the deficiencies in John McCain's character: He's a liar. First he puts out his disgusting, slimy ad that attacks Barack Obama because he wanted to protect children from pedophiles, and now this. [...] John McCain likes to talk sweet, high-minded words about honor and character, but his words and actions show exactly how dishonorable he is."
• TAPPED's Mori Dinauer: "The campaign [McCain] is waging ranks with the worst of Lee Atwater and Karl Rove. Whether it's sex-ed, lipstick, or 'destroying' Palin, it's clear that John McCain is prepared to whip up as much disgusting cultural rage as he needs to win that 51 percent and that, my friends, is where this dishonorable man intends to take this election."

MCCAIN III: Enough With The Freak Show!

Liberal bloggers are accusing the McCain camp of trying to make this election about trivialities instead of substantive issues:

• Salon's Glenn Greenwald: "We're fighting multiple wars; our oldest and most established financial institutions are on the verge of collapse; we've fundamentally transformed and then dismantled our constitutional framework over the last eight years, etc. etc. But the Right and their media partners are striving to ensure that our election this year is going to be dominated and determined by whether Barack Obama called Sarah Palin a 'pig' when he invoked a meaningless cliche. It isn't surprising that the McCain campaign wants this sort of tawdry, Freak Show/Reality Show vapidity to determine the outcome of the election."
• Firedoglake's Blue Texan: "The McSame campaign wants to make this election about petty personality issues and trivialities -- their campaign manager said so publicly. It's clear -- they want to talk about campaign ads and vapid People Magazine profiles and cheesy catchphrases and nicknames. They don't want to talk about the highest unemployment rate in 5 years. They don't want to talk about staggering job losses. They don't want to talk about the skyrocketing deficit. [...] They don't want to talk about any of these things because on the economy, McSame-Palin is lockstep with Bush-Cheney. They are trickle-down, Club-for-Growth, tax-cuts-cure-all Republicans. And they simply don't have an answer to any of these problems."
• The Huffington Post's Bob Cesca: "It's happening again. Regardless of the outcome of this thing, it's clear that half of America is falling for the same superficial trickery that gave us eight years of George W. Bush. You know the routine. Who do you want to have a beer with? Who is more plainspoken? Who would you like to drive your kids to hockey? Only this time around, America is exponentially worse off than it was in 2000 or 2004, which only makes the degree to which certain voters are being tricked all the more infuriating and incomprehensible."

OBAMA: Don't Just Respond; Attack!

A growing number of liberal bloggers are complaining that the Obama camp is overly concerned with responding to McCain's attacks and isn't launching enough attacks of its own:

• TPM's Kurtz: "I can't understand the rationale for Obama to clarify his 'lipstick on a pig' remark first thing this morning at the top of his speech. [...] It was pointed, sure. But so what? Yes, Obama sort of laughed it off and dismissed the criticism with some elan. He wasn't overly defensive about it, but he was still playing defense. His whole orientation is wrong. Today, you come up with a good new line. You play off of the previous day's good line. You keep moving the ball forward. The McCain camp is running an ad linking Obama to sex and children -- and Obama is taking valuable time at the beginning of his speech to explain how he wasn't really indirectly calling Sarah Palin a pig? As Begala says: Attack! Attack! Attack!"
• Greenwald: "A one-day complaint from Obama -- as effectively formulated as today's message was -- is nowhere near sufficient to combat these tactics, which are only going to continue and intensify between now and the election. It's a message he needs to sharpen and repeat daily, and turn into an offensive weapon ('they want you to pay attention to shallow sideshows to make you forget what they've done to the country over the last 8 years')."
• Mark Kleiman: "In politics, you can't win defending yourself; you win by counter-attacking. There's a crucial distinction here between refuting each individual false charge from McCain and branding McCain as a serial liar with no honor who is morally unfit for the Presidency."

MyDD's Todd Beeton responds to Kurtz: "I agree with David Kurtz that, sure, [Obama]'s inherently on defense here and I'd much prefer to see him on offense but let's not forget, Barack does this sort of rapid response very well. [...] Now, it's true that the McCain camp's jumping on Barack's 'lipstick on a pig' comment...has put Barack on defense. Sure, they've been able to drive the narrative for another day or two, distracting the media, as though with a shiny object, away from anything critical of Sarah Palin. But does this strategy strike anyone else as unsustainable? Is that really all McCain has, the hope to put Obama on defense every day to win 'the message war'? Superficially, the McCain campaign's move may be offensive but it is a strategy borne out of a position of weakness, namely that they know that if this campaign becomes about issues, they lose and if there is any real scrutiny of Sarah Palin beyond the cult of personality coverage they lose."

