Posted by Chris Bodenner at 01:21 PM

December 17, 2008

12/17: Caroline And The Netroots

Prominent liberal bloggers remain strongly opposed to the prospect of NY Gov. David Patterson appointing Caroline Kennedy to Hillary Clinton's Senate seat. Most lefty bloggers oppose Kennedy's Senate bid on the grounds that a person who's never run for office does not deserve an appointment simply because of her celebrity status. Liberal bloggers also argue that Kennedy's lack of legislative experience is problematic and that her candidacy will hurt the political prospects of other NY Dems.

However, it appears that many of the readers of these liberal blogs are more sympathetic to Kennedy's Senate ambitions than the blogs' proprietors. In a post that drew over 1,000 comments, Daily Kos founder Markos Moulitsas observes this phenomenon:

"It's clear that a significant contingent on this site believes that Caroline Kennedy should be senator because her last name is 'Kennedy', and because they 'like her'. It is unseemly that she's being considered for the seat simply because of her family lineage and her ability to pick up the phone and ring the governor, but pointing that out is 'bashing Caroline'. It's all ridiculous, and yes, depressing."

Jane Hamsher makes a similar argument, writing: "People think they 'know' celebrities just because they see them all the time in the media. They don't."

This apparent disconnect between liberal bloggers and their readers reminds us of a similar disconnect that occurred during the Dem primary, when the netroots rank-and-file were far more enthuastic about Barack Obama and John Edwards than the bloggers themselves, most of whom stayed neutral. Perhaps blog readers are more susceptible to the charms of personality and celebrity (and therefore more reflective of the public at large?) than the movement progressives who tend to start blogs.

KENNEDY: The Backlash Grows

Liberal bloggers who oppose Kennedy's Senate bid are accusing her fans of supporting her for superficial reasons:

• Markos Moulitsas: "It's clear that a significant contingent on this site believes that Caroline Kennedy should be senator because her last name is 'Kennedy', and because they 'like her'. It is unseemly that she's being considered for the seat simply because of her family lineage and her ability to pick up the phone and ring the governor, but pointing that out is 'bashing Caroline'. It's all ridiculous, and yes, depressing. Because as much as people on this site and others fight for a more small 'd' democratic political system, one that isn't so tilted in favor of the rich, famous, and connected, there will always be a significant majority that is desperate for an American monarchy and will discard notions of meritocracy to reward their favorite political dynasty."
• Firedoglake's Jane Hamsher: "Many seem to think that [Kennedy's] support for Obama is all we need to know about her politics. Others, like Ruth Marcus, just feel like they 'know' her -- and that the place she holds in the fairy tales of their imaginations is sufficient reason to dispense with the small 'd' democratic process of public elections. Not that the personal parallel holds, I'm certain Caroline Kennedy is an otherwise fine person who probably shares more of my own political beliefs than anyone else who is likely to get the job. But people felt like they 'knew' OJ [Simpson], too. The point is, people think they 'know' celebrities just because they see them all the time in the media. They don't."

Ezra Klein is concerned about Kennedy's lack of legislative experience: "[This is] another example of our unwillingness to believe that 'legislator' is an actual job with a particular skill set that requires expertise and understanding and experience to be effective. Caroline Kennedy is famous. She is even involved in politics. But she has never been a legislator. She knows nothing of parliamentary procedure, congressional negotiations, or constituent service. It would likely take her some time to get her sea legs and learn how to be effective. Meanwhile, there are plenty of long-serving legislators in New York politics, and in the New York delegation to Congress, that would love this seat and could step in on day one."

Firedoglake's looseheadprop argues that appointing Kennedy to Clinton's Senate seat would "wreak havoc on Dem officeholders and candidates all over the state, undo a decade of rebuilding, and insult [the Clintons]": "Does [Kennedy] not realize that she is putting David Paterson's ass in a sling? After going all public like this, if he doesn't pick her, he looks ungentlemanly. This is pretty bare knuckled on her part. [...] Don't forget how bitter Hillary must be about Caroline going for Obama during the primary. Where do you think Paterson's re-election fund-raising is going to come from? He needs Big Dawg to go out there to help raise money for him. Bill [Clinton] and Hillary have raised a lot of money for down ticket candidates all over NYS and were doing so BEFORE Hillary ran for Senate. In fact, it was this willingness to work for the good of the party that lead to Hillary being asked to run. Caroline? Eh, not so much. If Paterson/ NYS Party Chair June O'Neill disses the Clintons, and the Clintons turn their back on NYS, the already declared dead NYS GOP will be Baaa-aack in a NY minute. She is willing to fuck up some fragile current gains [...], and the promise of future gains, because she has no skin in the game, having contributed not one ounce of energy to electing those down ticket candidates."

KENNEDY II: We Beg To Differ...

A small minority of liberal bloggers is expressing mild support for Kennedy's Senate bid:

• BooMan: "I don't really disagree with anything that Markos [Moulitsas] or Duncan [Black] have to say about Caroline Kennedy's campaign for Hillary's seat. But I still don't come to the same conclusion. First of all, I do have to quibble a little bit with the idea that the only reason people support Caroline is because of her name. I like Caroline because she has been an active and effective advocate for liberal causes her entire adult life. But I grant there are many other people not named Kennedy that have done the same and are not jumping to the head of the line for a senate seat. The main reason I support Caroline's bid is because I expect her be a much better vote than [NY AG] Andrew Cuomo or [NY Rep.] Kirsten Gillibrand or any of the other names I've seen mentioned. But I also think the Senate is big enough to have room for a Kennedy. Yes, they're a dynasty, but they're a dynasty that has given everything for their country. With Teddy [Kennedy] nearing the end of his career, I don't have a problem with Caroline taking his place."
• TalkLeft's Big Tent Democrat: "As someone who does not think experience matters much in politics, I have no real objection to Caroline Kennedy as Senator. I do think she should speak publically about her positions on the issues. [...] I do not agree with the 'dynasty' objections [to her candidacy] -- life and politics has never been fair -- but the public knowing her positions on the issues seems a reasonable request."

KENNEDY III: Down With Nepotism!

Several liberal critics of Kennedy's Senate bid are calling for a Constitutional Amendment requiring that all Senate seats be filled via popular elections rather than appointments:

• Open Left's Chris Bowers: "There is an endemic problem of dynasties and elitism in our political process. The power of Governor's to appoint vacant Senate seats is one of the more egregious examples of this. The four examples we are looking at right now are not isolated incidents, either. Six years ago, former Alaska Governor Frank Murkowski appointed his daughter to fill his vacant Senate seat. Two years before that, when [ex-MO Gov.] Mel Carnahan died in a plane crash, his wife, Jean Carnahan, served two years in the Senate to replace him. The previous year, [ex-RI Sen.] Lincoln Chafee was appointed to serve when his father died unexpectedly. [...] There needs to be a constitutional amendment requiring that all Senate seats always be filled via popular elections, rather than appointments. While it seems that the corruption surrounding the Illinois Senate appointment would make for a perfect catalyst for such a campaign, the continuing nepotism in the other Senate appointments, along with the decision by the Illinois state legislature to delay a special election, it is clear that such a campaign would face a steep uphill battle."
• Daily Kos' Markos Moulitsas: "[W]hile I find it disheartening that the younger Biden will likely take his father's old seat in two years, at least they're doing it right in Delaware by appointing a caretaker Senator. He'll have every advantage in the world, but at least Beau will be elected to the seat. [...] The problem here isn't that candidates trade off their name for electoral advantage, it's when they trade off that name for a political appointment, bypassing the trappings of democracy in order to be handed something by fiat. And as Chris [Bowers] notes, this problem isn't just one in New York. It's led to corruption in Illinois, nepotism in Alaska, Missouri, and Rhode Island. Ultimately, the rich, powerful, and famous already have every advantage in life, so much so that the least they can do is make their case to the voters and be elected by popular acclaim. The notion that these elite should get something as important as a Senate seat because they have the governor on speed dial is deeply offensive."

Conservative blogger Jennifer Rubin agrees: "The appointment by a governor of a senator creates a relationship in which the latter is entirely beholden to the former, even more so than a normal senator would be to a governor of the same party. There need not be an explicit quid pro quo to realize that there's virtually nothing that appointee won't do for the governor -- be it judges, policies, waivers of federal requirements, bailouts and the like. [...] Then there are the candidates themselves. With an appointment, there is no winnowing in primaries or vetting in elections. Whatever we don't know about them we won't find out until they are in office. Whatever faults they have will be sprung upon the voters only after they are sworn in. This is especially fraught with peril when the appointee is someone who never held elective office. [...] So what to do? All the open seats should be filled by special election. And if the money is tight in states, that's one bailout of federal money I'd favor. Spending money on democratic elections seems about the best use of the taxpayers money one can imagine. As we see, the alternative is an embarrassment."

KENNEDY IV: Disgusting Dynasticism

Like their liberal counterparts, conservative bloggers are sharply criticizing Kennedy's qualifications for the Senate:

• Townhall's Amanda Carpenter: "Calling all Democrats: Who is more qualified to run for national office: Sarah Palin or Caroline Kennedy?"
• Hot Air's Ed Morrissey: "David Paterson has a responsibility as Governor of New York to find the most capable and qualified person to appoint to Hillary Clinton's seat. No one can argue that Kennedy is that; what on her resumé would make her more qualified than Andrew Cuomo, for instance, himself a dynastic choice in New York? At least Cuomo has served in office -- currently as Attorney General -- and has a record of serving constituents in New York. Until Obama's election, Caroline Kennedy was a political wallflower, which is no shame, but it hardly recommends her for high public office either."
• AmSpec Blog's Philip Klein: "The idea that Caroline Kennedy would be considered a plausible appointment for the U.S. Senate is absolutely sickening. She has absolutely nothing to qualify her for the job, other than this Kennedy thing that's been going on for a half-century. Dynastic politics in America is troubling as a general rule, but this brings it to a whole other level. At least when [George W.] Bush used his father's name, he had to defeat a sitting Texas governor in 1994, and win a tough presidential election in 2000. Even Hillary Clinton, when she came to New York, at least had to put in some leg work when she ran for Senate to overcome charges she was a carpetbagger. She campaigned tirelessly upstate, dealt with media scrutiny, and debated a paper-waving Rick Lazio. It's one thing if Caroline Kennedy wants to jump through all the hoops needed to run for Senate, and allow New Yorkers to decided whether or not they want to send somebody who is completely unqualified to represent them in Washington -- if people in the state are that pathetically starstruck, then that's their choice. But for a Kennedy to get appointed to the Senate without doing anything at all to work for it other than raising her hand, is truly an abomination."

The Atlantic's Andrew Sullivan: "Kennedy is not as dumb, crass or as uneducated as Sarah Palin. But she is less qualified to be a Senator than Palin. I am so sick of this nepotism. What are we, some kind of neo-monarchy? Clinton got her seat because of nepotism and now Kennedy gets it be the same methods."

VILSACK: Get Ready For More Ethanol!

