November 13, 2008

11/13: Netroots To Senate Dems: Stand Up For Yourselves!

Liberal bloggers aren't letting up in their aggressive effort to convince Senate Dems to remove ex-John McCain surrogate/CT Sen. Joe Lieberman as chair of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee. However, they're growing increasingly pessimistic about their chances of succeeding, in light of the fact that (1.) several top Senate Dems are lobbying their colleagues in support of Lieberman, and (2.) the Senate's #2 Dem (and close Barack Obama ally) Dick Durbin reportedly wants Lieberman to keep his chairmanship. The netroots aren't going down without a fight, however, and they're blasting Senate Dems for "cower[ing] like beaten dogs" and "hav[ing] no spine". Lefty bloggers are especially critical of Senate Maj. Leader Harry Reid, whom they consider weak and ineffectual. Markos Moulitsas delivers a warning to Reid:

"If Lieberman is rewarded for this behavior and keeps his chairmanship of the Homeland Security committee, it'll be on Reid's head. He either runs the Senate, or he doesn't. And if he's so weak that Lieberman survives, then he doesn't deserve to run the caucus, or, frankly, to hold his seat."

LIEBERMAN: Why Are We Rewarding A Traitor?

Liberal bloggers continue to urge Senate Dems to remove Lieberman as chair of the Homeland Security committee, but they're growing increasingly pessimistic about the chances of this actually happening:

• Daily Kos' Moulitsas: "Lieberman and his whippers argue that stripping him of Homeland Security would be 'punishment', and that Democrats should be forgiving of all the gleeful right-wing slams Lieberman delivered against Obama and Democrats over the past two years. Of course, committee assignments generally go to those who helped the party gain its majorities. Otherwise, why 'punish' [OK Sen.] James Inhofe by removing him from the Senate Environment and Public Works committee? Why 'punish' Republicans, now that the Senate is an even bigger Democratic place, by stripping them of staff, budget, and seats? Why? Because to the victor go the spoils. It's called democracy, and the people have made their preferences felt at the ballot box. If they wanted the Lieberman version of DC, they would've voted for McCain. [...] Throw in the fact that Lieberman's tenure at the committee has been an abject failure -- zero hearings into the Bush's administration's mismanagement of homeland security matters or Katrina -- and you have zero reason beyond bullshit Senate collegiality to keep him where he wants to be. The American people have spoken -- they wanted change. Senate Democrats, as usual, appear tone deaf to the wishes of the people, and ready to once again capitulate."
• Firedoglake's Jane Hamsher: "Good governance is going to be about more than passing new legislation, it's going to be about cleaning up the mess that has been made over the past 8 years. [...] The only way we're going to find out about these abuses, and right them, is if our elected officials accept that responsibility. Not only is Joe Lieberman not doing that job, as Chairman of the Department of Homeland Security Committee he's keeping anyone else from doing it. [...] Is his continued happiness worth the cost of healthcare? Of the environment? Of putting Americans back to work? Of reducing our dependence on oil and getting the economy back on its feet? Allowing Lieberman to retain control of a committee where he has done nothing but suppress meaningful oversight is going to be an awfully bitter pill to swallow when we're told that the price of 'change' we all thought we were voting for is going to be too high."
• Daily Kos' Jed L: "After winning a mandate for change, why in the world would Senate Democrats choose a defender of the old guard to be one of their chief spokesmen and policymakers? Aren't elections supposed to have consequences? Nobody is saying Joe Lieberman ought to be excommunicated. But the public voted for change, and they deserve to get it. Next week, Senate Democrats should listen to the voters."

Other liberal bloggers are warning that Senate Dems are making a mistake by allowing Lieberman to remain chairman of the Homeland Security committee:

• The Washington Monthly's Steve Benen: "I wonder what happens if, in six months, Lieberman starts launching partisan witch hunts against the Obama White House, and Senate Dems decide it's time to take Lieberman's gavel away. How's that going to look? An independent senator starts asking pesky questions of a Democratic president and White House allies decide to sack the one doing the asking? Senate Democrats are not only making a mistake that they'll regret, they're making a mistake that will be hard to correct later."
• Open Left's Matt Stoller: "It looks like Lieberman will be chair of the Homeland Security Committee and have subpoena power. I had hoped the Senate would make its decision without pressure from the President-elect, since a supine Congressional delegation is a huge problem even when it's a Democrat in the White House. But that is not to be, and our new President-elect has used political capital to help a very neoconservative Joe Lieberman remain both within the Democratic caucus and the chair of an important committee on national security. It's worth noting that Reid was on the side of Democratic primary voters but that most Democrats in the Senate and President-elect Obama were not. It's a choice, they made it, I hope the price they extracted from Lieberman was worth it."