Interestingly, conservative blogger Patrick Ruffini seems to agree with Kurtz: "The netroots is engaged in some spirited discussion about the lameness of Obama's responses to Palin. But the problem, and what I believe this video gets at, is that Democrats look at everything about negative politics through the prism of response rather than attack, defense rather than offense. [...] The Democrats were caught off-guard by the [Swift Boat Veterans for Truth] in 2004 because they learned wrong lessons from '88. Forcefully responding ('Bring. It. On.') was something of a meta-narrative for [John] Kerry. But they forgot that response wasn't nearly enough, and done wrong, you can easily fall into traps your opponent carefully lays out. To control the agenda, you have to unleash new, original, unprovoked attacks. The media favors new narratives. If your whole frame is simply responding to the other guy's narratives, he controls the agenda, not you."

Ruffini continues: "Now, this isn't Ruffini saying don't respond. It's about responding firmly and with the facts, but never blowing your top and getting rattled. And it's about maintaining a 2-to-1 ratio of salable attacks to responses. [...] Obama seems to be falling into the trap of response-centrism. If only they could respond the right way, they figure, all will be well. But it won't be. Because the game they are playing is reactive. Instead of changing the subject off Palin by launching some explosive new attack on McCain, all they do is respond, respond, respond. And the story, day after day, is Democratic Presidential nominee responds to Republican Vice Presidential nominee. The optics of that stink for them."

Open Left's Matt Stoller praises Ruffini's post: "Patrick Ruffini at the Next Right makes some really good points about the contours of an attack and response driven campaign. I don't agree with Ruffini most of the time, but he seems on point here."

OBAMA II: Yes, He Did Call Her A Pig!

Conservative bloggers continue to accuse Obama of calling Palin a pig:

• Townhall's Hugh Hewitt: "The Dalibama has had to spend two days first attacking Palin and then defending his slam at Sarah Palin as a pig by denying that's what he meant, though everyone in his audience and across the country instantly knew that is exactly what he meant. His refusal to own his blunder is not going to help him in the last with the independents and Hillary Dems he had already angered via his campaign's abetting of the first wave of attacks on Palin."
• Townhall's Carol Platt Liebau: "Barack Obama is now calling out the press for having the temerity to report his 'lipstick' and 'old fish' insults against his opponents. He's right to sense profound danger in this episode to his electoral ambitions. That's because it's offered voters an insight into his character that isn't flattering. [...] We're learning how Barack responds when, for the first time, his campaign isn't clearly ascendant. It's revealing, but it isn't pretty (wasn't the press telling us that McCain was the one with the temperament problem?!)."
• Geraghty: "Barack Obama probably didn't mean to imply that Sarah Palin is a pig with his lipstick comment yesterday. It's just a really big coincidence that when he's facing a woman opponent, the most eloquent and gifted orator in the Democratic Party in recent memory just happens to pick really awkward metaphors that have secondary meanings that many women would find demeaning. [...] It's just unthinkable that a guy who punctuates his speeches with gestures from Jay-Z videos could ever exhibit a less than appropriate level of respect for women opponents."

PALIN: Banning Books?

Several liberal bloggers are buzzing about a new ABC News report entitled, "Did Sarah Palin Try to Ban Library Books?":