Liberal bloggers are not fond of ex-IA Gov. Tom Vilsack, whom Obama has chosen to be his Ag Sec. However, lefty bloggers weren't surprised by the selection:

• Bowers: "As I noted before, there was never much hope for a progressive agriculture pick. I am wary of Vilsack, who was one-time chair of the DLC. However, he doesn't appear to be in the egregiously bad category that I was afraid of for this post. A bit of a disappointment but, considering my expectations for this post, not much of one."
• Firedoglake's Ian Welsh: "Vilsack's an ethanol lover, which is bad but only to be expected since Obama thinks Ethanol is wonderful too (something about Iowa caucuses, I think.) On the other hand, he does love wind energy too, although as Ag Secretary that's a bit out of his bailiwick. Still, farms are good places to put Wind Turbines and a strong Secretary grabs the ground he wants anyway."
• MyDD's Natasha Chart: "I'm not a fan of corn ethanol, not even a little. Fact remains that it's one of the most politically popular greenwashing projects I know of, probably because of Iowa's electoral significance. That said, Vilsack doesn't come across as a careless enthusiast and seems to respect that there are serious resource use concerns about the industry. I'm willing to suspend judgement on this one for now, with the caveat that my expectations for sanity on ethanol are low."
• The Reality-Based Community's Jonathan Zasloff: "Obama seems to have tapped former Iowa Gov. Tim Vilsack, a big ag subsidy advocate, for Agriculture. If you are in the developing world, this is not good news, because it signals that the administration will not spend any political capital to reducing our horribly destructive agricultural subsidies, which not only waste money, but impoverish literally millions of third world farmers."

Daily Kos' brownsox analyzes the political implications for 2010: "[Vilsack's] appointment almost certainly determines that Vilsack will not seek the U.S. Senate seat currently held by five-term Republican incumbent Chuck Grassley, who is up for reelection in 2010. It's rumored that even if Grassley doesn't retire, national Democrats will kick the tires on the Iowa race. Even if Vilsack hadn't taken the Cabinet position, there's certainly no guarantee he would have challenged Grassley. If Grassley does retire, the race will become one of the biggest in the country -- First District Rep. Bruce Braley will doubtless be the top choice for Democrats, Fourth District Rep. Tom Latham for the Republicans."

HOLDER: Preparing For War

Conservative bloggers are criticizing two GOP members of the Senate Judiciary Cmte -- IN Sen. Richard Lugar and OH Sen. George Voinovich -- for reportedly declining to sign a letter warning Cmte Chair Pat Leahy "that there would be consequences for not allowing sufficient time to vet [Obama's designated AG Eric] Holder":

• RedState's Rob Bluey: "Now is not the time to go soft. Given the narrow margin in the Senate, the loss of Lugar and Voinovich would doom any attempt by the GOP to slow down Holder's confirmation. [...] Holder's partisan political background, combined with his anti-Second Amendment views and work on Bill Clinton's questionable pardons, requires a thorough examination. Is it too much to ask of Lugar and Voinovich to sign a letter requesting that Republicans be given sufficient time to question Holder and prepare for his hearing?"
• NRO's Jim Geraghty: "Sens. George Voinovich and Dick Lugar conspicuously chose not to sign a letter to committee chairman Patrick Leahy declaring that Holder's record requires more time to review. Very, very disappointing if true; probing the nominees, particularly for this role as the top law-enforcement job in the country, is their job."

HOLDER II: The GOP Wants Its First Scalp

Meanwhile, liberal bloggers are accusing GOP senators of engaging in bad faith in their effort to slow down Holder's nomination:

• digby: "Keep in mind that they are just doing this to generate enough heat that Obama will find it in his best interest to withdraw Holder's nomination so that these hearings don't turn the first days of his administration into a circus. They want a scalp. It proves their relevance, it is yet another shot at Clinton (which guarantees the media will eat it with a spoon) and it puts Obama on notice that they can still gin up a hissy fit at a moment's notice if they feel they need to. The press is already showing they will move right along with them without missing a beat, so it's a logical strategy. Let's hope [Obama] doesn't give it to them. Once you start meeting their lunatic demands, there is no end to it."
• Balloon Juice's John Cole: "This is like deja vu all over again. [...] Maybe we can arrange for Clinton to get another blowjob from an intern somewhere to distract the GOP."
• Zasloff: "Via Scott Horton, we learn that Karl Rove will coordinate GOP opposition to Eric Holder's nomination as AG. Apparently, Rove is very concerned about the politicization of the Justice Department. In other news, Jeffrey Dahmer will be coordinating the GOP's meal plans."

Daily Kos' BarbinMD criticizes Leahy for conceding to GOP demands that he postpone the Holder confirmation hearings: "A message to Senator Leahy: Do you remember when the Republicans were the majority party and set the schedule on things like confirmation hearings? It's one of the perks. You guys should take advantage of it sometime. And Senator, are you basing this trust in your GOP brethren's spirit of cooperation on past performance? Or is it wishful thinking? Instead of caving to demands, designed only to give the GOP more time to 'go after' an Obama nominee, the Democratic majority needs to step up and act like they know how to lead. For a change."

OBAMA: So, He Needs To Undermine A Federal Investigation In Order To Exonerate Himself?

As we reported yesterday, U.S. atty Patrick Fitzgerald has requested that Obama's transition team not release its review of the conversations between Obama aides and disgraced IL Gov. Rod Blagojevich "until the week of December 22, in order not to impede their investigation of the governor." Hugh Hewitt, however, is not satisfied: "The president-elect would be best served by calling on the U.S. Attorney to release any and all tapes between any of his advisor or staff and Blagojevich and his staff. Better to get all of the shop talk, however salty, out early and completely than drip by drip over the next few months."

Liberal bloggers are sharply criticizing Hewitt's argument:

• Cole: "It goes without saying that if Fitzgerald does not want the internal review released, he certainly does not want the transcripts out there until he can finish his interviews. The craziest thing about this is that if the Obama team did violate Fitzgerald's request and released everything, and it somehow hampered the investigation, who do you think would be the first person out there suggesting the Obama administration did it to defend another crooked Democratic politician? Flop sweat is so unappealing, Hugh. Just wait a couple days, and when Fitz gives the green light to the Obama team, if they do not release the report then, you can go to town. Until then, stop being so silly."
• TAPPED's Adam Serwer: "Hewitt is suggesting that a prosecuting attorney can release evidence in a pending case for the sole purpose of alleviating a political dispute. But CNN's legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin explained in an email to me that under the federal law, Fitzgerald can only use the product of federal wiretaps under certain very limited circumstances -- in court documents or in open court, like a bail hearing or a trial. It would, in fact, be illegal for Fitzgerald to just throw out whatever part of the tapes Hugh Hewitt, radio host, thinks are relevant to his political agenda. It's not Fitzgerald's evidence. It's the state's evidence, and there are laws governing its use."
• Atrios: "As Jamo notes, Obama has two choices: 1) honor Fitzgerald's request and delay the release of his internal investigation, and 2) fail to honor Fitzgerald's request and potentially undermine parts of his corruption investigation. Obviously #2 would be the more suspicious course of action and would rightly raise the eyebrows of reporters. But fortunately our reporters know the rules of the new game, so #1 is a problem too!"

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: The Bush Administration And Torture

The Atlantic's Ross Douthat:

"Some of the most passionate torture opponents have stated that they never, ever imagined that the Bush Administration would even consider authorizing the sort of interrogation techniques described [by Mark Bowden], to say nothing of more extreme measures like waterboarding. I was not so innocent, or perhaps I should I say I was more so: If you had listed, in the aftermath of 9/11, most of the things that have been done to prisoners by representatives of the U.S. government, I would have said that of course I expected the Bush Administration to authorize 'stress positions,' or 'slapping, shoving and shaking,' or the use of heat and cold to elicit information. After all, there was a war on! I just had no idea -- until the pictures came out of Abu Ghraib, and really until I started reading detailed accounts of how detainees were being treated -- what these methods could mean in practice, and especially as practiced on a global scale. A term like 'stress positions' sounds like one thing when it's sitting, bloodless, on a page; it sounds like something else when somebody dies from it.

Now obviously what I've said with regard to the financial crisis is also true in this arena: With great power comes the responsibility to exercise better judgment than, say, my twenty-three year old, pro-torture-lite self. But with great power comes a lot of pressures as well, starting with great fear: The fear that through inaction you'll be responsible for the deaths of thousands or even millions of the Americans whose lived you were personally charged to protect. This fear ran wild the post-9/11 Bush Administration, with often-appalling consequences, but it wasn't an irrational fear -- not then, and now. It doesn't excuse what was done by our government, and in our name, in prisons and detention cells around the world. But anyone who felt the way I felt after 9/11 has to reckon with the fact that what was done in our name was, in some sense, done for us -- not with our knowledge, exactly, but arguably with our blessing."

LEST WE FORGET: Housing Crisis Vindicates Guy Who Still Lives With Parents

From The Onion:

"OKLAHOMA CITY -- In a year that saw a record number of mortgage defaults and home foreclosures, part-time landscaper Ben Foster, 34, was publicly vindicated in his bold decision, made back in the spring of 1996, to continue living with his parents. 'It's like I've been telling my buddies for eight to 12 years now: "Why get in over your head before you're ready?"' Foster said in praise of the no-risk, meals-included housing agreement he has maintained on and off since birth. 'Sometimes it just makes more sense to be fiscally conservative, especially if you can move into the basement and set things up just how you like them.' Leading financial analysts said Foster will likely remain secure in his current situation until skyrocketing medical costs force his aging parents to sell the house."

Posted by Ian Faerstein at 12:39 PM

December 16, 2008

12/16: Caroline Ain't So Sweet To The Netroots

The political blogosphere is abuzz over the news that Caroline Kennedy told NY Gov. David Patterson that she is interested in being appointed to the Senate seat being vacated by Hillary Clinton. Although a few liberal bloggers want to see Kennedy tapped for the seat, most of them are uncomfortable with the idea, and several prominent bloggers (Markos Moulitsas and Jane Hamsher) strongly oppose the idea. First of all, these bloggers don't think Kennedy deserves the Senate appointment, since she has never run for office and "basically her only qualification would be her family name". Second, they aren't impressed with Kennedy's political skills and aren't convinced that she can defeat a strong GOP challenger (such as Rudy Giuliani) in 2010. Third, they aren't willing to give Kennedy the benefit of the doubt with regard to her progressivism, especially now that she's hired Dem consultant Josh Isay, who previously worked for NY Mayor Michael Bloomberg and CT Sen. Joe Lieberman. Hamsher complains:

"It's telling that Caroline Kennedy has never wanted to run for office, and never thought to put her case before the public when she decided she wanted this job. Her first move was to pick up the phone and start working the elites, then hire a political fixer whose specialty is deceiving voters."