LIEBERMAN II: Thank You, Sir, May I Have Another?

Now that Lieberman appears to have "some serious momentum" in his bid to save his chairmanship, liberal bloggers are furiously denouncing Senate Dems:

• AMERICAblog's John Aravosis: "Democrats aren't going to punish Lieberman because Democrats don't do 'mean.' Well, Democrats other than Joe Lieberman. He's a certifiable ass. But he seems to be the only ass in town. All the other Democrats, Harry Reid included, it now seems, are willing to let anyone walk all over them, and stab them in the back, repeatedly, all the while politely asking for more. The Democratic cave on Lieberman is about far more than one traitor. It's about the Democrats' overall lack of backbone. It's about, as one swing voter said to me in 2004, if the Democrats aren't willing to defend themselves how are they going to defend my kids. And the thing is, I'm not sure I have an answer any more."
• Salon's Glenn Greenwald: "[Lieberman] has spouted the most defamatory attacks, not only against Barack Obama, but against war opponents generally. More significantly still, Democrats in his own state -- his own constituents -- booted him out of the party, no longer wanting to be represented by him. That is who Senate Democrats appear well on their way to selecting to serve as their Chairman of Homeland Security, of all committees. That's because nothing that Lieberman has done really bothers them. Endorsing the Iraq War and the full panoply of radical Bush policies isn't disqualifying in the least because so many of them also endorsed that and support it, or, at the very least, it's not a priority for them. They care even less what their 'base' thinks, what the so-called 'Left' wants. Few things in this world are less likely than them ever taking even a mild stand -- such as stripping Lieberman of his Chair -- in order to defend some sort of political principle, or to punish ineptitude, or to announce that there are certain lines to the Right that can't be crossed. They don't do that. They never have. And it shouldn't surprise anyone that they won't now."
• Balloon Juice's John Cole: "There should be a price to pay for what Lieberman has done, and his former colleagues in the Democratic Party should do the right thing and take away his chairmanship. Having said all that, I doubt they will. [...] It will be no great surprise if they cave once again. In fact, the only surprise outcome for me would be if they actually do strip Lieberman of his Chairmanship."

digby is disgusted: "I just watched [IN Sen.] Evan Bayh try to explain to [MSNBC's] Rachel Maddow why Lieberman needs to keep his chairmanship. Bayh explained that they have no choice because Lieberman is threatening to leave the Senate if he doesn't get his way -- and the Connecticut Governor will then name a Republican who will never vote with them. And if he stays and doesn't get what he wants, he will be 'embittered' and then vote against them on close votes out of spite. So in order to do what's necessary for the country they need to give him what he wants. I guess that's what putting 'country first' means. Bayh was just embarrassing. He's going to have to pop a fistful of viagra and watch some '24' just to persuade himself that his testes are still descended after that pathetic performance. They should just get this over with. Watching these people willingly (pretend to) cower like beaten dogs before Holy Joe's threats is just depressing. Just do it already."

LIEBERMAN III: Show Some Cojones, Harry!

Several prominent liberal bloggers are arguing that Reid will show himself to be a weak Senate leader if he can't guarantee enough votes to strip Lieberman of his chairmanship of the Homeland Security committee:

• Aravosis: "Reid has the power to remove Joe Lieberman's committee chair and/or kick him out of the Democratic caucus. Yes, Lieberman has to be put up to a vote before the full Democratic caucus. But if Reid were a real leader, he could get his way in a snap. No one is going to challenge their leader if he says that he absolutely wants Lieberman out. At least that's the way it works on the Republican side of the aisle. There, discipline matters. And it shows in how they vote. But Reid won't say that."
• Moulitsas: "If Lieberman is rewarded for this behavior and keeps his chairmanship of the Homeland Security committee, it'll be on Reid's head. He either runs the Senate, or he doesn't. And if he's so weak that Lieberman survives, then he doesn't deserve to run the caucus, or, frankly, to hold his seat. And his will be one of the few Democratic seats seriously endangered in 2010."