• Firedoglake's Christy Hardin Smith: "Still wondering what books Sarah Palin wanted to ban? Brian Ross, of ABC News, reports -- and doesn't get any answers on specific titles from Palin or her pals. But he does ascertain that Palin herself admits to asking about book banning on two separate occasions. If, as her pal in the report says, it was just a rhetorical question, why did Sarah Palin ask the town librarian, on three separate occasions, according to McClatchy, whether she would consider banning books in the Wasilla libarary? Doesn't seem so rhetorical if it's a repeat concern, now does it? The librarian can't recall Palin mentioning specific titles, although a local reporter says that Palin had three specific ones in mind. Why raise book banning if you have no specific books in mind? Seems odd to me. Shouldn't someone get John McCain on the record as to whether he thinks banning library books is a good idea? And if so, what books he would recommend banning? And why? I'd sure like to hear his answers."
• Obsidian Wings' publius: "To believe Palin's version [of the story], you must think (1) she was just casually asking a rhetorical question; and (2) the subsequent firing of the librarian had nothing to do with the librarian's sharp resistance to Palin's question. The key part of the ABC News story, though, is that Palin's prior -- and bat do-do crazy -- church had started making some noise about banning books from the library around the time she was elected. That is, removing certain books (e.g., 'Pastor, I am Gay') had been on the church's radar at the time, and the church had been instrumental in getting her elected. Thus, it makes sense that Palin would -- upon taking power -- look into removing books. All in all, it's a pretty strong data point against her."
• The Washington Monthly's Steve Benen: "Palin became mayor, her church was interested in censorship, and soon after, Palin asked a 'rhetorical' question about how books might be excluded from the public library. When the librarian resisted, she was, at least initially, fired. The line from the McCain campaign has been that Palin never had any interest whatsoever in banning library books. That seems increasingly difficult to believe."

PALIN II: Fowler's Foul Play

Conservative bloggers are criticizing SC Dem Chair Carol Fowler for saying that Palin's "primary qualification seems to be that she hasn't had an abortion":

• AmSpec Blog's James Antle: "If you want a real nasty attack on Sarah Palin to get indignant about, try this bit from the charming Carol Fowler of the South Carolina Democratic Party. She said that Palin's 'primary qualification seems to be that she hasn't had an abortion.' No amount of lipstick can make this pig look prettier."
• Liebau: "The remark is so ugly, so graceless that, along with all the other garbage launched at Governor Palin, it's providing a window into the soul of many in the Democrat Party. Even if someone took every charge of unfairness launched by Democrats at the Swift Boat vets at face value, anything the Dems could argue the Vets did has nothing on all of this. Stay classy, Democrats. Do you really think you're helping your candidate by these over-the-top smears?"
• RedState's Brian Faughnan: "The Democratic party once held itself up proudly as the party that recognized and saluted achievements by women. But Sarah Palin seems to be the cultural touchstone that shows how people really view gender equity. And for Carol Fowler and many other Democrats, Sarah Palin can be reduced to a statement about abortion. Mother, small business owner, Mayor, Governor, reformer -- none of it matters because she stands in the way of Democrats gaining power. This is not your mother's Democratic party. For any real feminists left in the Democratic party -- don't let the door hit you on the way out."
• Hot Air's Allahpundit: "[This is] probably just a case of the repulsive Fowler clan being their typical repulsive selves. If you're willing to laugh at the thought of a hurricane spoiling the GOP convention by wrecking New Orleans, why wouldn't you believe 23,000 people turned out today in Virginia simply because they're jazzed that Palin didn't flush her Down's baby down the toilet like so many more enlightened, progressive women would have?"
• Power Line's John Hinderaker: "My sense is that intelligent Democrats -- there are some -- realize that their hate campaign against Governor Palin has turned into a train wreck."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Craving Approval From Hosts

Atrios:

"Watching Jonathan Alter on with [Rachel] Maddow I'm reminded of an additional importance of having liberal hosts (radio and tv), aside from the fact that maybe they'll actually reach some viewers at home. I think that unless you really steel yourself for combat mode, it's generally human nature to try to find common ground with people you're talking to. So when people go chat with [Bill] O'Reilly or Hugh Hewitt they're, to some degree, trying to find those areas of agreement. When mainstream center lefties like Alter go on Maddow's show, they're much more likely to be aggressive advocates of a more liberal position than they would otherwise. Host approval helps reinforce the view."

LEST WE FORGET: Nobody's Impressed By Your Laundry List

Cracked's Ross Wolinsky lists "The 10 Commandments of Facebook," the first of which is: "Thou Shalt Not List Every Movie, TV Show, Band and Book You Have Ever Heard Of In Your Profile":

"Do you like Radiohead, A Confederacy of Dunces, and Ferris Bueller's Day Off? Do you enjoy watching The Office and Family Guy? Of course you do -- everyone likes those things. Why make it a point to express your enthusiasm for things that everyone likes?

