October 29, 2008

10/29: Fighting To The Finish

With six days to go before the election, liberal and conservative bloggers are doing whatever they can to help their preferred candidate win each news cycle. Lefty bloggers are currently slamming John McCain's health care plan (again) after his adviser Douglas Holtz-Eakin made some arguably ill-advised comments about McCain's plan. While denying that McCain's $5,000 tax credit would encourage younger workers to abandon their company-sponsored health plans, Holtz-Eakin conceded that "what they are getting from their employer is way better than what they could get with the credit". Liberal bloggers believe that Holtz-Eakin's admission undermines the entire rationale of the McCain health plan. Atrios quips: "So, the plan is to increase taxes on people with decent health care plans and provide a tax credit for people to buy shitty ones. That's some wealth spreading we can believe in, my friends!"

Conservative bloggers, meanwhile are criticizing the Los Angeles Times for refusing to release a video of Barack Obama praising Palestinian activist Rashid Khalidi at a 2003 banquet. Although the Times claims that "its promise to a source prevents the paper from posting the video," righty bloggers believe that the newspaper is simply trying to protect Obama from a potentially damaging revelation. One conservative blogger is even offering a $25,000 reward to anyone who gives him a copy of the video.

MCCAIN: Our Health Care Plan Sucks!

Liberal bloggers are once again criticizing McCain's health care plan after Holtz-Eakin made the following remarks:

"On CNN today, McCain adviser Douglas Holtz-Eakin said workers who already receive health insurance from their employers would not take advantage of McCain's offer of a $5,000 tax credit to buy their own coverage.

'Why would they leave?' Holtz-Eakin asked. 'What they are getting from their employer is way better than what they could get with the credit.'"

• Think Progress' Matthew Yglesias: "In other words, John McCain is promising to make your health care worse! Ooops!"
• Firedoglake's Scarecrow: "McCain Adviser: Our Health Proposal Sucks."
• Atrios: "So, the plan is to increase taxes on people with decent health care plans and provide a tax credit for people to buy shitty ones. That's some wealth spreading we can believe in, my friends!"
• dday: "Ay caramba. Holtz-Eakin is basically saying that the individual health insurance market is crap and the employer market is more preferable because it provides more. That's elementary, since it pools resources to get a better deal. But of course the entire McCain health care plan seeks to get people AWAY from the employer system and into the individual market."
• The Washington Monthly's Steve Benen: "How bad is the McCain healthcare plan? So bad that the McCain campaign is now undermining its own proposal. [...] 'What they are getting from their employer is way better than what they could get with the credit,' Holtz-Eakin argues. Well, sure. The next question, though, is why Holtz-Eakin's boss believes the smart thing to do is to push Americans away from their 'way better' healthcare, taking inadequate credits that the McCain campaign now concedes are worse than the status quo."
• Ezra Klein: "Oops. This is what we call a Kinsleyan gaffe: He shouldn't have said it because it's oh-so-true. Young workers are cheap. They don't need much health insurance. The theory of the McCain plan is that because of this, they will take their tax credit and head over to the individual market, either purchasing very cheap health care or no health care at all. This will bring down total spending. Holtz-Eakin is saying the theory may not work. The individual market sucks. You can be eliminated for preexisting conditions. Administrative costs are sky-high. There is no protection against the whims of your insurer. The same policy you had with your employer will, for these reasons and others, cost $2,000 more on the individual market. As such, young people may fight the plan ad refuse to give up their employer-sponsored coverage."
• Mother Jones' Kevin Drum: "Poor Douglas Holtz-Eakin. He's stuck having to defend a healthcare plan that's really a healthcare 'plan.' It doesn't work in theory, it doesn't work in practice, and it's not something that would appeal to most Americans in any case. But McCain needed a plan to compete with Obama's plan, and Republicans like tax credits, so that became the basis of his plan. The fact that it doesn't make sense isn't something that McCain really cares much about."