KENNEDY: This Is Supposed To Be A Democracy, Not A Monarchy

Several prominent liberal bloggers reacted very negatively to the news that Kennedy is interested in Clinton's Senate seat:

• Firedoglake's Hamsher: "It seems Caroline Kennedy has decided she'd rather have a US Senate seat than a pony for Christmas. [...] It appears Ms. Kennedy thinks that US Senate seats are something to lobbied for amongst political elites when one decides one wants them, and that the public should be happy to simply fall in line. The fact that one has a family political machine currently in the process of steamrolling David Paterson and a famous last name should be enough for the little people. I thought at least she'd get out before the cameras and start making her case to the public before she announced her intentions, because simply lobbying your well-connected buddies just oozes an outrageous sense of entitlement and insufferable pomposity."
• Open Left's Chris Bowers: "Frankly, I consider [Kennedy] to be undeserving of the seat, given that she has never won an election and that basically her only qualification would be her family name. Further, at a time when Democrats are suffering from a major corruption scandal over Senate appointments, appointing a dynasty candidate would only add fuel to that fire. Republicans will run in 2010 on an argument that one-party rule leads to waste and corruption, so nepotism like this would be a bad idea."
• Mother Jones' Kevin Drum: "Rich and famous people already have a huge leg up when it comes to winning political office, but at least they still have to run and win. Appointing them instead so they can avoid the whole messy business of engaging in a campaign is just a little too Habsburgian for my taste. Needless to say, I've got nothing against Kennedy. But appointing her to the Senate just isn't the right thing to do."
• Daily Kos' Moulitsas: "When you're rich and come from a political family, and are heir to American royalty, you can apparently dispense with dealing with pesky voters by simply ringing up the governor. [...] Kennedy might very well be a favorite of Democratic primary voters in a contested race (and current polls suggest that), but that would require her to run, and elections can expose candidate weaknesses not readily apparent before the harsh glare of the spotlight is trained on them. In 2002, Kathleen Kennedy Townsend lost her bid for the governorship of heavily Democratic Maryland despite entering the race with a 27-point lead in the polls. In 2004, Sen. Jean Carnahan lost the special election to the seat she was appointed to in 2002 after her husband was tragically killed in an airplane accident. But running for office is an icky process. It's hard work. Much harder, of course, than merely picking up the phone and calling the governor."

Moulitsas continues: "In a celebrity-obsessed world, her name might be enough. And there's no doubt that we, as a nation, have a bizarre yearning for our own royalty. But ultimately, that shouldn't be enough to snag a Senate seat, no more so than buying off [IL Gov. Rod] Blagojevich should be enough to score a Senate seat. Both are offensive to the notion of democracy. [...] Patterson should appoint a caretaker senator for the next two years, and let the voters make their decision in 2010. If Kennedy wants to enter the scrum at that time, all the power to her. But to deliver what might be a lifetime appointment to a Senate seat based on a phone call is offensive on too many different levels."

KENNEDY II: She Hired Isay?

Hamsher and Moulitsas are particularly critical of the fact that Kennedy has hired Isay, "who has deep connections to New York powerhouses Sen. Charles Schumer, Mayor Michael Bloomberg and the Rev. Al Sharpton":

• Hamsher: "Isay did the honors for Joe Lieberman during his general election race against Ned Lamont, after Lieberman withdrew from the Democratic party and ran as a member of the 'Connecticut for Lieberman' party. [...] It's telling that Caroline Kennedy has never wanted to run for office, and never thought to put her case before the public when she decided she wanted this job. Her first move was to pick up the phone and start working the elites, then hire a political fixer whose specialty is deceiving voters."
• Moulitsas: "You know who else Isay is currently working with? [Ex-Israeli PM Benjamin] Netanyahu. Yup. A real gallery of rogues. Lest I be accused of guilt by association, here's the point I'm making -- we have little insight into what a Senator Caroline Kennedy might look like, beyond her excellent work in education. Political campaigns allow candidates to present their vision for the office they seek, and sitting elected officials have a record to evaluate. With Kennedy, we have neither. So all we have to go with is who she is hiring, and on that front, the early verdict is not encouraging."

Atrios: "I find the whole unfolding Caroline Kennedy saga to be rather depressing. Not just that she's being considered (in the press if not elsewhere), but that she's running a public campaign which involves reaching out to elites. The whole thing is just weird and feeds into the politics as personality soap opera that the press loves to focus on."

KENNEDY III: Can She Beat Rudy?

Other liberal bloggers are less critical of Kennedy's conduct, but they're still uncomfortable with the notion of Patterson appointing a political neophyte to the seat:

• Crooks and Liars' David Neiwert: "We're still unsure whether a new Senator Kennedy is a good idea, mostly because we know so little about her. [...] The main criterion, I think, is that we need someone who can defeat Rudy Giuliani in the election to follow. Could Caroline do it? Perhaps. But we'd want to see more, thanks very much, before handing her the incumbency."
• digby: "I think Clinton only survived in New York because of the hard political and campaign work she put in and recent hard scrabble political experience in Washington. Kennedy has not given any indication that she's the type of person who has those skills and that makes her a weak candidate for 2010. If Patterson names her, I won't be surprised. But I also won't expect that New York will necessarily have two Democratic senators after 2010 and that's a shame. Helping the Republicans rebuild their party in the northeast shouldn't be one of the first acts of the new Democratic era."
• Daily Kos' brownsox: "I like Caroline Kennedy, and she has been the most popular potential selection among New Yorkers according to polling. That said, there are a lot of strong candidates in this pool, including many solid progressives who have worked in public service for decades. Granted, many political legacies seek political office themselves...but most of those actually run for office, as [Sen.] Ted Kennedy and [Rep.] Patrick Kennedy did, and as Hillary Clinton did. I'd be a bit more enthused about Caroline Kennedy if she were actually running for the seat and campaigning for votes, rather than seeking an appointment."
• MyDD's Todd Beeton: "As I wrote ten days ago, from Gov. David Patterson's perspective there are some distinct advantages to appointing Ms. Kennedy to the seat: she's a woman, she's a candidate with 100% name recognition, she's tight with the President-elect and, really, if you're a Republican, how do you run against Caroline Kennedy? On the other hand, she's a pretty bad campaigner from what I saw of her on the trail for Barack and I'm not a big fan of the precedent this would set -- have a famous name, the Senate seat is yours! But I suspect if she is appointed, she will work extremely hard to prove she is deserving of it in her own right."

KENNEDY IV: Hey, We Like Caroline!

A few liberal bloggers like the idea of Patterson appointing Kennedy:

• TalkLeft's Jeralyn Merritt: "Caroline Kennedy is a Columbia Law graduate and co-author of two books: In Our Defense: The Bill of Rights in Action and The Right to Privacy. [...] I think she's more than qualified to be a U.S. Senator and I hope she gets the position. We need more Senators who are cognizant and respectful of our constitutional rights. She'll be great for education and funding for the arts. She's outside the Washington power grid but knows how it works. Her celebrity will bring increased attention to the progressive bills she introduces, co-sponsors and supports. I think she's exactly the kind of change we need to bring to Washington."
• Al Giordano: "The louder some yell about her never having run for office or served in a legislature, the more it convinces me she'll be the right move for Paterson and my homeland of New York. True, she doesn't talk like a politician, she doesn't walk like a politician, and as a part of the vast majority of us that are part of 'anti-political culture' but forced to deal with the blowhards of political culture because of the pain and suffering they inflict on this world, maybe we can slip one of our very own into that hornets' nest called the US Senate. I mean, what is so friggin' special or meritorious about having spent one's career in elective office? That Caroline Kennedy could have had almost any political job for the asking in recent decades but chose other paths instead makes her, in my view, more qualified, not less."

KENNEDY V: Since When Do Celebrities Deserve Senate Seats?

Conservative bloggers are criticizing Kennedy for seeking appointment to the Senate:

• The Atlantic's Ross Douthat: "America's Princess has decided to claim her inheritance. [...] You would think that in the aftermath of l'affaire Blago, a public figure would be wary of having the terms 'pursue' and 'United States Senate seat' in a sentence that doesn't also include the word 'election.' But then again, maybe I'm just not thinking like a Kennedy."
• RedState's Pejman Yousefzadeh: "How does being on various non-profit boards, helping choose the new director of the Harvard University Institute of Politics, writing letters of recommendation for kids trying to get into a particular school, lending star power to raise money for public schools and being a Barack Obama insider qualify one for the United States Senate? Is the rule just that if one's last name is 'Kennedy,' all other matters are overlooked?"
• AmSpec Blog's Quin Hillyer: "It is one thing for a Kennedy, or a Bush, or a Gore, or a Dodd to carry on their family traditions of public office by competing for public support with other candidates on at least a nominally level playing field. [...] But for somebody to trade on family name alone, without obvious qualifications, is to take dynasticism too far. New York Gov. David Paterson should strenuously resist the pressure to appoint Kennedy to the job, and instead choose somebody with an actual, extensive record in public life."

Hot Air's Allahpundit: "We really should consider setting aside a permanent seat for the Kennedys, and I say that as someone who wants to see less of them in public life, not more. Give them their own spot, fully inheritable, to be filled by whomever the family designates, and you might just placate them enough to discourage other members of the brood from running. As it is, we're looking at Caroline in New York, Teddy's wife replacing him in Massachusetts, and just maybe Chris Kennedy as a dark horse in Illinois. This dynastic nonsense is already an American disgrace; let's go the whole nine yards, grant them nobility, and limit them to one spot out of 100."

SALAZAR: Good, He's Leaving The Senate

Liberal bloggers are mostly pleased that Obama is reportedly tapping CO Sen. Ken Salazar to be his Interior Sec., as they're hoping to fill Salazar's Senate seat with someone who's more progressive:

• Atrios: "I have no opinion on whether [Salazar]'s a good choice for that job, but don't mind the idea that he's leaving the Senate hopefully to be replaced by a better Democrat."
• Beeton: "...Obama, by picking Salazar, would, in the short term, anyway, ensure his seat would go to a Democrat and in the process remove one of the Republicans' favorite Senate Democrats and elevate the importance of newly elected Sen. Mark Udall, who is far more progressive than Salazar. [...] And Lieberman's allies dwindle further..."
• FiveThirtyEight's Nate Silver: "With Colorado having turned bluer, Salazar's moderation is no longer such a prize to the Dems, especially given that his approval ratings are no better than average. Basically, the Democrats ought to be able to wind up with either (i) someone just as electable as Salazar, but more liberal, or (ii) someone no more liberal than Salazar, but electorally untouchable."

Daily Kos' mcjoan is comfortable, albeit not thrilled, with the choice: "On environmental issues, I think we could have done worse. California Rep. Michael Thompson, for instance, would have been much worse with his strong ties to timber and seemingly best qualification being the fishing and hunting groups like him. Much better, IMO, to have an interior westerner at interior than a coastal one. We probably could have done better, too. Arizona Rep. Raul Grijalva, unabashedly progressive, had been very much on top of keeping track of [Interior Sec.] Dirk Kempthorne's diry deeds in the current administration. However, having one less Blue Doggish Senator in the Dem caucus isn't bad news, particularly remember Salazar's membership in the Gang of 14 that helped land us with [Justice John] Roberts and [Justice Samuel] Alito."

Bowers: "It is a real disappointment that Raul Grijalva wasn't the choice. [...Still,] this could potentially be a positive, as Salazar was a fairly annoying Democratic Senator. He was a member of the 'Gang of 14', and was below average within the Democratic caucus on Progressive Punch. He wasn't the worst, and [IN Sen.] Evan Bayh didn't even appear to be targeting him for the new Senate Blue Dog caucus, but he wasn't exactly a particularly useful Senator for progressives, either. Hopefully, Salazar's replacement in the Senate will not be his brother, who is a Blue Dog. That, plus the various corruption issues surrounding our Senate picks these days, would make him a poor choice."

BAYH: Promoting Disunity?

