November 10, 2008

11/10: The Calm Before The Storm

It was (thankfully) a fairly quiet weekend in the blogosphere. Although liberal bloggers have significant concerns about some of the names being floated for Pres.-elect Barack Obama's cabinet (especially Larry Summers), they were nevertheless excited to learn about Obama's plans to reverse some of Pres. George W. Bush's executive orders concerning climate change, stem cell research, and reproductive rights. Susan Gardner declares: "Our long national nightmare is over. The great undoing has begun."

Conservative bloggers, meanwhile, are mostly in opposition mode. Some are criticizing Obama for making a joke about Nancy Reagan, while others are complaining about a McDonald's restaurant in Topeka, KS that's apparently trying to build support for a national holiday in Obama's honor. We're sure that Obama will eventually give conservative bloggers more substantive things to complain about -- probably as soon as he makes his first cabinet appointments.

OBAMA: Change The Netroots Can Believe In

Liberal bloggers were excited to learn that Obama's transition advisers "have compiled a list of about 200 Bush administration actions and executive orders that could be swiftly undone to reverse White House policies on climate change, stem cell research, reproductive rights and other issues":

• Daily Kos' SusanG: "Our long national nightmare is over. The great undoing has begun."
• BooMan: "That's change I can believe in."
• Obsidian Wings' hilzoy: "These are wonderful changes. After the last eight years, the very idea that they might occur not as the result of a long drawn-out battle, but just like that, is amazing."
• dday: "If progressives want a dog whistle, here it is. [...] It's hard not to smile at all of this. I believe the applicable term is 'the adults are back in charge.' I understand that the new Administration is debating whether or not to go big and take on a variety of issues right away, but the above would reflect a pretty good deal of positive change. It's not enough, of course, and we're going to have to be there on the left flank pushing the Administration to keep moving forward and ignore the neo-Hooverists and the guardians of the status quo."
• MyDD's Todd Beeton: "In so many ways, the last eight years have been, at best, wasted time so it's nice that on several issues we won't have to wait for progress."
• The Atlantic's Ta-Nehisi Coates: "There's a tendency to get caught up in all the symbolism of Obama. But I realized the reality of things reading this piece -- stem-cell research is coming, folks. Damn."

OBAMA II: Leave Nancy Alone!

Conservative bloggers are criticizing Obama for making a joke about Nancy Reagan during his press conference on Friday:

• NRO's David Freddoso: "Obama just insulted Nancy Reagan...very classy.
• NRO's Kathryn Jean Lopez: "I'm sure it wasn't mean-spirited, but I'd leave Nancy Reagan and astrology alone, thank you."
• Glenn Reynolds: "You've been elected President. Try not to speak carelessly if you can help it."
• Michelle Malkin: "President-Elect D'oh-bama's Gaffe #1: [...] Hillary Clinton did seances. Nancy Reagan did astrology. At least he didn't call her 'Weezy.'"

Power Line's John Hinderaker thinks Obama should emulate Bush: "The only news Barack Obama made in his first post-election press conference was when, in a classless moment, he falsely ridiculed Nancy Reagan for holding 'seances' in the White House. He was then compelled to call her to apologize for what he termed his 'careless remark.' [...] Obama thinks he is a good talker, but he is often undisciplined when he speaks. He needs to understand that as President, his words will be scrutinized and will have impact whether he intends it or not. In this regard, President Bush is an excellent model; Obama should take a lesson from his example. Bush never gets sloppy when he is speaking publicly. He chooses his words with care and precision, which is why his style sometimes seems halting. In the eight years he has been President, it is remarkable how few gaffes or verbal blunders he has committed. If Obama doesn't raise his standards, he will exceed Bush's total before he is inaugurated."

NRO's Andy McCarthy, a strident critic of Obama, thinks people should give him a pass on his Nancy Reagan joke: "C'mon folks, let's not be a bunch of mirthless wusses here. Mark Steyn's cover story for NR's April 21 edition on Mrs. Obama's America was laugh out loud stuff, and we all howled over the unintentionally hysterical New Yorker cover that depicted Michelle as a militant. First families and their eccentricities, real or imagined, have never been off-limits. What Obama said, whether you think it was funny or not (I thought it was kinda funny) was not offensive -- it didn't come close to John McCain's infamous joke (at a 1998 fundraiser) at Chelsea Clinton's expense, and I don't recall too many protests around here about our candidate's occasional low-brow jape. Let's not act like a bunch of Lefties just looking to be aggrieved over this or that slight. This is likely to be a tough stretch, and we'll need to be able to laugh -- at ourselves and at the other side -- to get through it."