In a separate post, Moulitsas elaborates: "Let me be clear: Harry Reid is the Senate leader. As such, he's expected to, you know, lead the Senate. Yet read the tea leaves, and all you see are unnamed Senate aides whining that Reid wants to give the Homeland Security chairmanship to a Democrat who has earned the post, but is being undermined by Obama (another unitary executive?), or [CT Sen. Chris] Dodd, or [FL Sen. Bill] Nelson, or whoever. So to remind everyone, Harry Reid is the Senate leader. As such, he's expected to, you know, lead the Senate. If he fails, then he shouldn't be Senate leader."

HEALTH CARE: Are Mandates Back On The Table?

Liberal bloggers are buzzing about the health reform plan released yesterday by Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus, which "goes beyond Obama's plan by requiring everybody to purchase health insurance once affordable options are available". Most liberal bloggers believe that a mandate is necessary in order to ensure universal coverage, and they're excited that Baucus (who's known as a centrist) has released a plan that's even bolder than Obama's:

• New York Times columnist Paul Krugman: "This is very big news. One of the key questions about the new Democratic majority was whether Congress would try to play it safe, backing down on big ideas about reform, especially on health care. You can view the whole chorus about how we're still a 'center-right nation' as an attempt by the usual suspects to scare Democrats into scaling back their ambitions. But now Max Baucus -- Max Baucus! -- is leading the charge on a health care plan that, at least at first read, is more like Hillary Clinton's than Barack Obama's; that is, it looks like an attempt at full universality. (The word I hear, by the way, is that Obama's opposition to mandates was tactical politics, not conviction -- so he may well be prepared to do the right thing now that the election is won.) So this looks very good for the reformers. There's now a reasonable chance that universal health care will be enacted next year!"
• Daily Kos' mcjoan: "Krugman, and most health care experts and House Democrats working on health care reform, have pushed for mandated health coverage because it's about the only way to really ensure the cost-savings to the whole system that are necessary to provide universal coverage. Not having it leaves too many in the gap that's helped to create this crisis -- they're not getting the preventive care that helps to keep costs down along the line. That Obama is signalling flexibility on this issue is key, and good news for the chances of reform. That this is coming from cautious, conservative, DLCish Max Baucus does indeed mean, as Krugman says, that it's looking much more likely that we have universal health care enacted in the next year."
• Mother Jones' Kevin Drum: "I very much doubt that mandates will be a huge sticking point with Obama. In fact, he might very well breathe a sigh of relief that someone like Baucus is insisting on it, since it gives him an easy out on the issue. Bottom line: Republicans will almost certainly try to filibuster whatever the final product turns out to be, but they're going to have a hard time making it stick. Unlike 1994, Baucus, [MA Sen. Ted] Kennedy, [NY Sen.] Hillary Clinton, and the president are roughly on the same page, the liberal interest groups are interested in getting something done, not bickering, and even the business community is finally coming around to the need for dramatic action. I give serious healthcare reform an 80% chance of passing before June."
• Obsidian Wings' publius: "As others have noted, Senator Baucus's 'white paper' is very big news. As one of the most conservative and business-friendly Dems, the fact that he's signed on to such an aggressive Clinton/Edwards-type plan means that health care reform is on. The battle is really coming this time. And it's incredibly exciting."

Ezra Klein explains the legislative politics behind Baucus' proposal: "Do not think of this as Max Baucus's health care plan. It isn't. Not yet. As of now, it's a policy paper, not a piece of legislation. It is the beginning of Max Baucus's attempt to create a health care reform process. What Baucus has offered is not the Max Baucus health care plan, but the generic Democratic health care plan. The place from which the policy process among congressional Democrats can start. It is extremely similar to the Obama plan if you added a mandate, and to the Clinton and Edwards plans if you left them untouched. If you liked those plans -- and most Democrats, eventually, did -- you like this one. It's as basic as that. The plan is really less a legislative document than a concrete articulation of what politically attuned Democrats currently understand to be the party's consensus of health reform, and this document is part of Baucus's bid to lead the resulting legislative process. It is not Baucus's final say on what the eventual product will look like."