MCCAIN II: The Netroots Heart Crist

Liberal bloggers are praising McCain surrogate/FL Gov. Charlie Crist for "extend[ing] early voting hours" -- a decision that FL GOPers believe will benefit Obama:

• Daily Kos' Markos Moulitsas: "It's weird that Crist would take an action so clearly detrimental to his party's chances. One could argue that it's Crist's 'F.U.' to McCain for not picking him for veep, but Crist has taken actions like this in the past. He seems to be genuinely in favor of increased voting access."
• MyDD's Todd Beeton: "Whether Crist's action is out of the goodness of his heart, a result of political pressure from Democrats or out of pure political expediency (no one wants to be the next Katherine Harris), Crist should be applauded for this move today. It's a rare example of a Republican acting contrary to our worst expectations of them."
• Benen: "Given the recent trend -- most of the early Floridian voters have been Democrats -- the decision doesn't do McCain any favors, which makes Crist's decision all the more honorable. Indeed, it's also worth noting that Crist also broke with traditional Republican norms upon taking office, making it easier for released felons to regain their voting rights. I disagree with Crist on a whole lot of issues, but when it comes to voting, he seems willing to do what too many Republicans won't: the right thing."
• TAPPED's Adam Serwer: "Crist appears to be that rare politician in either party that seems to care more deeply about American citizens excercizing their right to vote than in giving his party a political advantage."

MCCAIN III: Joe The Plumber Goes Off The Deep End

Liberal bloggers are criticizing McCain surrogate Joe Wurzelbacher after he "twice agreed with a claim from an audience member at a John McCain rally that 'a vote for Barack Obama is a vote for the death to Israel'". Lefty bloggers are also praising FOX News anchor Shepard Smith for aggressively questioning Wurzelbacher following his claim about Obama and Israel:

• Think Progress' Ali Frick: "Wurzelbacher's unfounded claims -- backed by McCain -- were clearly too much even for a Fox News host. Smith grew increasingly exasperated during the interview, and forcefully clarified that Obama is committed to a strong friendship with Israel. At the end, Smith called the whole thing 'frightening.'"
• Beeton: "It's disgusting the way the McCain campaign is desperately exploiting this guy to appeal to the lowest common denominator; indeed, in the process, Joe has revealed himself to be the very walking talking breathing embodiment of the lowest common denominator that McCain/Palin need to win next week. And the way they're doing it -- casting Joe as a product of the American heartland and as someone who represents 'real' American values -- is particularly pernicious. To his credit, Shepard Smith isn't buying it and in fact pushed back aggressively on the mis-information Joe was spreading."

On the right side of the blogosphere, Hot Air's Allahpundit critiques Smith's interview with Wurzelbacher: "Shep's consumed here with the incongruity between Wurzelbacher's accusation and The One's consistently, and conspicuously, strong support of Israel on the stump, but one needn't impute sinister motives to Obama -- as [Wurzelbacher] seems to do early on by mentioning his associations -- to worry about the practical effect of his Middle East policy. The question today is the same as it was 18 months ago: Is Barry O prepared to enrage his base by sending the United States to war with these people if diplomatic efforts to stop the Iranian nuke program fail? Or will his 'first-class temperament' lead him to back off and hope for the best? There are existential implications for Israel in the answer to those questions, even if you believe Obama has the best of intentions."

OBAMA: Waiting For Silly Season To End...

Liberal bloggers are extremely critical of the GOP's efforts to portray Obama as a crypto-Socialist:

• TPM's Josh Marshall: "This is how John McCain ends up -- finishing his presidential quest by arguing that allowing the Bush tax cuts to lapse will bring Socialism to America. If only those generations of lefties had known it would be so easy. And what happened to [Obama's] being a terrorist?"
• Obsidian Wings' hilzoy: "Personally, I can't wait for this election to be over. I'm tired of writing about disingenuous arguments in which people note that Obama used a word like 'redistribution', pay absolutely no attention to what he actually seems to have been talking about, and infer that appearances to the contrary, he's a socialist (or a Black nationalist, or a Muslim, or whatever.) I don't expect that this sort of thing will vanish once the election is over, but I do hold out some tiny hope that there will be less of it."