Silver thinks Bayh's proposal to create a Senate "Blue Dog" caucus could be helpful to Obama's agenda: "[T]he Democrats in the Blue Dog coalition would presumably tend to vote as a group rather than individuals. That is the whole point of a coalition; if a coalition's members are not voting together, it really isn't serving any purpose. Let's say that there are seven Democrats in the Blue Dog group. In theory, this means that instead of having anywhere between zero and seven votes on a particular bill (but most commonly some in-between number like two, three or four), Barack Obama would tend to get either get exactly seven votes or exactly zero. Would this behavior be helpful or harmful to his agenda? I would argue that it might be helpful, simply because of where the numbers tend to stand in the Senate right now. The Democrats will wind up with somewhere between 57 and 59 memebers in their caucus, depending on the resolution of Illinois and Minnesota. That means they will need somewhere between one and three Republican votes to break fillibusters -- and so every vote on the margin will tend to matter a great deal; he'll already need to achieve near-unanimity among Democrats. If Obama loses, say, three Democratic votes, then reaching a 60-vote threshold is already liable to be relatively difficult for him, and so losing seven Democratic votes instead might not matter very much. On the other hand, if Bayh can whip [LA Sen.] Mary Landrieu's or [NE Sen.] Ben Nelson's vote for him on a particular issue, that could potentially be pretty helpful."

Moulitsas disagrees: "Nate Silver thinks that 1) having corporatist Dems voting as a bloc could be helpful to Obama (making negotiations simpler with fewer players involved), but 2) it won't work anyway. Senators are notoriously egotistical, and there's little reason for a bunch of them to cede over their independence just to make Evan Bayh extra powerful. If it was just ego, then sure, this thing would be stillborn. But there's another factor at play, as Yglesias skillfully points out: 'With Republicans out of power, the GOP can't really block progressive change in exchange for large sums of special interest money. That creates an important market niche for Democrats willing to do the work.' Quite cynical and likely spot on. That corporate cash has to go somewhere. Meanwhile, [Senate Maj. Leader Harry] Reid is now ecstatic that he'll have Bayh to capitulate to. The prospects of 'leading' his caucus without Bush calling the shots apparently proved too distressing to him."

Ezra Klein is also critical of Bayh's proposal: "Come January, [Dems]'ll have 58 or 59 [senators], none of whom are particularly far from the party's mainstream. Those are the sort of numbers where skilled legislators and steady presidential leadership should be able to break through minority obstruction. The real danger now is Democratic disunity and fractiousness. Happily for the Republicans, Evan Bayh seems aching to throw some of that into the mix."

REID: An Ineffective Leader?

Several liberal bloggers are harshly criticizing Reid's leadership:

• Silver: "Harry Reid has been exceptionally ineffective as the Democrats' majority leader. The number of cloture votes skyrocketed in the 110th Congress following the Democratic takeover of the Senate and Reid's assumption of the majority leader position. [...] A majority of these cloture motions were in fact triggered by Republican floor action, and the vast majority of them were also procedural filibusters -- the actual filibuster, in which [Senate Min. Leader] Mitch McConnell wets his pants while reading from the phone book for 19 hours, is now exceedingly rare. There are basically two mechanisms that a majority leader can employ to limit filibusters: firstly, he can threaten to block votes on certain of the opposition party's legislation (or alternatively, present carrots to them for allowing a vote to proceed), and secondly, he can publicly shame them. Reid managed to do neither, and the Senate Republicans did fairly well for themselves considering that they were in a minority and were burdened by a President with negative political capital. [...] The bottom line, however, is that the Republicans are filibustering more and more often because they can get away with it. If Reid can't get them to pay a greater public price, then the Democrats ought to find somebody else who can."
• Moulitsas: "Reid is a crappy Senate leader. [...] If Republicans knew what was good for their continued obstructionism efforts, they'd give Reid a reelection pass. Given Reid's poor reelection numbers, Republicans might screw up and actually defeat Reid, and who knows, Democrats may end up with an effective Senate leader as a result."

OBAMA: The Rightroots Question Fitzgerald

Yesterday Obama's transition team said that a review conducted by Obama's lawyer indicated "that the President-elect's staff was not involved in inappropriate discussions" with disgraced IL Gov. Blagojevich. The Obama team said that it's willing to release the review, but that U.S. atty Patrick Fitzgerald has requested that it not do so "until the week of December 22, in order not to impede their investigation of the governor."

NRO's Jim Geraghty doesn't understand why Fitzgerald wants to delay the release of the review: "The Obama team says they have the information assembled, but Fitzgerald wants the information held until the week of December 22. I wonder why. No sarcasm in that, I just genuinely wonder why."

Allahpundit implies that Fitzgerald is doing Obama a favor in order to increase his job security: "If Fitz's job was in doubt before, it's in less doubt today."

Townhall's Hugh Hewitt thinks the Obama team is "hiding the facts" and urges Obama to ask Fitzgerald to release the relevant materials immediately: "The statement from the president-elect's office is, well, slippery. It does not detail what contacts occurred between Governor Blagojevich and Obama advisors and staff. Most of us had understood the president-elect to have committed to full disclosure of all the details. The president-elect appears to be hiding the facts about contacts between his staff and advisors and Blagojevich, which leads to the conclusion that there is something to hide here. To end the speculation, the president-elect need only request that the United States Attorney release transcripts of all conversations taped between Blagojevich and and Obama staffer or advisor."

Meanwhile, The Next Right's Patrick Ruffini advises GOPers on "the right response to the Obama/Blago connection": "[I]t's fair to say that any residual connections Obama may have with Gov. Blagojevich as a result of being an Illinois Senator are not the strongest part of our argument. I can understand the desire to go at Obama. But with Obama at 76% approval for the transition, our hits against him have to be clean hits, or they will blow up in our face. I find myself agreeing with Phil Singer that any attacks have to conform to existing public narratives of Obama. I don't think that Obama the corruptocrat is a particularly promising meme, but I do think that Obama as lethargic and passive (which was Obama's whole strength during the economic crisis because of McCain's erratic-ness) could have potential if, say, it was found that Obama's staff knew something shady was going on, and did not immediately report it to Patrick Fitzgerald."

CARNEY: No Surprise There...

Conservative bloggers see Jay Carney's decision to leave Time magazine and become VP-elect Joe Biden's communications director as evidence that the media is full of liberals:

• AmSpec Blog's Philip Klein: "The revolving door between the mainstream media and the Democratic Party continues to revolve."
• RedState's Erick Erickson: "Jay Carney is an awesome reporter. He always played it middle of the road and tried to get both sides, but his biases were always to the left. The point here is this: have any major reporters gone on to work for Republicans? The left likes to use Tony Snow as their example, but of course Tony was a well known conservative and Republican, having guest hosted for Rush Limbaugh for a number of years. But who in the mainstream media ever goes to the Republicans? Linda Douglass of ABC News went with Obama. Carney is going with Biden. What about ABC's Claire Shipman, Carney's wife? Do you really think she's going to cover the political beat fairly with her husband working for Biden? I doubt it. Jay Carney is a good guy. He'll serve Biden well in what will be a position of little influence in a small corner of oblivion. He is not the first. He won't be the last. He's just another example of the mainstream media showing its bias against conservatives."
• Townhall's Matt Lewis: "You know the unbiased journalist, Jay Carney, right? ... Maybe this will refresh your memory: He was the guy who blamed conservative bloggers for the 'Whitey' rumor. (In fairness, he did eventually set the record straight)..."

Of course, liberal bloggers don't trust Carney, either.

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Let Cao Join The CBC!

TAPPED's Adam Serwer thinks it's in the Congressional Black Caucus' interest to let GOP Rep.-elect Anh "Joseph" Cao join their ranks:

"Vietnamese-American Republican Anh 'Joseph' Cao, who defeated disgraced Rep. William Jefferson in Louisiana, is hinting that he might make an effort to join the CBC. The caucus should let him in, along with anyone else who wants to join. Like [TN Rep. Steve] Cohen, Cao will be representing a mostly black district. I don't see the CBC as any different from any other Congressional group formed around a specific set of principles, and I understand the CBC's desire to keep itself focused on the unique circumstances and desires of their constituents. But people like Cao should be let in, if only because excluding them causes more problems than it's worth. Those people interested in crafting a policy agenda that caters to the needs of constituents in America's mostly black districts will remain part of the caucus. Those who are just trying to make a point will eventually leave, and once it's clear that anyone who wants to can join, it will cease being an issue worth making a big deal about. And we won't have to listen to Republican histrionics about 'reverse racism.'"

LEST WE FORGET: Bush Frustrated By Mother's Constant Questioning Of His Plans Post-White House

From The Onion:

"WASHINGTON -- With his departure from office only months away, President George W. Bush told reporters Monday that he is 'fed up' with the way his mother, former first lady Barbara Bush, keeps pestering him about his post-Oval Office plans.

'Every time I see her it's "have you thought about your future" this, and "do you know where you're gonna put your presidential library" that,' said Bush, who will be moving out of the White House on Jan. 20. 'It's like, I'll just get a job as a CEO or board chairman or something. My God, quit worrying about it. I'm 62 years old, for Christ's sake!'

Bush, who has prepared for the end of his second term by learning to play guitar and visiting friends across the country, said he will be 'just fine' once he gets out into the real world."

Posted by Ian Faerstein at 01:01 PM

December 15, 2008

12/15: A Big Deal Or Not?

Conservative bloggers are buzzing about the news that IL Rep. (and incoming WH CoS) Rahm Emanuel had "conversations" with disgraced IL Gov. Rod Blagojevich's admin. about who would replace Pres.-elect Barack Obama in the Senate. Conservative bloggers are accusing Obama of "stonewalling" and are demanding that he provide "[a] full accounting of his team's contacts" with Blagojevich. Liberal bloggers contend that it was "fully expected" that Emanuel would discuss the vacant IL Senate seat with Blagojevich's team and that there is no evidence that Emanuel participated in Blagojevich's "pay to play" schemes.

Meanwhile, conservative bloggers continue to claim that the Blagojevich scandal has done significant "damage" to Obama. Not surprisingly, liberal bloggers disagree. Kevin Drum writes:

"Look, I get it: it was kind of a slow news week, reporters are tired of Obama the Savior stories, the Blagojevich scandal is theatrically sexy, and everyone is desperately trying to find a way to turn it from a local story to a national one. But there's no there there."

BLAGOJEVICH: We Want The Truth!

Conservative bloggers are demanding more details about the extent of the conversations between Emanuel and disgraced Blagojevich's admin.:

• Hot Air's Ed Morrissey: "When the FBI arrested Governor Rod Blagojevich for his alleged attempts to sell Barack Obama's open Senate seat, the president-elect promised a full accounting of contacts between his team and Blagojevich's office 'in a few days'. It's been a few days, and the media has received information about contacts at levels as high as Rahm Emanuel, but not from Team Obama. [...] It looks like Team Obama has learned the art of stonewalling already, and he hasn't even taken the oath of office yet."
• Commentary's Jennifer Rubin: "...sooner rather than later the President-elect will need to provide that full accounting of his team's contacts, something he promised this week. There is added urgency to that task now that we know Blago did indeed deal with Obama's inner circle."
• RedState's Pejman Yousefzadeh: "There remains no indication whatsoever that any of the conversations were illegal or unethical but one remains perplexed as to why Team Obama would claim that no one spoke to Rod Blagojevich when it is indeed clear that Rahm Emanuel did. [...] I suppose now that we need to wait for the following questions to be answered: (1) Does the Obama campaign confirm that there were talks between Emanuel and Blagojevich? And (2) why did it initially claim that there were no such talks?"