Think Progress' Matthew Yglesias adds: "...It was always a bit misleading to construe the mandate debate as one pitting a 'more ambitious' mandate-laden plan against a more politically timid mandate-free plan. Rather, I think it's better to look at this as pitting two different theories of political expediency against each other. To the man on the street, things probably look better if your plan can be attacked as forcing people to do stuff. But of course to an insurance company executive or his lobbyists, things look better if your plan doesn't allow the young and healthy (i.e., the actuarially desirable clients) to opt out of buying your product. Max Baucus is not much of a political risk-taker, but he is very attuned to the moods of insurance company interests and feels, plausibly, that the kind of quid pro quid structure of a mandate/regulate plan is the best chance to get things through even if it's also more vulnerable to rhetorical assault in some ways."

MN SEN: Ritchie Vs. The Rightroots

Conservative bloggers are criticizing MN Sec/State Mark Ritchie for accusing MN Sen. Norm Coleman's camp of trying "to win at any price":

"The Democratic Secretary of State of Minnesota, Mark Ritchie, was just on MSNBC talking about the recount in the Minnesota Senate race between Sen. Norm Coleman (R-Minn.) and Democrat Al Franken, and his comments will likely upset Coleman's campaign. Asked about the Coleman campaign's criticism of the recanvassing process, Ritchie said: 'Their goal is to win at any price. They've invested millions and millions of dollars. We consider this part of the normal political rhetoric,' said Ritchie. 'We're used to the political rhetoric being amped up. That's part of their job -- to win at any price.'"

• Hot Air's Ed Morrissey: "Maybe Mark Ritchie thinks that politicians should win at any price, but that says more about Ritchie than it does about Coleman. In fact, that statement may explain why Ritchie has remained silent while voting totals keep changing all over the state in Al Franken's favor. Apparently, the DFL Secretary of State believes in winning at any price, and sees that as his job."
• Townhall's Amanda Carpenter: "These are highly inflammatory remarks from Ritchie, the official tasked with overseeing the contentious recount between Coleman and [Franken]. As Secretary of State, Ritchie has rebuffed attempts to ensure integrity in the election process, calling Republican concerns about ACORN 'desperate.' This may be because before becoming Secretary, Ritchie actively worked with ACORN to increase voter registrations through a liberally-leaning umbrella group. Ritchie has also been unwilling investigate a batch of 32 absentee ballots an election worker 'found' in the trunk of her car. Every one of them were marked for Franken."
• Power Line's John Hinderaker: "In this morning's Minneapolis Star Tribune, columnist Kathy Kersten writes about Minnesota's liberal activist Secretary of State, Mark Ritchie. [...] Ritchie describes his 'partnership with ACORN' here."
• Townhall's Matt Lewis: "We should definitely be keeping a very close eye on Mr. Ritchie."

RNC: FredHeads Bash Steele

Several conservative bloggers are arguing that ex-TN Sen. Fred Thompson would make a better RNC Chairman than ex-MD LG Michael Steele because Steele has done a poor job as GOPAC Chairman:

• AmSpec Blog's Quin Hillyer: "I join almost every other conservative in hailing Michael Steele's principles, personality, and eloquence. But does he actually have much of a record getting things done? Look back in Maryland, and it's a seriously iffy answer. And now, I am informed (and the info is available at the FEC site here), that GOPAC, which Steele has headed for the past two (?) years, has been a mere shadow of its former self while under Steele's leadeship. [...] In terms of candidates, it looks like GoPAC only gave $29,250 to candidates the entire year, $5000 of which went to Steele's own campaign in Maryland. By comparison, Fred Thompson's PAC gave $41,900 to candidates and PACs in the first half of the month of October alone. If Steele wants to be RNC chairman, he needs to explain this poor performance at GOPAC."
• The Next Right's Michael Turk: "While I think Steele is an appealing candidate with a great narrative (I love that he used to be a monk), I have to judge him on performance leading an organization like the RNC. [...] Under Michael Steele, as of October 15, GOPAC had raised a whopping $77,135 this year. Of that, it gave just over $29,000 to candidates -- with $5,000 of that going to Steele's own campaign in Maryland. By comparison, Fred Thompson launched FredPAC at the beginning of September -- just 60 days before the election. In that 60 days, Fred contributed $42,000 to candidates, recorded ads and robo-calls for GOP candidates, and criss-crossed the country trying to elect Republicans and the McCain-Palin ticket."
• AmSpec Blog's J. Peter Freire: "After speaking with people involved with the RNC Chairman race, it's becoming clear that the contours of the race have to do with two things: Is the candidate a conservative, and is the candidate willing to do the work. But there's also a third point: Is the candidate a committeeman in the RNC? Michael Steele has problems here. For one thing, he's not a committeeman. Another, he didn't even want to run as a real Republican in his Maryland race. And lastly, his work at GOPAC has been lackluster."