Maybe you're cooler than that. Maybe you're into cool, obscure bands like Fela Kuti and Einstürzende Neubauten. Awesome, dude -- you have impeccable taste in shit that nobody has ever heard of. Congratulations.

Everyone knows that a person is only as good as their taste in books, movies, bands and TV shows, but what exactly do you hope to accomplish by posting a 5,000-item laundry list? Are you going to forge deep and meaningful new relationships with people based on a mutual appreciation of Entourage, or sever ties with good friends because they AREN'T into Fela Kuti? If you feel the need to share this information with the world (and I know that you do), keep it as short as possible. Remember: You're not going to impress anyone. It's the Internet. Nobody is impressed by ANYTHING on the Internet."

Posted by Ian Faerstein at 01:34 PM

September 10, 2008

9/10: Can't Take Their Eyes Off Of Her

Fists are flying in the political blogosphere, and once again, Sarah Palin is at the center of the action. Liberal bloggers are portraying Palin as a shameless liar after she repeated her line about how she told Congress "thanks but no thanks for that Bridge to Nowhere." Multiple news organizations have debunked Palin's claim, but that hasn't stopped her from making it, and liberal bloggers are outraged. They're urging the press to continue debunking Palin's claim every time she makes it. They're also encouraging the press to start treating Palin's repeated falsehoods as a story in itself -- which, they hope, will establish a narrative that Palin has a problem with the truth.

Meanwhile, many conservative bloggers are joining the John McCain camp in accusing Barack Obama of deliberately referring to Palin a "pig." Others believe that Obama simply made a poor choice of words. Liberal bloggers believe that conservative bloggers are simply feigning outrage in a transparent attempt to win the news sycle.

PALIN: Lies And The Lying Liars Who Tell Them

Liberal bloggers are calling Palin a shameless liar after she repeated her debunked claim that she told Congress "thanks but no thanks for that Bridge to Nowhere." In reality, Palin endorsed the Bridge to Nowhere during her '06 gubernatorial run and only distanced herself from it after it became a national scandal, as multiple news organizations have reported.

• TPM's Greg Sargent: "The falsehood has now been debunked by everyone from Newsweek to the Associated Press to the Wall Street Journal. But here's Palin keeping up with it anyway."
• The Washington Monthly's Steve Benen: "It's obvious she's lying. She knows she's lying. She knows that we know she's lying. But she just doesn't give a damn. At this point, it's bordering on pathological."
• BooMan: "What does it tell us about the McCain-Palin campaign and how they would govern that they will tell lies so brazenly and unapologetically, day after day after day after day? Isn't that what ruined the Bush administration? Didn't Scott McClellan write a book about just that point?"
• TAPPED's Mori Dinauer: "So what happens when a lie is widely refuted, yet still lives on? I can't help but think this incident might be the incubation of a powerful narrative against McCain that the Obama campaign, if they're smart, can use to shatter, once and for all, this nonsense about a 'reform' Republican ticket."

Daily Kos' Markos Moulitsas: "Alaska has been masterful in having the federal government send billions, while it gives its own tax revenues directly to its citizens. While Alaska could afford to pay for its bridges to nowhere (Palin approved!), it would rather have the rest of the 49 states shoulder the cost. It gets away with it, and I won't begrudge a state or its federal delegation the ability to deliver the goods. [...] What I do begrudge is Sarah Palin and the GOP walking around lying about that record. Lying about her support for the Bridge to Nowhere. Lying about her supposed opposition to federal pork. Lying about her state's role in fueling that most obnoxious and corruption-inducing congressional practice. The GOP's ability to stare voters straight in the eye and then feed them a load of mooseshit is second to none. But let's not kid ourselves about reality."

PALIN II: Do Your Job, Media!

Liberal bloggers are urging the press to debunk Palin's Bridge to Nowhere claim every time she repeats it:

• Mother Jones' Kevin Drum: "Not get too sanctimonious about this, but this really is a test of some kind for the press. This lie is unusually egregious given the plain facts of the situation (Palin was eagerly supportive of the bridge until after Congress pulled the earmark, at which point she reluctantly decided to take the money but use it for other projects), and if the media allows the McCain campaign to get away with this -- if they relegate it to occasional closing paragraphs and page A9 fact checks -- well, that means McCain knows he can pretty much get away with anything. The press will be writing its own declaration of irrelevance."
• Obsidian Wings' publius: "Sarah Palin -- for apparently the 23rd time -- again flat-out lied about the Bridge to Nowhere today. The press has done a fairly decent job reporting the inaccuracy, but she and the McCain campaign are just rubbing the press's nose in it at this point. They clearly feel like they have the press pretty much where they want them. I'm curious to see if the press will step up its criticisms, or whether it will cower in fear that Steve Schmidt might say something mean about them again."
• TAPPED's Adam Serwer: "Rather than presenting the story as a 'he said, she said,' journalists should note what is factually true beyond argument: Palin is lying."
• AMERICAblog's John Aravosis: "How many days in a row do Palin and McCain have to treat the media and the voters like chumps before someone in the media calls her on this? I'm not talking doing a single story on it, I'm talking making the only question you ask the McCain campaign 'why are you guys lying?' The fact that McCain has chosen to outright lie, repeatedly, to the press and public, says something larger about him and his campaign."
• The Huffington Post's Paul Begala: "Facts ought not be debatable. The media have an obligation to point out when a politician is lying about a matter of fact, but the right-wing attack machine has so cowed some of them you can almost hear them moo. Steve Schmidt, McCain's top dog, is a brilliant and audacious strategist. His candidate has had the most favorable press coverage of any politician of the last century -- fawning, adoring, sycophantic press coverage. And yet he is brutalizing the press, waterboarding them into pretending that whether Gov. Palin supported the 'Bridge to Nowhere,' or hired an Abramoff-connected lobbyist to secure massive earmarks are somehow debatable."

Other liberal bloggers are urging the press to start treating Palin's determination to continue making this false claim as a story in its own right:

• Think Progress' Matthew Yglesias: "The ultimate test of what matters isn't one-off articles [debunking Palin's claim] but campaign narratives. During the 2000 campaign, the press developed a narrative about Al Gore being dishonest based almost entirely on things he didn't even say. During the 2004 campaign, there was a narrative about John Kerry being a flip-flopper. In 2008, a robust narrative exists about Barack Obama being too aloof. This blog isn't allowed to draw conclusions about the character of candidates for office, but reporters covering campaigns do it all the time and there's a fairly obvious narrative about John McCain that could be built around his campaign's penchant for repeating false claims about bridges, opponents' tax plans, etc."
• Moulitsas: "Yglesis is right. This is a narrative ready for the media's taking. They've accepted the fact that the McCain campaign is operating on a foundation of lies, now they need to take the next step and adopt it as a narrative."
• dday: "She's lied about [this] at least 23 times. It's not going to stop because the media has not exacted a price for all the lying. They haven't built a 'serial liar' narrative around John McCain the way they did around Al Gore, despite there being far more cause for one in this case."

PALIN III: You Call This Fiscal Responsibility?

Liberal bloggers are still buzzing over the Washington Post article detailing how Palin "has billed taxpayers for 312 nights spent in her own home during her first 19 months in office":

• Firedoglake's Jane Hamsher: "Palin and her husband both make six-figure incomes. They don't need to be chiseling the state for this money to live, and she sure isn't entitled to be running on fiscal responsibility when she's pocketing cash in a way that has a history of being regarded in Alaska as a 'scam.'"
• Moulitsas: "The bottom line appears to be that staying at her own joint was a luxury she thought Alaskans should pay for. Oh, and when she did travel for such crucial state-related business such as 'Newsweek's third annual Women and Leadership Conference', she did things like charge Alaska for three nights at a hotel costing $707 per night. That was certainly a luxury she thought Alaskans should pay for. [...] I've gotta admit. As a scam artist, she's pretty good."
• Firedoglake's Christy Hardin Smith: "Sarah Palin is already facing one abuse of power investigation, allegedly using her position to exact retribution against her former brother in law and officials who wouldn't tow her line. Lining your pockets on the taxpayer dime with a little extra reimbursement where you are paid to live in your own home sounds a little too Boss Hogg for my comfort. If she did violate state regulations, will there be reimbursement? Also, some of this is taxable income, so did she pay proper taxes on it? Something's funky, and I'm going to keep digging."
• Mark Kleiman: "Since sleeping in your own bedroom is not a tax-deductible business expense, those per diems (and perhaps the travel expense for Palin's children traveling with her) represented taxable income to Palin. As far as I know, she hasn't released her tax returns yet, but there could be an explosive issue there. Voters don't like petty chiselers, and they don't like tax cheats."