Liberal blogger Steve Benen thinks this is a non-story: "If Emanuel took steps to 'pay to play,' it would be a problem. If Emanuel knew that the governor was trying to sell the seat to the highest bidder, that, too, would be a problem. But at this point, what evidence is there to support either of these contentions? There is none. [...] So, what have we learned? That Emanuel talked to Blagojevich about the vacancy, which isn't inappropriate, and which was fully expected. Not exactly exciting stuff."

BLAGOJEVICH II: Obama's First Scandal?

Several righty bloggers are arguing that the Blagojevich scandal has done considerable political damage to Obama:

• Right Wing News' John Hawkins: "So, what does Obama do? If he keeps Emanuel on, it looks bad at this point. On the other hand, if he dumps him, Emanuel will be under enormous pressure to let the real truth get out -- that he didn't say anything [to the FBI] because Obama didn't want him to do so. It's not an enviable spot to be in."
• AmSpec Blog's Robert Stacy McCain: "The scolding of [Media Matters columnist Jamison] Foser and other liberals won't undo the damage that the Blagojevich scandal has already done to Obama, and more damage is likely."
• RedState's Josh Painter: "Expectations of hope and change from the coming Obama administration have been sinking like the value of General Motors stock since the election. First Team Obama began the process of backing off on its campaign promises. The next order of business was to select a cabinet that looks like Clinton III. Now, with conflicting statements made by Obama's top advisor, that same advisor's opinion that there is no shame in trading political jobs for favors, and a murky series of contacts between Obama's chief of staff and a disgraced governor's administration, the stench of corruption 'the Chicago way' threatens to foul the air of Washington D.C. even beyond the norm."

Not surprisingly, liberal blogger Drum disagrees: "Look, I get it: it was kind of a slow news week, reporters are tired of Obama the Savior stories, the Blagojevich scandal is theatrically sexy, and everyone is desperately trying to find a way to turn it from a local story to a national one. But there's no there there. Maybe Republicans still haven't learned their lesson from the 90s, but that's no reason the press has to follow them over a cliff once again. Cool it, folks."

BUSH: The Other Shoe Drops

Liberal bloggers had varied reactions to Saturday's incident at Pres. George W. Bush's news conference in Baghdad, in which an Iraqi journalist "hurled his shoes at Mr. Bush's head and denounced him on live television as a 'dog'":

• Obsidian Wings' hilzoy: "Personally, I don't like people throwing shoes at anyone. [...] That said, I also wondered whether Bush would have had any sense at all of how angry a lot of Iraqis are had this not happened. I'm not saying that that makes it OK; just wondering."
• Think Progress' Matthew Yglesias: "Some people got very upset when I said I thought throwing pie at Tom Friedman was funny, but I'm having trouble coming up with appropriately humorless language with which to express my fake outrage at this incident."
• AMERICAblog's John Aravosis: "At some point, we were all that shoe. Not to belittle the danger posed to our democracy by airborne knock-off Italian footwear, it's difficult to watch this video on YouTube and not empathize with the Iraqi journalist who threw not one, but two shoes at Bush today during a press conference."
• Sadly, No! commenter Smut Clyde: "The insurgency is in its last throws."

Mark Kleiman chastises some of his fellow liberal bloggers: "I notice a tendency in parts of Blue Blogistan to make the TV reporter who threw his shoes at the Beloved Leader (henceforward to be known as 'George W. ibn al-Kalb') some sort of spokesman for the outraged Iraqi people. The technical term is 'projection.' It will be interesting to see what the reactions are among Iraqi politicians, but the shoe-thrower turns out to work for a network based in Egypt that supports the Sunni insurgency. So curb your enthusiasm, folks. Be grateful the ibn al-kalb wasn't hurt. And it wouldn't hurt to express a little admiration for his coolness."

Meanwhile, TPM's Josh Marshall was surprised by the apparent lack of security at the news conference: "Watching the video of the Iraqi journalist throwing his shoes at President Bush, I could not help but notice that it took an uncomfortably long period of time for anyone to get to the assailant and, even more, much longer than I would have expected for anyone who looked like Secret Service to get to the president and block his body or get him out of harm's way. [...] Maybe I'm just over-analyzing this. And obviously a president can't be under lock and key at all moments, with Secret Service agents ready to throw him to the floor at a moment's notice. But for an American president, any moment in Iraq has to be considered a very high risk situation. So it did make me wonder."

BUSH II: BDS, Iraqi-Style

Conservative bloggers used the incident as an opportunity to take some shots at liberal American pundits:

• Power Line's John Hinderaker: "By the way, do we know for sure the guy really is an Iraqi? Any number of American journalists could be suspects. Do we know Keith Olbermann's whereabouts?"
• Hot Air's Allahpundit: "As one of our commenters snarked in Headlines, between this and the fact that the guy's in media, he's now qualified for his own show on MSNBC."
• Michelle Malkin: "An unhinged Iraqi journalist fulfills the dream of every MSNBC anchor and NYTimes editorial columnist by throwing his shoes at President Bush during an impromptu news conference in Baghdad."

PA-SEN: The Netroots For Specter Movement Gains Steam

Liberal bloggers did not take kindly to PA Gov. Ed Rendell's endorsement of MSNBC host Chris Matthews' potential Senate candidacy. Several prominent liberal bloggers are even threatening to support GOP Sen. Arlen Specter if Matthews is the Dem nominee:

• Atrios: "I've long been waiting for an opportunity to vote for a Republican to establish my bipartisan cred, and while I never thought Arlen Specter would be the guy, if Tweety's his opponent it'll probably happen. Please, someone else run."
• digby: "I honestly don't know quite how to deal with this. Over the past year I have strained and even broken treasured friendships over the idea that allowing a Republican to win over a Democrat, no matter how bad he or she is, would be to empower the more destructive of the two parties and ultimately enable the kind of horror show we've seen in the past eight years. But Matthews is a bridge too far. I could never vote for, raise funds for or in any other way help Chris Matthews become a member of the Senate and if it came down to it, if I lived in Pa, I'd probably support Specter. If we thought [CT Sen. Joe] Lieberman was perfidious and unreliable, we haven't seen anything yet. Matthews is very nearly nuts as far as I can tell."
• Firedoglake's Thers: "For me the most appalling thing about the prospect of Senator Tweety is that there apparently exist people on this planet who look at Matthews, and listen to Matthews, and don't immediately think 'by the Holy Tits of Santa, what an absolute fucking asshole.' Put him in the Senate! I can't figure out why anyone ever thought it was a good idea to put him on television. [...] The punchline is that Rendell thinks Matthews would be good at 'raising money.' From whom, pray? Brain-damaged chipmunks? Crack-addled squirrels? Republicans? Is Tweety planning on using the techniques pioneered by Nigerian spam e-mailers? Who the hell would ever give Tweety money for purposes other than as a bribe to shut the fuck up for the rest of his entire misfortunate earthly existence?"
• Scott Lemieux: "Wow, when I designated Rendell the wanker of the week I hadn't even read this. Yeah, it sure would be great if the Democrats could find somebody with more severe issues with women than the Son of Saint Casey. (Or, as Atrios also notes, Specter, no matter how nominal his pro-choice position has become.)"

dday examines Rendell's endorsement of Matthews "from the Rendell angle": "Tweety has been fellating Rendell for the past year, giving him all kinds of face time, particularly throughout the run-up to the Pennsylvania primary, when he was practically on every day. It's been the most gruesome and blatant suck-up session I've ever seen in public. [...] I don't think Rendell's vain enough to be swayed by simple flattery. But he has a history of playing kingmaker in Pennsylvania since he was mayor of Philadelphia when I lived there, and all the time on the teevee feted as the grand poohbah of politics in one of the most important swing states in the country certainly has a salutary effect for his public profile. And it's rubbed off on him. [...] The Matthews thing is just one Villager paying off another."

BAYH: Because You Can Never Have Enough Blue Dogs...

Benen is discouraged by the news that IN Sen. Evan Bayh "is trying to mobilize moderate Democratic Senators to form a group based loosely on the House Blue Dog Coalition": "In the House, the Blue Dogs are not only overly cozy with corporate lobbyists, this is a coalition reluctant to embrace a progressive vision on issues like climate change, and committed to a financial plan focused on spending reductions and balanced budgets -- precisely when the federal government needs to be doing the opposite. That Bayh wants a similar group working in the Senate is discouraging, to put it mildly."

Open Left's Matt Stoller isn't surprised by the news: "Steven Benen is not encouraged, but I have a somewhat different attitude. This shows that the 60 vote threshold argument was nonsense, power is concentrated in the hands of conservative Democrats and a few Republicans, and that's how these guys wanted it."

Yglesias reacts with sarcasm: "This seems like a good idea to me. With Republicans out of power, the GOP can't really block progressive change in exchange for large sums of special interest money. That creates an important market niche for Democrats willing to do the work. It was a good racket for the House Blue Dogs in 2007-2008 and there's no reason it couldn't work for Senate analogues over the next couple of years."

MCCAIN: Giving Conservatives Another Reason To Hate Him

Several conservative bloggers are criticizing John McCain for declining to endorse Sarah Palin's hypothetical 2012 Presidential candidacy during an appearance on ABC's This Week:

• Painter: "As if conservatives needed a reminder of why those that voted for him had to hold their noses to mark the ballot. Indeed, many of them wouldn't have even bothered to go to the polls November 4 if Gov. Palin had not been the GOP's vice presidential candidate. For her part, Sarah Palin has shown nothing but loyalty, admiration and respect for McCain. Today he rewarded her devotion to him in the usual McCain manner. The man rarely misses an opportunity to stab conservatives in the back, except when he kicks them in the stomach."
• Allahpundit: "Think how easy it would have been to throw her a bone without committing to anything, e.g., 'It's too early to be making endorsements when we don't know who's running or what the issues will be, but naturally she's my preference going into it.' It would have made for an awkward soundbite three years from now if he ended up endorsing someone else, but endorsing someone else will be sufficiently awkward on its own terms that that soundbite would hardly make it worse. Consider this another brick in the reconstruction of his centrist brand."

NRO's Kathryn Jean Lopez defends McCain: "I keep hearing that Senator McCain 'dissed' Sarah Palin yesterday on This Week. I didn't read it that way. Yes, he owes her given how some of his staff treated her in the press. Maybe that's exactly why he didn't endorse her! In all seriousness, I don't think there was strategic thinking going into his Palin answer. As he said, the corpse is warm. (It would also be insane for anyone to endorse anyone for president four years out.) That and maybe he wants to leave the door open to endorse Obama in four?"

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Pragmatism They Can Believe In?

The Atlantic's Ross Douthat comments on Chris Hayes' widely-discussed article about Obama's self-described "pragmatism":

"...Chris's 'optimistic' scenario strikes me as reasonably plausible: After all, a regnant ideological liberalism that cloaks its ideological assumptions in the insistence that it's really pragmatic, results-oriented, and anti-ideological was the default setting for American politics for an awfully long time, and indeed remained the default setting for the political establishment on a great many questions even during the post-[Ronald] Reagan conservative ascendancy. It's pretty easy to imagine the country settling back into a groove that it never completely left.