OBAMA III: Those Crazy Topekans

Conservative bloggers are outraged that a McDonald's restaurant in Topeka, KS is trying to build support for a national holiday in Obama's honor:

• Malkin: "A national holiday in honor of The One? For heaven's sake. [...] Now, remember: If you oppose the Obama National Holiday, you're a RAAAAAAAAAAAAACIST!"
• Hot Air's Ed Morrissey: "First, we have a national holiday to honor our presidents. It's called -- President's Day. One can see how this might confuse the national supporters of Hope and Change, but perhaps we can try to rename it into something easier for them to understand. [...] And now the Cult of Obama wants a specific day to honor the object of their adoration, and for what? Getting elected? Isn't that the soft bigotry of low expectations?"
• NRO's Mark Hemingway: "Let's just go ahead and start clearing space on Rushmore too."
• Reynolds: "How about waiting until he's actually done something?"

LIEBERMAN: You're Not In A Position To Negotiate, Joe!

Liberal bloggers firmly believe that Lieberman should give up his chairmanship of the Homeland Security Committee, and that if he decides to caucus with the GOP senators as a result, then so be it:

• Brian Beutler: "If you wield a congressional oversight gavel, and your buddy's in the White House, you might just conduct exactly zero investigations into presidential wrongdoing. But when the election comes, and your other buddy loses to a guy you don't really like, you might think about becoming a real pest to the new administration. [Sen. Maj. Leader Harry] Reid should really strip Lieberman of his chairmanship."
• MyDD's Josh Orton: "Joe Lieberman is entitled to disagree with other Democratic Senators on whatever issue he wants. And it's legitimate for him to express his opinions -- whatever they may be -- through his votes as a Senator. But Lieberman went way beyond voting against his party -- he specifically undercut Barack Obama and others on the very issue Republicans have consistently used since 9/11 to slime Democrats: national security. Lieberman defended [MN Sen.] Norm Coleman when Al Franken raised the issue of Iraq War investigations (in a Senate race, it's worth mentioning, that's in a tight recount). He repeated the smear that Obama voted to 'cut off funding for our troops on the ground.' And at the GOP convention, Lieberman lied about Obama's Senate record. So Lieberman's entitled to his policy differences -- but it's absolutely unacceptable for Joe to maintain oversight of a powerful committee with jurisdiction over the subject he used to attack Democrats. It just doesn't make sense."
• Ezra Klein: "Lieberman wants to keep his committee as a hedge against retribution. So long as he controls Governmental Affairs, he's not the sort of guy Democrats want on a warpath against them. Elsewhere, they can take him seriously, or screw him over, largely as they please, which most would probably find a preferable alternative. But I basically side with the 'kick him out' folks. Unlike [PA Sen.] Arlen Specter, whose minor heterodoxies ended with a pathetic show of groveling and a solemn promise to never, ever, in a million years, ever say an unkind word about one of Bush's judicial nominees, Lieberman's major betrayal of the Democratic Party has been accompanied by a promise to bolt to the Republicans Party if he's not sufficiently stroked. That's not the sort of guy you want in a position of oversight."
• TAPPED's Scott Lemieux: "Reid's choice is obvious: let Lieberman join the Republican conference with no seniority or chairmanships. I completely understand that broad party coalitions inevitably involve making peace with wankers. People who actively support the other party are a different matter. He has no leverage and won't be a reliable cloture vote in any circumstances. Let him walk."
• TPM's Josh Marshall: "Joe Lieberman is putting out word that if the Democrats don't allow him to keep his chairmanship, he'll take up [Sen. Min. Leader] Mitch McConnell's invitation to join the Republican caucus. I think the answer has to be, go for it. [...] I think much of what Lieberman did over the last year was inexcusable. But magnanimity in victory is always a virtue and usually wise. So I don't think it's necessary to expel him from the caucus. And perhaps there are some perks of seniority he could be allowed to retain. But allowing him to keep his chairmanship is simply unacceptable. It's a position the Democrats hold because of the joint efforts of Democrats across the country pulling together to support Democratic policies and ideals and elect Democratic candidates. For Lieberman to enjoy the fruits of that labor after working so hard to stymie that effort would be unconscionable."

LIEBERMAN II: Playing The National Security Card

Liberal bloggers were disgusted when one of Lieberman's aides claimed that stripping Lieberman of his chairmanship of the Homeland Security Committee would mean that the Dems were putting politics ahead of nat'l security:

"'Sen. Lieberman prefers to remain in the Democratic caucus,' the aide said. 'However, he believes he should remain as chairman of the Homeland Security Committee....He thinks that political retribution should not go ahead of homeland security.'"