MCCAIN: So Much For Running An Honorable Campaign

Liberal bloggers are outraged that the McCain camp is running a misleading ad claiming that Obama wants children to learn "about sex before learning to read." McClatchy's Margaret Talev offers a fact-check:

"This is a deliberately misleading accusation. [...] As a state senator in Illinois, Obama did vote for but was not a sponsor of legislation dealing with sex ed for grades K-12. But the legislation allowed local school boards to teach 'age-appropriate' sex education, not comprehensive lessons to kindergartners, and it gave schools the ability to warn young children about inappropriate touching and sexual predators."

• Drum: "I see that the McCain campaign has pretty much decided to go all-in on the culture war front. Their latest ad, which Lee Atwater must be chuckling over from wherever he's warming his toes these days, basically says that Barack Obama wants to teach your five-year-old how to put on a condom. This is, the narrator warns ominously, 'Wrong for your family.' [...] John McCain has obviously decided that he can't win a straight-up fight, so he's decided instead to wage a battle of character assassination, relentless lies, and culture war armageddon."
• TPM's Josh Marshall: "McCain is pure sleaze. Sound harsh? Sure. But any other interpretation of the man at this point amounts to willful obliviousness or an embrace of the fantasy that he somehow doesn't know what his campaign is doing in his name. This is the race he's decided to run. Now what do you do about it?"
• MyDD's Josh Orton: "This is a political low from McCain I didn't really expect."
• Oliver Willis: "John McCain has no shame, but you knew that already."
• Daily Kos' georgia10: "In liveblogging Sarah Palin's acceptance speech, I noted that the ideal Republican candidate is someone who has the ability to lie without shame. Sarah Palin proved within minutes of her speech that she was well-qualified in that regard. The latest McCain-Palin ad reaffirms that the modern Republican Party, barren of ideas and solutions, will effortlessly and shamelessly resort to depraved lies to win. [...] It is indeed a remarkably dishonorable act for John McCain to 'approve this message.' There is no Vietnam scar deep enough and no POW flag large enough to mask the brazen ugliness of this unprincipled and deliberate lie."
• Kleiman: "Barack Obama sponsored a law in Illinois designed to teach schoolchildren, all the way down to kingergarten age, to protect themselves from sexual predators. I'm not sure whether McCain's attack on that bill is designed to win the votes of the pedophiles or attract campaign contributions from the kiddie-porn industry. But no doubt that man of honor is proud of it, just as he's proud of his entire sleazy, lying campaign."
• Obsidian Wings' hilzoy: "I hope McCain is enjoying himself. It would be a shame for him to give up what remains of his honor without getting anything at all in return."

Open Left's Chris Bowers thinks McCain's ad will be effective: "The point, unfortunately, isn't that the ad is false. The problem will come in when the media repeats the charge without disputing it. The headlines will be something like 'McCain Campaign Accuses Obama Of Sex-Ed For Tots,' because I guess the attack itself is news. Then, more stories are written about how 'Obama Denies Kindergarten Sex Charges.' So the charge gets repeated over and over again, and never really debunked. The campaign that is on the defensive, the one that is making explanations about charges sent your way, is invariably the campaign that is losing ground."

Aravosis wants Obama to hit back hard: "It's clear that McCain is Karl Rove -- the transformation is complete. Mccain is going to get as sleazy as he needs to in order to take down Obama. Perhaps now Senator Obama will finally, and completely, take the gloves off. We can start with McCain's repeated statements that he didn't love America until the age of 31. [...] Then let's have a full discussion about John McCain's role in the Keating Five scandal and his cheating on his first wife (the latter definitely deals with sexual morality). And if McCain really wants to have a sleazy discussion about who has the best interest of children at heart, all I'm going to say is that the Obama's never stole drugs from sick children in order to feed their drug addiction. Show of hands -- how many McCains can say that? And oh yeah. Where is Vicki Iseman?"

OBAMA: A Sexist Pig?

Conservative bloggers are accusing Obama of referring to Palin as a "pig" when he made the following remarks at a rally:

"Obama poked fun of McCain and Palin's new 'change' mantra.
'You can put lipstick on a pig,' he said as the crowd cheered. 'It's still a pig.'
'You can wrap an old fish in a piece of paper called change. It's still gonna stink.'
'We've had enough of the same old thing.'"