The big question for progressives, I tend to think, isn't whether Barack Obama ends up draping the language of non-ideological 'experimentation' around a succession of proposals that would shift American policy distinctly leftward and make John Dewey smile: He's already done that. It's whether the policy shifts he embraces will go far enough to reconcile progressives to the fact that a 'non-ideological' liberalism, in our era as in the earlier liberal ascendancy, requires an ideological Left as its foil. In practice, this means that Obama will probably often end up defining himself against progressivism, rhetorically, even when he's embracing progressive ideas. (See his campaign's extremely effective health-care ads for an example of how this works in practice.) The President-elect's ability to hold his coalition together, then, may depend in no small part on whether the Democratic Party's left wing feels that it's getting enough out of his Presidency in practice to justify playing the bad guy in the narrative Obama will be selling to the country as a whole, in which post-partisan 'whatever works' pragmatism triumphs over ideologues of the left and right alike."

LEST WE FORGET: McCain Stares At Screen, Attempts To Write Family Christmas Letter

From The Onion:

"SEDONA, AZ -- After procrastinating for several hours by watching It's A Wonderful Life and old John Wayne movies, former Republican presidential nominee John McCain finally sat down at the computer to type his annual 'Christmas Bulletin' to friends and family early this afternoon, but found himself completely blocked. 'They say you're never too old to learn,' McCain slowly typed before pausing, reading the sentence over, and tapping the backspace key until it was deleted. Forty-five minutes later, after two aborted attempts to compose the letter from the point of view of the family cat, Oreo, and another about what 2009 held in store for the McCain clan, the Arizona senator took a break to make a cup of hot cocoa and listen to the grandfather clock ticking in the background. 'Jesus,' McCain mumbled. 'Jesus Christ.' McCain returned to the den around 5:30 p.m., at which point he placed a fresh stack of candy-cane stationery in the printer, stared at the screen for another 10 minutes, and finally decided to go to sleep for a long, long time."

Posted by Ian Faerstein at 01:03 PM

December 12, 2008

12/12: A Tough Night For Detroit

The big topic in the blogosphere today is the Senate's failure to reach a compromise on a gov't rescue of the U.S. auto industry. Liberal bloggers are accusing Senate GOPers of opposing the auto bailout for political reasons instead of "doing what's best for the country". They're convinced that Congress' failure to pass a rescue bill will force GM and Chrysler to file for bankruptcy, which will lead to the loss of millions of jobs and negatively affect other sectors of the economy. Jane Hamsher declares: "I think this erases all doubt -- the Republicans quite plainly want the economy to fail."

Conservative bloggers, on the other hand, are pleased that the auto bailout negotiations failed, as most of them believe that bankruptcy is a better option for the automakers than the compromise bill offered by TN Sen. Bob Corker. Righty bloggers are praising Senate GOPers for recognizing "that the federal government has no role in bailing out out private enterprise with taxpayer money". However, they're angry that the White House is now looking at other ways to rescue the auto industry.

AUTO BAILOUT: Do Republicans Want To Create A Depression?

Liberal bloggers blasted Senate GOPers after negotiations broke down:

• Firedoglake's Hamsher: "I think this erases all doubt -- the Republicans quite plainly want the economy to fail."
• Daily Kos' DHinMI: "Given the choice between being reckless ideologues or doing what's best for the country, the economy, and millions of American families whose income is connected to the auto industry, the Senate GOP decided to be reckless ideologues."
• digby: "This is what [Republicans] do. But if there's anyone left out there who thinks that these guys are on the post-partisan bandwagon, think again. They will do everything in their power to weaken Obama and fuck up this country even worse than they already have. At this point, the only route they see power is to make things worse and blame it on the Democrats. What else do they have?"
• Molly Ivors: "Republicans to Detroit: if only you could figure out a way to pay your executives and not your workers, we might help you."
• Firedoglake's Ian Welsh: "So, because [Sen. Minority Leader] Mitch McConnell and his Republican buddies wanted UAW workers to accept wages equal to what Toyota workers get, forgetting that those 'wages' include retiree benefits that Toyota workers don't have to pay for, [there will be] no deal on an auto bridge loan and the US can suck up a Depression, because screwing union workers is more important than saving the economy for everyone."
• Obsidian Wings' hilzoy: "So the Senate Republicans were willing to let a million jobs, give or take, go down because they wanted the UAW to make massive wage concessions, over and above those it has already made, within one year as opposed to three years. That shouldn't be a dealbreaker, except to people who don't want a deal to start with. [...] I support the bailout. I don't think I would if these were normal times, but they are not. And under the circumstances, this seems to me to be an extraordinarily irresponsible thing to do."

Open Left's Chris Bowers is a bit more conflicted about the bill's failure: "I am of two minds on this. First, I think the American automakers should be bailed out, although strings should be attached and the government should get an ownership stake. After all, as Matt writes, why should the financial sector get $700 billion, but manufactures who produce cars and provide three million middle class jobs get nothing? Surely, if we can spend $700 billion to 'save' Wall Street, $25 billion of that money can be spent to save Detroit. The collapse of this bailout leave me worried that these jobs will all be gone by January. [...] Second, this bill kept getting worse every day. Concession after concession after concession was made, and it still didn't pass. This legislation had turned into a real stinker, which would have actually retarded the growth of cleaner vehicles in America rather than attached strings to push them along. The government would likely have not received any meaningful investment stake, either. We need to save these jobs and this domestic industry, but swallowing this pill would have been extremely difficult."

AUTO BAILOUT II: Way To Hold The Line, Senators!

Conservative bloggers are pleased that the auto bailout negotiations failed, as most of them believe that bankruptcy is a better option for the automakers than Corker's compromise:

• Power Line's John Hinderaker: "The cloture vote failed, 52-35. Thank goodness. Now the auto companies can get about the serious task of preserving their businesses and their employees' jobs through bankruptcy proceedings."
• Hot Air's Ed Morrissey: "Congratulations to Senate Republicans. Most of them, and a few Democrats like [MT Sen. Max] Baucus and [MT Sen. Jon] Tester and [AR Sen.] Blanche Lincoln, must have read their [WV Sen.] Robert Byrd Pocket Constitutions and realized that the federal government has no role in bailing out out private enterprise with taxpayer money."
• RedState's Pejman Yousefzadeh: "A compromise package designed to extend $14 billion to the Big 3 automakers has failed to achieve cloture in the Senate. Good, I say. Again, there is no reason why bankruptcy should not be an option for the Big 3 and given the fact that bankruptcy is a more predictable and less dramatic process than is a government bailout -- which will likely be followed by another government bailout in a few months -- it should be the preferred option. Other companies in other industries -- the airlines come to mind -- have declared bankruptcy but continued their operations, reorganized and came back stronger for the effort. The Big 3 can do the same."

Righty bloggers are offering special praise to McConnell for leading the effort to defeat the legislation:

• Right Wing News' John Hawkins: "Seldom do I have anything good to say about Mitch McConnell, but this time around, he led the Senate Republicans in the right direction. Good Job, Mitchie!"
• NRO's Andy McCarthy: "All praise to Mitch McConnell for leading the charge that beat back this lunacy. Can someone explain why the White House thought this was a good idea?"

AUTO BAILOUT III: Double Standard Alert!

The New York Times's David M. Herszenhorn explains that the "talks ultimately deadlocked" over Sen. Corker's proposal to cut automakers' wages and benefits next year:

"Under [Corker's] plan, [...] the automakers would also have been required to cut wages and benefits to match the average hourly wage and benefits of Nissan, Toyota and Honda employees in the United States. It was over this proposal that the talks ultimately deadlocked with Republicans demanding that the automakers meet that goal by a certain date in 2009 and Democrats and the union urging a deadline in 2011 when the U.A.W. contract expires."

Liberal bloggers are accusing Senate GOPers of advocating a double standard by demanding major concessions from the UAW when they did not demand such concessions from Wall Street bankers:

• Firedoglake's emptywheel: "The Republicans in the Senate are risking crashing the world economy simply because hundreds of thousands of real workers wouldn't make concessions that the local owners and white collars bankers weren't asked to make."
• Hamsher: "[T]he Republicans didn't ask for commitments from dealers or creditors or bond holders or suppliers, just blue collar workers. So that was really where the only problem was going to arise. Funny, none of these bastards demanded wage and benefit cuts for Wall Street workers in the $700 billion bank bailout."
• Mother Jones' Kevin Drum: "This is nuts. If you're just flatly against the bailout, fine. Vote against it. But if the wage cuts, along with the debt-for-equity swap that was also part of the bill, were enough to bring you around, why would you cavil at the cuts happening in 2011 instead of the end of 2009? It's only about an 18 month difference, and cutting wages makes a lot more sense in 2011 than it does in the middle of a massive recession anyway. Another shining moment in the history of the modern GOP. Ideology uber alles."

Meanwhile, TAPPED's Tim Fernholz defends the UAW: "[The bailout bill's failure] is bad news for the UAW, because the GOP seems intent on pinning the problem on their refusal to accept immediate pay cuts (they offered to take a phased-in cut over two years). Of course, as David Leonhardt points out, that would only change the price of a car by $800, which is not a make-or-break discount for someone looking to buy a car. The problem still resides in the type of cars that the company makes. Labor has made several compromises with the automakers in recent years, most notably a 2007 agreement where they took responsibility for their own pension fund in order to allow GM to get ... more outside funding. The union shouldn't be held accountable for the mistakes of management."

AUTO BAILOUT IV: Don't Like Corker's Offer? Your Loss, UAW.

Conservative bloggers are criticizing the UAW for refusing to agree to Corker's provision:

• NRO's Jim Geraghty: "What was so unreasonable about the Corker provision that wages had to be brought in line with foreign competitors within one year? We're heading into a deep recession. Very few people are going to be in the market for a new car in the coming year. Sales for the Big Three are not going to rebound anytime soon; costs are going to have to be cut. The UAW position was that wages could not be cut until their contract expires in 2011. Which side is being unreasonable?"
• RedState's Dan Spencer: "Union workers at Chrysler, Ford and General Motors are some of the most highly paid workers in America. At the Heritage Foundation, James Sherk says the union workers cost the three automakers over $70 an hour in wages and current and future benefits. If the unions aren't willing to sacrifice to save the automakers, why should taxpayers bail them out[?]"

Meanwhile, conservative bloggers are angry that the Bush admin. will consider other options if necessary -- including use of the TARP program -- to prevent a collapse of troubled automakers"":

• NRO's Stephen Spruiell: "Bush is caving. Unbelievable."
• Michelle Malkin: "The Bush administration apparently didn't understand the message last night. [...] Senate Republicans drew a line in the sand on bailout mania. And now the White House is scrambling to erase it and expand the crap sandwich once more to rescue the UAW. No means no."

REYES: Whose Side Are You On, Silvestre?