Meanwhile, several liberal bloggers predict that the GOP's efforts to portray Obama as a crypto-Socialist will backfire if Obama wins the election:

• Yglesias: "Presumably, come January and February conservatives are going to be wanting to argue that Obama's got no mandate, that Republican legislators have no need to fear him, and that Democratic legislators should live in terror of overreaching. To that end, it'll be helpful to argue that Obama got elected as a tepid centrist. But in their last-ditch efforts to beat him, they're doing the reverse, and dramatically overpainting Obama as a wild-eyed radical ready to unleash Marxism on the country. Well, if you spend a month or two running around saying that, and then the voters back the Marxist anyway, he's got pretty much carte blanche to do what he wants if he wins."
• Mark Kleiman: "John McCain says that Barack Obama is the 'redistributionist-in-chief.' Thus, if next week Obama wins the election, then we need to acknowledge that the public wants redistribution. QED."

MEDIA CRITICISM: LA Times In The Crosshairs

Conservative bloggers are criticizing the Los Angeles Times for refusing to release a video of Obama praising Palestinian activist Rashid Khalidi at a 2003 banquet (a Times spokesperson says they will not release the video "because it was provided to us by a confidential source who did so on the condition that we not release it"):

• Commentary's Jennifer Rubin: "The Times says they promised the source it wouldn't be shown (but it was fine to describe it?), so they are keeping it under lock and key. Well, then, perhaps they should do a better job describing the scene. Why not a fuller account of what Obama actually said? Who else was sitting at Obama's table? [...] This isn't ancient history. This event was five years ago. Whom he sat with, what he said, and what others said may be highly relevant to the decisions of millions of voters. At the very least, the Times owes the voters a very complete description of what went on."
• Hot Air's Ed Morrissey: "If the Times promised to keep the videotape under wraps, then it must contain content other than their 'detailed account of the events'. What exactly did the LA Times leave out of its reporting in April? If it left nothing out, then what good was the promise not to release the tape itself?"
• The Weekly Standard's John McCormack: "[Is the Times] protecting a source or just protecting Obama?"
• Glenn Reynolds: "Have you noticed how journalistic 'ethics' seems mostly to involve not telling the customers what they need to know?"

Meanwhile, Ace of Spades promises a $20,000 reward for anyone who can give him a copy of the video: "I can guarantee...that if the goods are delivered the blogosphere can contribute $20,000. In a matter of hours. Maybe more. More would depend on the tape. This offer includes is particularly directed towards Los Angeles Times employees. Maybe ones that just got fired. Or will get fired in the next couple of weeks. Guaranteed. Anonymous. That's how we roll. Pretty pathetic that we have to try to bribe 'newsmen' to release newsworthy tapes. If your conscience is troubled, They should have released it anyway."

HORSERACE: Did You See Those Tracking Polls?

Yesterday's Gallup tracking poll (which showed Obama up by only 2 points among traditional LV's) and today's Rasmussen tracking poll (which showed Obama up by only 3 points among LVs) have instilled hope in conservative bloggers, who believe that McCain is closing the gap:

• Townhall's Hugh Hewitt: "Now we know why John McCain and Sarah Palin were both in PA yesterday. The election is tightening across the map as those of us who remember 1976 have been predicting all along. Barack Obama represents a much more radical alternative than Jimmy Carter did in '76, and Carter's unusual profile sent voters by the millions towards Gerald Ford in the closing days. The same thing is happening this year as the very well known and very reliable John McCain enters his last big comeback within striking distance and very much on target."
• Power Line's John Hinderaker: "The race is getting closer. Barack Obama's national lead over John McCain is down to two points in Gallup's 'traditional' turnout poll, and this morning Rasmussen Reports has Obama's lead dwindling to three points. The Rasmussen result is especially significant, I think. Rasmussen uses a more or less constant set of assumptions that could turn out to be wrong, but that provide a solid basis for following trends. In other words, Obama's lead may or may not be three points, but I think we can rely on Rasmussen for the proposition that McCain is closing the gap."