• Townhall's Hugh Hewitt: "[My] callers and e-mailers are furious with Obama. Beyond furious, really. MSM is ignoring this tsunami of a story thus far, but it has traveled around the globe and back and will keep traveling. Millions of women will never forget and they won't forgive."
• The Next Right's Soren Dayton: "Obama made a sexualized attack on Palin, comparing her to a pig. This is exactlty the same sort of thing that he did in the primary. [...] This is the stuff that alienated Hillary Clinton voters. No wonder white women are swinging to McCain-Palin. If he keeps this up, it will be a landslide. Democrats do not know how to run against women."
• NRO's Jonah Goldberg: "If you watch Obama's comments in full, I think Obama probably was referring to McCain/Palin with the fish/pig comment. The audience clearly thought so."
• Townhall's Carol Platt Liebau: "Despite the Obama campaign's protestations that his 'pig in lipstick' remark didn't refer to Sarah Palin, there are two clear indications that, in fact, it did. First, note that the lefty blogosphere has been referring to Governor Palin in those terms for days now (for example, here and here and here and even in a press release from NARAL as noted here). So is it just coincidence that Barack Obama would use the same terms? Riiiiight. Second, look at the entire quote. [...] Taken together, it's obvious that Barack is referring, first, to Governor Palin and then to Senator McCain. And really, the rhetoric is disgusting. [...] Barack owes Governor Palin an apology -- and Senator McCain, too, for that matter. This is not the kind of behavior that Americans want, welcome or deserve from their presidents -- aspiring or elected."
• Hot Air's Ed Morrissey: "Given that Palin had very publicly made the lipstick/pit bull joke during her widely-seen acceptance speech, it certainly seems that Obama intended to reference both Palin and McCain respectively in this sequence, with Palin being the pig and McCain the 'old fish' wrapped in change. The crowd certainly understood what Obama meant, and roared appreciatively. [...] It's always difficult to gauge intent, but one would have to think Obama an idiot for not seeing the subtext of his own statement, especially since the crowd understood it all too well."
• Townhall's Matt Lewis: "Several folks are pointing out that McCain has used this cliche in the past, and that an aide of his has a book titled, 'Lipstick on a Pig.' Of course, this is entirely irrelevant. The context of Obama's remark is what matters. Just last week, Palin delivered those lines. They weren't hidden in her speech -- it was the most famous line of her entire political career. And you're telling me Obama wasn't at least making a veiled reference? He's either a complete idiot -- or guilty of this attack: It must be one or the other..."

OBAMA II: Much Ado About Nothing

Other conservative bloggers don't believe that Obama was referring to Palin when he made the "pig" remark:

• AmSpec Blog's James Antle: "I'm sorry, I simply don't think either the video or the context supports the claim that Obama intended to call Sarah Palin a pig, no matter what the audience supposedly thought or what the notoriously thin-skinned and ridiculous Jane Swift says. Yes, Palin wears lipstick and compares herself to a pitbull wearing lipstick but that's the only connection. To quibble about the phrase 'putting lipstick on a pig' is to put conservatives in the same category as illiterate PC liberals worried about the word 'niggardly.'"
• AmSpec Blog's Philip Klein: "It's one thing to let Obama's poor choice of words play out in the media, but for the McCain campaign to embrace this line of attack and play the gender card so explicitly is just pathetic, and may very well come back to haunt McCain should he say anything that could be twisted by the PC police into having racial overtones."
• AmSpec Blog's Quin Hillyer: "There was nothing remotely offensive about what Obama said, and the McCain campaign is acting in an utterly puerile fashion by making an issue out of it -- and even worse by making a commercial out of it. For that matter, all the caterwauling in general -- both last week and now in this commercial -- about 'sexism' being the root of the attacks against Palin is just flat out dishonest, plus it combines the victim card with the identity card in a way worthy only of the worst liberals in the country. It's beneath contempt."
• Glenn Reynolds: "Everybody stumbles now and then. I say, don't make any more of it than if McCain had said something similar."
• Ann Althouse: "I didn't blog this yesterday, because frankly, I considered it absolutely nothing. 'Lipstick on a pig' is an extremely common expression, and it doesn't become taboo because somebody else made a wisecrack about lipstick on another animal or because that somebody else happens to wear lipstick."
• Hot Air's Allahpundit: "Having watched [the video], I'm inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt...just because I hate when the left pulls this with innocent statements made by conservatives."
• NRO's Yuval Levin: "I think Obama's choice of words was unbelievably stupid (as it so very often is when he's not chained to a teleprompter), and I certainly think both he and [Joe] Biden have completely lost their cool because of Palin and are getting hysterical -- Biden's ugly reference to Palin's Down syndrome child and stem cell research today is one example. But did he set out to call Palin (or McCain) names? I think it's a bad gaffe, not an attack. That's bad enough, but the McCain folks themselves shouldn't overreact. Let them melt down."
• Right Wing News' John Hawkins: "I think it was just probably -- but not definitely -- another screw-up from the human gaffe machine. [...] This is a guy who says something dumb every other few days if he's off a teleprompter, so that's PROBABLY the case here, too."
• Michelle Malkin: "There's lots of debate here in the comments thread and across the blogosphere about whether the McCain camp is overreacting, whether Obama should get the benefit of the doubt for using a common old metaphor at the wrong place and time, etc., etc. Was he being malicious? Probably not. But it's yet another in a long line of rhetorical gaffes that demonstrate his ineptitude."