Liberal bloggers are furious that House Intel. Cmte Chair Silvestre Reyes (D-TX) has recommended (1.) "that President-elect Barack Obama keep the country's current national intelligence director and CIA chief in place for some time"; and (2.) "that some parts of the CIA's controversial alternative interrogation program [be] allowed to continue." Lefty bloggers believe that this would represent a betrayal of everything that Obama and Dems stood for during the '08 campaign:

• Daily Kos' mcjoan: "It's really just inconceivable, that a Democratic committee chair would actually lobby Obama to keep torture, but the House Intllegence Committee chair has done just that. [...] What in the hell is Reyes thinking? [...] This is torture we're talking about. Torture, Mr. Reyes. Which part, I wonder, does he want to continue? Beatings with electrical cords? Water-boarding? Electrical shocks? Maybe just extraordinary rendition, where we don't really have to think about what happens because someone else is doing it for us. [...] Reyes is undoubtedly being pressured by those CIA insiders that have been raising hell with whoever will pay attention to them (and too many in the traditional media will) over the groundswell of opposition among all principled people to having any apologist for or architect of torture anywhere near the Obama administration. [...] That effort must be rejected. The most important thing the Obama administration must do in re-establishing our position in the world is dismantling the Bush torture regime. This is continuity we don't need. If Reyes isn't smart enough to recognize this, and to see when he's being played by the CIA, then it's time for a new Intelligence Committee chair."
• Salon's Glenn Greenwald: "Here's what is most amazing about this. While virtually all of the Bush agenda over the last eight years ended up being deeply unpopular and profoundly discredited, it was his foreign policy and intelligence programs (torture, rendition, illegal surveillance, war) which caused the most intense opposition, at least among Democratic voters. That is a large part of why Democrats just won their second straight national election promising to oppose Bush's policies and to implement 'change.' It was the policies implemented and overseen by Bush's Pentagon, CIA and 'homeland security' apparatus that caused the most disgrace. 'Continuity' in those areas would be nothing less than a patent betrayal of everything Democrats, over the last two years, told the citizenry they intended to do."
• The Washington Independent's Spencer Ackerman: "[Dir. of Nat'l Intelligence Mike] McConnell has a history of lying to Congress about the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. [CIA Dir. Michael] Hayden is a self-described architect of a very clearly illegal surveillance effort. The intelligence community will have innumerable career professionals remaining on board to transit between administrations. Leadership is in place to set a tone -- and clearly this is a tone Reyes is fine with. Reyes also makes clear that he's pretty soft on torture. [...] How charming."

BooMan wants Reyes to lose his seat: "One possible reading of this is that Reyes is merely being polite and he's just maintaining good relations with the existing Intelligence Community. I understand the game, believe me. But once you start going on about keeping the torture regimen in place, you've completely lost me. Even if you think the CIA needs to reserve the right to go beyond the Army Field Manual on occasion, you have to be clear that you renounce torture. Rep. Reyes doesn't seem to understand the damage that has been done to our reputation under the leadership of McConnell and Hayden and their predecessors. Rep. Reyes isn't the brightest crayon in the box to begin with. I think the chair of Intelligence should know that al-Qaeda is not a primarily Shi'ite organization. Rep. Reyes thought that they were as recently as December 2006. It should have disqualified him from taking the gavel a month later, but it didn't. Rep. Reyes is going to have the chair in this upcoming Congress, and there's really nothing we can do about that. But I sure would be interested in supporting someone in the El Paso area who wants to challenge him in a primary."

EMANUEL: The Plot Thickens?

Several conservative bloggers are buzzing about a FOX News report about "possible conversations between a top Obama aide [IL Rep. Rahm Emanuel] and [IL Gov. Rod Blagojevich] regarding the open senate seat":

• RedState's Josh Painter: "According to Fox Chicago's source, a list of names was given to the governor's office of candidates for Obama's senate seat that would be acceptable to the president-elect. Since the conversations took place after the FBI had established wiretaps on Blagojevich's telephone lines, the phone conversations between Rahm and the two defendants were likely recorded and in the FBI's possession. The big question now is whether the conversations contain evidence of any quid pro quo or deal-making."
• Morrissey: "[This] doesn't necessarily mean that Emanuel knew about Blagojevich's efforts to extort payment for the selection, but it puts a damper on the idea that Emanuel tipped off the feds, too. It wouldn't take 'multiple' meetings for Emanuel to decide to squeal. If Emanuel continued meeting with Blagojevich, that indicates some kind of negotiating was happening, and that would strongly suggest that Emanuel was working on Blagojevich's terms."

Meanwhile, Power Line's Scott Johnson notices that Emanuel has been making himself scarce lately: "The otherwise conspicuous Emanuel has dropped from sight over the past few days. Among those with intriguing reports that bear on Emanuel's absence from public view are John Kass, Andrew Malcolm and Jim Hoft."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: What If It Is A Lifestyle?

The Atlantic's Ta-Nehisi Coates:

"...The case for/against gay marriage is hung-up on this idea of choice -- i.e. we should frown on gay marriage because it's a deviant lifestyle. Or we shouldn't frown on it because it isn't a lifestyle, it's a biological fact. This is where the comparisons with race come in. But I always hated this argument. Whenever people say, 'You should not discriminate against people because they didn't chose to be black,' I hear the mild tones of wild liberal condescension.

Implicit in that logic is a kind of judgment, the notion that if I could choose, I obviously would choose to be white. But what if I just like being black? What if I could choose and would still choose black? Ditto for homosexuality. So what if you do choose to be gay? I understand that a lot of the science says you don't, but why do we accept this implicit idea that heterosexuality is, necessarily, what everyone would chose?

I'm not trying to minimize the bias and trauma that must come from being out, but a basic extension of humanity, a belief that those who aren't like me actually are like me, says that to be gay has to be more than coping with living beneath the boot of the ignorant. It's always about more than getting your ass kicked, no? What if you actually love the 'more than?' What if it is who you are and what you choose?"

LEST WE FORGET: Lie To Cover Surprise Party Sounds More Fun Than Surprise Party

From The Onion:

"HOPATCONG, NJ -- A lie told to 28-year-old Kyle Bida to cover up a surprise birthday party to be held in his honor later this evening sounds a lot more fun than the actual party will be. 'Why don't you come over to my place to play Xbox and drink a few beers?' said best friend Louis Welles, leading Bida to believe he might have an enjoyable, relaxing evening rather than one spent making forced small talk with coworkers and a few cousins he doesn't see that often. 'And don't forget to dress up a little bit, man. We're going to hit the bars later.' Though Bida is doomed to an evening far inferior to the one described to him by Welles, most of the guests will likely leave early, using excuses that are more boring than what they actually plan to do."

Posted by Ian Faerstein at 01:01 PM

December 11, 2008

12/11: Everybody's Talkin'

Conservative bloggers continue to demand answers about the extent of the contact between disgraced IL Gov. Rod Blagojevich and Pres.-elect Barack Obama's staff. The FBI affidavit indicates that Blagojevich was angry that Obama's team refused to give him "anything except appreciation" for appointing Obama's preferred candidate (Valerie Jarrett) to the vacant IL Senate seat. However, righty bloggers want more details about how Obama's preference was communicated to Blagojevich. Jim Geraghty asks: "Was 'you'll get appreciation and that's it' the immediate response? Or was Blago's request for a cabinet post or other rewards contemplated for a while?"

Liberal bloggers, meanwhile, are angry about the multitude of news reports suggesting that the Blagojevich scandal is somehow damaging to Obama. They think the FBI affidavit made it clear that Obama didn't go along with Blagojevich's "pay to play" scheme, and they're annoyed that the media (in their view) is playing along with the right's effort to associate Obama with Blagojevich's corruption. Bob Cesca complains: "We've seen this show before: specious attempts to connect Barack Obama with corrupt or controversial figures in Chicago, followed, then, by a Republican and establishment media outcry for the president-elect to denounce and reject them."

BLAGOJEVICH: We Want Answers!

Conservative bloggers continue to ask questions about the extent of the contact between Obama's team and Blagojevich:

• NRO's Geraghty: "We know that somebody on Team Obama had to communicate to Blagojevich that all he would get in return for appointing Obama's preferred candidate was 'appreciation.' The intriguing questions are, who did Blago make his demand/request to? Was 'you'll get appreciation and that's it' the immediate response? Or was Blago's request for a cabinet post or other rewards contemplated for a while? Did anyone on Team Obama go to the FBI? Or did they shrug their shoulders and dismiss it as Blagojevich just being himself? And were Blagojevich's demands passed on to the President-elect, or did Obama's staff want to keep him out of the loop?"
• Power Line's Paul Mirengoff: "It's almost inconceivable that Barack Obama would have participated in Gov. Blagojevich's 'pay to play' scheme for appointing the president-elect's successor, and the evidence affirmatively indicates that he did not. But we also know that, as one would expect, Obama was quite interested in who his successor would be. [...] Given that interest, it's quite likely that someone on Obama's staff was in contact with Blagojevich about this matter, as the tape suggests. The chances are good that this staffer found out what Blago was up to and told Obama. The question then would be: what (if anything) did Obama do?"
• AmSpec Blog's Philip Klein: "The NY Times reports today...that if Barack Obama did not talk to Gov. Blagojevich himself, that there were likely intermediaries between him and the governor, perhaps even [IL Rep.] Rahm Emanuel. [...] The public has a right know what was discussed in these conversations and how much knowledge Obama himself had about them. Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald has already made clear that the indictment does not make any allegations about Obama, and as has been noted, Blago was angry that Obama apparently didn't want to play the game. Obama has promised to run the most transparent White House in history and yet in his first real test, all we're getting is the standard line of not wanting to talk about an 'ongoing investigation.' This isn't change, it's the typical Washington bunker mentality whenever scandal is in the air, and it's normally that very mentality that gets presidents in the most trouble."
• Commentary's Jennifer Rubin: "If in fact Emanuel had conversations with Blago that were taped, the Obama team better get all the facts out. Fast. Otherwise, Emanuel and the Obama administration will be in for a tough ride. So, is it over? (The honeymoon, of course.) Let's just say the press is finding something more tantalizing than Obama-promotion: a fascinating scandal that potentially touches a key member of the new administration."
• NRO's Byron York: "Is Obama aware of any communications in the last six weeks between Rod Blagojevich or anyone representing Rod Blagojevich and any of Obama's top aides?"
• RedState's Josh Painter: "What did the president-elect know, and when did he stop knowing it?"

BLAGOJEVICH II: This Implicates Obama How?

Several liberal bloggers are arguing that not only was Obama not involved in Blagojevich's corruption, but that he helped bring Blagojevich down by helping to pass a state ethics bill that caused Blagojevich to accelerate his fundraising activities:

• Daily Kos' BarbinMD: "As the usual suspects dust off the guilt by association skills they honed during the recent presidential campaign, there is an aspect of the Rod Blagojevich scandal that isn't getting the attention it deserves. [...] And while this may not seem as exciting as engaging in idle speculation on how Blagojevich's corruption might taint Barack Obama, it is key to understanding how and why the utterly corrupt and contemptible Blagojevich was brought down, in part, because of a phone call Barack Obama made three months ago. [...] As noted in the criminal complaint, because of the passage of this [ethics] bill, Blagojevich accelerated his shake down efforts, and because of that, '...the government obtained court approval to intercept oral communications in certain locations in the offices of Friends of Blagojevich...'"
• BooMan: "It appears that the event that precipitated Blago's downfall was a phone call Barack Obama made to president of the Illinois Senate Emil Jones Jr. in September requesting that Jones Jr. throw his support behind a new ethics bill. The ethics bill quickly passed and is set to go into effect in January. Blagojevich reacted to this by ramping up his corrupt efforts to raise cash before the new law precluded him from doing so. When Fitzgerald got wind of Blago's efforts, he was able to secure a wiretap warrant. The rest is history. [...] Based on the set of facts we have right now, Obama looks admirably unscathed. In fact, it looks like his advocacy of higher ethics standards is what led to Blago's exposure as a rank crook."

