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 September 18, 2008 01:35 PM