Hot Air's Allahpundit isn't convinced that Thompson would be a better RNC Chairman than Steele: "Fred to challenge Steele for RNC chair? I like it, but Steele embodies 'change' a lot more than Fred does and Change is, after all, the order of the day. [...] One's preference for [Thompson], Steele, or [ex-Speaker Newt] Gingrich depends on what one thinks the GOP most desperately needs: A return to traditional conservatism, an expansion of the party's base, or an infusion of new policy ideas, whether those ideas are especially sound or not. (Notably absent: An emphasis on managerial competence.) That's not to suggest that any of the three couldn't pull off more than one of the above, but we're talking symbolism and priorities here. One possible strike against Fred: The party's now so identified with the south that RNC members might actually consider it a liability to reinforce that impression with a chairman as overtly southern as Thompson. One possible strike for Fred: Turns out Michael Steele's in no hurry to overturn Roe v. Wade, per his 2006 appearance on Meet the Press."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Race Matters

Princeton Prof. Larry Bartels:

"The election of our first black president constitutes 'a strikingly symbolic moment in the evolution of the nation's fraught racial history,' as Adam Nagourney put it in the New York Times. It has prompted hearty self-congratulation all around regarding the broad-mindedness of American voters. [...] However, there is a good deal of circumstantial evidence suggesting that racial resentment eroded Obama's support among white voters. His gains relative to [John] Kerry were significantly smaller in states with large numbers of African-Americans -- a pattern disguised in the overall vote totals by his strong support among African-Americans themselves. In the former Confederacy he gained only slightly over Kerry among white voters, despite making big gains in two key swing states, North Carolina and Virginia. The only states in the country in which he lost more than a point or two of white support were Louisiana, Alabama, Arkansas, and Mississippi.

The notable resistance of southern whites to Obama's candidacy continues a half-century trend sparked by the demise of the unnatural southern Democratic monopoly of the Jim Crow era. From 1952 through 2004, the average level of support for Democratic presidential candidates fell by more than 15 points among white southerners while increasing slightly among whites in the rest of the country. This year's pattern reinforces that long-term shift, underlining the extent to which the Democratic Party's much-discussed 'culture' problem is really a regional problem rooted in white racial resentment."

LEST WE FORGET: Libertarian Blogger Takes On The Office of National Drug Control Policy

Radley Balko (h/t Michael D.):

"The latest absurdity to come out of the Office of National Drug Control Policy is an anti-pot PR campaign with the motto, 'Hey, not trying to be your mom, but there aren't many jobs out there for potheads.' The first three ads suggest that drug users can look forward to a career as a 'burrito taster,' a 'couch security guard,' or 'remote control operator.' It's an incredibly lame campaign, and reeks of stodgy wonks making a desperate attempt to look hip. [...] Let's compile a master list of admitted pot smokers -- current or former -- who not only haven't ended up as heroin junkies or burnouts, but have gone on to lead successful lives. [...] I'll get it started:

Barack Obama, president-elect. Bill Clinton, 42nd president of the U.S. John Kerry, U.S. Senator and 2004 Democratic nominee for president. John Edwards, multi-millionaire, former U.S. Senator, and 2004 Democratic nominee for vice president. Sarah Palin, governor of Alaska, 2008 Republican nominee for vice president. [...] Josh Howard, NBA all-star. New York Governor David Paterson. Former Vice President, Nobel Peace Prize winner, and Oscar winner Al Gore. Former Sen. Bill Bradley, who smoked while playing professional basketball. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich, and former New York Governor George Pataki. Billionaire and New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg."

Posted by Ian Faerstein at November 13, 2008 12:54 PM