RedState's Erick Erickson thinks the GOP is on the rise, whether or not Obama wins: "Here's what's fun. Let's assume the worst case scenario. Just for a minute. Here we have a situation with undecideds breaking for McCain, the media vetting of Obama beginning after the election, and a whole host of people who voted for Obama asking 'WTF?' That helps us long term tremendously. But let's look at the best case scenario. We can a delight on election day as the undecideds break decisively for McCain, carrying him and Sarah! across the finish line. We'll have a lot to savor. Good times people. One way or the other, we know this: the trend has headed toward McCain at the same time the media and the McCain camp have finally gotten around to raising key questions about Barack Obama. Because of the failure to vet Obama early, those questions will continue after the election whether he wins or loses. And both scenarios are ripe for our advancement as the seeds of doubt get sown. America won't tolerate an unrepentant lefty in the White House. The Obama camp and media have gone out of their way to cover up who Obama really is. Whether we win or we lose, we'll make sure the public knows the truth about what the media and Democrats did during this campaign."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Jindal In 2012?

The New Republic's Christopher Orr thinks LA Gov. Bobby Jindal's 2012 presidential prospects have dimmed:

"...While there are plenty of 2012 GOP presidential aspirants who have reason to be unhappy with the McCain campaign's decisions over the last couple months (and, in particular, the Palin choice), a case could be made that no one's nearish-term prospects have been hurt more than Bobby Jindal's. Though rarely explicit (and certainly not exclusive) a large portion of the GOP's closing argument this cycle has been to stoke white, working class fear and suspicion of the Other. The dark-skinned man with the foreign-sounding name may be a Muslim, or a socialist, or a friend of terrorists, or a racial huckster, or a fake U.S. citizen, or some other vague kind of 'radical.' You may never be sure which he is (maybe all of the above), but in your gut you simply don't 'know' him the way you know the other candidates. This is not, to put it mildly, a message likely to benefit Bobby Jindal. [...] Add to this the blunt fact that the GOP probably can't afford to lose racist white voters, especially in the South...and I think Jindal's chance of being the nominee in 2012 is, despite his obvious talents, pretty close to nil. The GOP isn't going to be looking for its own Obama; it's going to be looking for an anti-Obama."

The Atlantic's Ross Douthat disagrees:

"I think this vastly, vastly overestimates the extent to which the attempt to 'Otherize' Obama has been about race qua race (and racism qua racism), and vastly underestimates the extent to which it's been about the way Obama's name, ancestry and skin color have dovetailed with other aspects of his background -- from his liberation-theology church to the academic-lefty and urban-machine milieu in which he spent much of his early political career -- that the GOP would have tried to play up against any Democratic candidate (and especially in a year when the party didn't have much else going for it). If anything, I think the way the McCain campaign has finished up -- and the way the media has covered it -- works to Jindal's advantage in 2012: Conservatives are going to be extremely eager to prove that they only hate Obama because he's a radical, not because they're racist, and what better way to demonstrate that than to nominate a dark-skinned conservative with a funny-sounding name? Indeed, much of the current affection for Jindal among movement conservatives -- and especially in talk-radio land -- can be traced to precisely such a yearning for a conservative Obama: A multicultural prince who channels Ronald Reagan, and whose nomination would at least reduce the taint of racism that clings to the American Right."

LEST WE FORGET: Bruce Springsteen Concert Totally Changes Area Man's Mind About Voting

From The Onion:

"PHILADELPHIA -- A recent Bruce Springsteen free acoustic set on Philadelphia's Ben Franklin Parkway completely changed the mind of sales associate Grant Garlock regarding the basic democratic process of voting, sources reported Monday. 'It hadn't really occurred to me until Bruce said it, but when you think about it, voting really is the most important right we have as Americans,' said Garlock, 38, who for various reasons ranging from scheduling mishaps to pure apathy has not voted in a local, state, or national election since 1988. 'I used to think that my vote didn't count, but now I realize the Boss was right when he said, "Every vote counts."' On Nov. 4, Garlock plans to vote for John McCain because he thinks Sarah Palin is hot."

Posted by Ian Faerstein at October 29, 2008 01:06 PM