• TPM's Greg Sargent: "Can the Lieberman camp really be arguing that stripping Lieberman of his committee slot is tantamount to putting politics ahead of our safety, because we're so defenseless without him there to protect us? Never mind that Lieberma's performance as chair of the committee was just awful. Lieberman's camp is now sounding a kind of hollow echo of the same silly scare-mongering tactics that he used against Obama on the GOP's behalf during the campaign, only this time in service of holding onto whatever vestiges of influence he has left. It's a coda to this whole affair that's perfect in its desperation and unintentional self-parody."
• The Washington Monthly's Steve Benen: "For one thing, Lieberman, as chairman for the last two years, barely used his committee to actually explore domestic security policy. For another, it's not as if Lieberman has such a unique expertise that Americans would be at risk if, say, Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.) chaired the same committee. Or Daniel Akaka (D-Hawaii) or Thomas Carper (D-Del.) or Mark Pryor (D-Ark.). It's one of those rare arguments from Lieberman that combines arrogance, incompetence, and demagoguery, all at the same time. A rare feat, indeed."
• Beeton: "I suppose it was inevitable that Joe Lieberman would take the fear-mongering he used against Obama in the general, which mirrored the Rovian 'elect Republicans or die' strategy that worked so well for the GOP in 02 & 04, and use it in his campaign to keep his chairmanship of the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs."

LIEBERMAN III: "One Of The Most Progressive People," My A**!

Liberal bloggers are annoyed that Reid described Lieberman as "one of the most progressive people ever to come from the state of Connecticut":

"Lieberman votes with me a lot more than a lot of my senators. He didn't support us on military stuff and he didn't support us on Iraq stuff. But you look at his record, it's pretty good. He comes from one of the most liberal states in the country. He is -- Joe Lieberman is not some rightwing nutcase. Joe Lieberman is one of the most progressive people ever to come from the state of Connecticut."

• AMERICAblog's John Aravosis: "Why is Harry Reid praising Joe Lieberman? It's too soon to tell, but this is not a good sign. One would hope with a new Congress, and with more Democrats than ever in Congress, our guys would finally show a spine. Then again, there's a reason the Republicans always accuse us of being weak. But far too often, we are."
• Firedoglake's Teddy Partridge: "Progressive Democrats didn't support John McCain for President. Progressive Democrats didn't undermine our party's nominee by agreeing that it was a good question to ask whether he was a socialist. Progressive Democrats didn't campaign for downticket Republicans -- Joe Lieberman wrote an op-ed for Norm Coleman! He raised money for [ME Sen.] Susan Collins! Joe Lieberman took affirmative steps to increase the size of the Republican Senate caucus. What more evidence is needed to oust Lieberman? [...] This is a test of Harry Reid's leadership. If he fails to oust Lieberman, the caucus should find itself new leadership. Unless the Democratic Senate caucus is happy with Reid's treatment of Lieberman?"
• Benen: "Senate Democrats will make their decision about Lieberman's future in the caucus, and they'll have plenty of information and context to consider. But it's important that senators get beyond the notion that Lieberman is a reliable and consistent progressive voice on everything but military affairs and national security. If only that were true. Even if we put aside his painful betrayals throughout the campaign cycle, there are those actual votes in the Senate to consider, including his support for Bush's judicial nominees, private school vouchers, and partnering with [ex-PA Sen.] Rick Santorum a few years back to promote Bush's 'faith-based' initiative. It's not, in other words, just Iraq policy."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: The Internet Should Kill 2012 Talk

The Next Right's Patrick Ruffini thinks it's way too early to speculate about the GOP's 2012 contenders:

"Barack Obama was not even mentioned as a potential candidate until October 2006. Mitt Romney, by far the most well-prepared of the early 2008 contenders, was defeated in Iowa by Mike Huckabee (who was accused of slacking on the early ground game) and in New Hampshire by John McCain (whose early organization got shredded). The hottest GOP contenders at this point in the last cycle were [ex-VA Sen.] George Allen and [ex-TN Sen.] Bill Frist. And all John McCain's early legwork got him was an excessive burn rate and campaign implosion, until he retooled into a leaner, meaner machine. In October or November of 2007, few people would have predicted Barack Obama or John McCain as the nominees. If we can't predict three months out, what makes us think we can predict three and a half years out?

Nor was 2008 a total fluke. There are structural forces at play here. On the one hand, the campaign cycle has been lengthening. But on the other hand, the Internet, and specifically a richer information ecosystem that allows us to pay more attention to also-rans like Huckabee and Ron Paul is operationalizing the Feiler Faster Thesis where challengers rise and frontrunners implode faster. This means that in a primary, money and organization don't go as far. McCain got nominated with half the resources of some of his competitors. Mike Huckabee got to be the second to last guy standing on financial and organizational fumes. When Barack Obama's YouTube channel is worth more than the entire budget of a respectable primary campaign, you know something is up. So, I implore you, quit focusing on 2012, and focus on 2010 and on showing the Republican Party can rebuild at the state legislative, Congressional, and statewide levels in 2010..."

LEST WE FORGET: This Is Your Brain On Stupid Customers

From Overheard in New York:

Customer: I'll have an egg omelet.
Cook: An egg omelet?
Customer: Yeah, one made with eggs.
Cook: Thank god you mentioned eggs. I was about to give you an omelet solely made from butter!

Posted by Ian Faerstein at November 10, 2008 01:16 PM