Other conservative bloggers aren't sure what to think:

• RedState's Moe Lane: "It's the laughter that's the problem for Obama. If nobody had laughed, he'd be in a better position to say that people are exaggerating this; as it stands, you can certainly make the case that the crowd took it as an insult direct against Palin. [...] Sexist, or just plain dumb: take your pick. Either way, Obama's should probably stop with the own-goals if he wants any chance at all at winning this thing."
• Power Line's John Hinderaker: "I have mixed feelings about it. Watching the video, I think it's plausible for Obama to say that he wasn't talking about Governor Palin. On the other hand -- come on. Does he seriously believe, given all the water under the bridge, that he can use the words 'lipstick' and 'pig' in the same sentence without people thinking he's taking a shot at Palin? His audience certainly took it that way. Maybe it's just another example of Obama's lack of skill on his feet, when he doesn't have a teleprompter to tell him what to say."

OBAMA III: Apparently Republicans Can Play Identity Politics Too

Liberal bloggers are pushing back fiercely against the McCain camp's allegation that Obama called Palin a "pig":

• The New Republic's Michael Crowley: "I'm speechless over the cynicism at work here. [...] Maybe Obama was calling Palin, whom he never named, both a pig and a rotten fish. Or maybe Republicans are playing identity politics cynically enough to make Al Sharpton cringe."
• The Washington Independent's Ari Melber: "Sen. John McCain played the gender card on Tuesday night, seizing on a hackneyed statement by Sen. Barack Obama to claim, rather implausibly, that the Democratic nominee was calling Gov. Sarah Palin a pig. To even entertain McCain's far-fetched attack, one would have to think Barack Obama had a political death wish. [...] Actual sexism still infects our culture and our politics, of course, but John McCain and Gov. Sarah Palin undermine the fight for equality when they falsely and cynically stage fake offenses."
• MyDD's Jerome Armstrong: "The McCain campaign is using their inaugural 'truthsquad' call to feign outrage and pretend that somehow this comment was a reference to Palin's acceptance joke about pitbulls. Please. No one's really taking it seriously."

Many liberal bloggers are arguing that McCain -- and the GOP in general -- is no position to accuse anyone else of sexism:

• Willis: "I wonder where this sudden concern for women comes from on the right when their fellow travelers have been calling women 'feminazi' and the like for 20+ years?"
• dday: "There's no doubt that this is going to turn into some giant controversy, despite it being COMPLETELY MANUFACTURED. [...] But this is ridiculous. And the newfound Republican guardians of feminism, the ones who spent the spring selling Hillary nutcrackers and Citizens United Not Timid T-shirts, are somewhat less than credible."
• Smith: "You know what is sexist, though? Joking about rape. Calling your wife a c#*&. Or joking about Chelsea Clinton's parents being Hillary and Janet Reno. Pot, this is kettle, McCain."
• Aravosis: "If you believe McCain's latest lie -- that Obama's use of the 'lipstick on a pig' expression is now sexist -- then when McCain used the same 'lipstick on a pig' expression to deride Hillary Clinton's proposals McCain was, under