MyDD's Josh Orton: "The RNC is desperately trying to tie Obama to this scandal, but it's clear that the President-elect and his team had disgust for the Illinois governor's actions. And when I cruised around the right-wing blogs yesterday, I noticed a comical refusal to acknowledge any part of the complaint that mentioned Obama's unwillingness to play ball with Blagojevich. Nothing about 'only appreciation,' nothing about how Blagojevich said 'f@$# him,' nada. Heads in the sand."

BLAGOJEVICH III: Lots Of Light, But Little Heat

Liberal bloggers are criticizing the media for producing multiple news articles suggesting that the Blagojevich scandal is damaging to Obama:

• dday: "To hear the traditional media tell this story, Barack Obama personally directed millions of dollars into Rod Blagojevich's personal bank account and promised to make Blago 'President for Life' at the end of his term."
• The Huffington Post's Cesca: "We've seen this show before: specious attempts to connect Barack Obama with corrupt or controversial figures in Chicago, followed, then, by a Republican and establishment media outcry for the president-elect to denounce and reject them. [...] It began yesterday with the RNC demanding to know the full extent of the president-elect's relationship with Blagojevich even though Patrick Fitzgerald was perfectly clear about the relationship when he said on national television that the president-elect had nothing to do with any of it. But to suggest that the former junior senator from Illinois never communicated with the governor of Illinois is ridiculous on its face -- of course there was the usual level of professional communication there, though it entirely fails to prove or even implicate any corruption on the part of Barack Obama. Then again, since when does reality matter? Meanwhile, the Politico and numerous other news organizations have been attempting to make this the first 'scandal' of the Obama presidency as if Blagojevich is somehow a member of the transition or an appointee to the future administration."
• Balloon Juice's John Cole: "At Memeorandum, the following sensational headlines: 'In scandal, risks for Obama' 'Analysis: Scandal threatens to dog Obama' 'Questions Arise About the Obama/Blagojevich Relationship' For the life of me, I can't figure out why these are all threats to Obama, especially since Fitzgerald said Obama had nothing to do with it in the first place. [...] Each time I performed the search for the word 'Obama' in the 76 page, 20 thousand+ word indictment, I came up empty. It just wasn't there. Funny, what with all the questions about his alleged involvement, because not only was he not indicted, he was not even mentioned. I suppose it is too early to write the post-mortem on the scandal-plagued failure that was the Obama administration. The media will just have to find something else to do for the time being."

BLAGOJEVICH IV: Sidoti Strikes Again

Liberal bloggers are particularly critical of a piece by the AP's Liz Sidoti (whom the netroots repeatedly accused of having a pro-John McCain bias during the presidential race), entitled, "Analysis: Scandal threatens to dog Obama":

• The Washington Monthly's Steve Benen: "There's just no reason for reporting like this. Is Obama connected to Blagojevich's scandal? No, but the scandal is 'threatening to dog him.' Has Obama done anything wrong? No, but Republicans are going to 'try to link him to the scandal.' Well, yes, of course they are. That's what political opponents do. We're supposed to have an independent, professional press that helps the public cut through the nonsense and explain why baseless attacks are wrong. Instead, we get an 'analysis' piece like this one. [...] The scandal isn't dogging Obama, but the AP believes it's threatening to dog him. Hmm. All we know at this point is that Obama didn't play along with Blagojevich's tactics, Obama didn't help Blagojevich, Blagojevich was livid with Obama's lack of cooperation, and federal investigators haven't implicated Obama with this mess in any way. And yet, here's the Associated Press, telling a national audience that this story may mean trouble for Obama. It's wildly irresponsible."
• TPM's Greg Sargent: "The AP's silly formulation -- that the scandal 'threatens' to dog him -- is a story that could literally be written every day for as long as the scandal drags on, whether or not Obama or anyone from his team is ever actually implicated in any sense at all. Of course, even if no evidence of any wrongdoing by the Obama camp ever emerges, Obama will be nonetheless dogged by the scandal -- because of stories like these."
• Media Matters' Jamison Foser: "There's a great big ball of nothing here, yet Sidoti continues to pretend that Obama is caught up in the scandal, writing 'There were signs the continuing investigation could still involve Obama.' [...] Sidoti is technically correct: the investigation could still involve Obama. But it is grossly unfair to suggest that possibility absent any evidence. That's something Liz Sidoti apparently doesn't understand -- though one suspects she would understand the unfairness of suggesting, absent any evidence, that she could be taking payments from the GOP to write garbage like this."
• The Huffington Post's Cenk Uygur: "As usual, we live in an upside down world where black is white and white is black. I have never seen a clearer example of someone being exonerated in a case than Barack Obama in the Blagojevich case. Yet, today we wake up to the Associated Press headline: 'Analysis: Scandal threatens to dog Obama.' Could Blagojevich have been any clearer: 'They're not willing to give me anything except appreciation. Fuck them.' Here is a man who clearly is not aware that he is being taped and man who clearly does not like Obama and so isn't doing him any favors. In fact, he later calls Obama a 'motherfucker.' And he clearly says on tape, 'They're not willing to give me anything.' [...] How can this possibly be interpreted as anything but a complete vindication of Barack Obama? [...] In the AP article above, they go on to explain some of these quotes as mitigating factors. But they are not mitigating factors, they are the whole enchilada. The headline shouldn't be about how this is a problem for Obama. The headline should be, 'Blagojevich Case Proves Obama Can't Be Bought.'"
• Firedoglake's Christy Hardin Smith: "Quotes from the GOP House Whip and the RNC Chairman, with no specific evidence of wrongdoing, planting political seedlings nonetheless because that makes for pretend balance and allows all those seedy little doubts to be floated publicly. Never mind that the indictment information for Blagojevich actually shows that Obama refused to play ball with the smarmy politico. [...] But why let a little thing like facts get in the way of a good GOP blast fax meme, eh, Sprinkles?"

CHU: I Chu-Chu-Choose You!

Liberal bloggers are excited about Obama's decision to tap Nobel prize-winning physicist Steven Chu as Energy Sec.:

• Think Progress' Matthew Yglesias: "Nobel Prize-winning physicist Steven Chu seems to me to be a great choice for Energy Secretary. First, he's brilliant and has brilliant credentials. Second, he's got the sound views."
• Open Left's Chris Bowers: "Placing a scientist at the head of the Department of Energy is very exciting to me, because we will be dealing with a true expert on the subject matter. Further, it is not just any scientist, but the scientist at the center of solar and biofuel research, meaning that industry lobbyists won't stand a chance when talking to him."
• dday: "There has been no greater sea change in Obama's cabinet selections than this choice of an engineer, a scientist, to head the Department of Energy, after eight years of an Administration that waged war on science."
• Atrios: "It sure would be weird to have an Energy Secretary who knew something about energy instead of the energy business and energy lobbyists."
• The Atlantic's James Fallows: "[This is] an even more impressive pick than [Gen. Eric] Shinseki [as VA Sec.]."

Liberal bloggers are generally pleased with the other members of Obama's environmental team, who include ex-EPA admin. Carol Browner as energy czar, L.A. dep. mayor Nancy Sutley as head of the WH Council on Environmental Quality, and NJ environmental protection commis. Lisa Jackson as EPA admin.:

• Bowers: "Obama's environmental team is emerging. And, for once, there is a lot that I like."
• MyDD's Natasha Chart: "I read good things about Chu for Department of Energy, and a mixed review on Jackson for EPA. But they're both honest-to-Maude scientists, and words can't convey how happy I am that our next president will be talking on a regular basis to people who won't hear the term 'peer review' and wonder if it refers to teenagers who've gotten really organized about encouraging each other's bad habits."
• BooMan: "These are all solid progressive picks and none of them are white dudes."

AUTO BAILOUT: Where Are Your Principles, McCotter?

Conservative bloggers remain firmly opposed to the $14B gov't rescue of the U.S. automobile industry:

• Townhall contributor/MN Rep. Michele Bachmann: "I understand that our nation's auto companies are hurting, but the last thing these companies and our economy need is a multi-billion-dollar bailout that does nothing to reform the failing business model that put them in this position in the first place."
• Townhall's Hugh Hewitt: "The car czar bill that passed the House has nothing in it for conservatives, so the Senate GOP should demand major amendments which, if they aren't forthcoming, should end the effort for this year. [...] So the proponents of the bill ought to be thinking: How can we make this appeal to conservatives? Answer: Include some tax relief as a demo project. It doesn't have to be a sweeping end-run like extension of the Bush tax cuts until 2011, though such a move would be a huge tonic for the economy and thus Detroit. It can be modest and focused on the states in which the car business is most obviously anchored, like MI and OH. If the bill included a cut in the corporate rate in those two states for ten years, conservatives would be cheering it on as a chance to demonstrate once and for all what low taxes mean for economic growth."

Several righty bloggers are criticizing conservative MI congressman Thaddeus McCotter for voting in favor of the legislation:

• Michelle Malkin: "Rep. McCotter voted for massive government intervention to prop up failing industries. Hey, Rep. McCotter: How about revisiting all your high-minded rhetoric about returning to first principles. Ask yourself your own question: 'Why is there a Republican Party?'"
• RedState's Erick Erickson: "Standing in the well of the House today, Thad McCotter (R-MI), who I sincerely like, did what the constitution expects -- he stood up for his constituents and voted for the bailout. I'd expect nothing less of a Congressman from Michigan. The bailout will benefit his constituents. [...] The rest of us run our businesses wisely, stand up to union greed, don't hire high powered lobbyists to go to Congress to make things tough for competitors instead of actually building a more competitive company, and mismanage our financial resources."

AUTO BAILOUT II: Why Should We Rescue Wall Street But Not Detroit?

Liberal bloggers don't think the auto bailout legislation is perfect, but they're upset that congressional GOPers are trying to block it:

• digby: "So the Republicans have thrown a roadblock in front of the auto bridge loan. There is no longer any doubt that they want the Big Three to fold by the end of the year. [...] This is really beyond destructive. These people are willing to take down the entire economy so they can bust the unions and prop up a completely discredited ideology with the bodies of middle class Americans who are losing everything."
• AMERICAblog's Joe Sudbay: "The Senate GOP doesn't want to help American workers, especially workers in unions. They stick to protecting Wall Street."
• Firedoglake's Ian Welsh: "It's not a very good bill, but it's better than letting the Big 2 1/2 go under, and losing the 3 million jobs. This entire debate has become surreal and an exercise in fantasy, with claims that auto-workers make $70 an hour (they don't, to get that number you have to include all the pension payments to already retired workers into their pay) and a steadfast refusal to admit that if it weren't for the financial crisis, they wouldn't be on the verge of going bankrupt. 700 billion dollars was given directly to the financial sector, another 7 trillion or so was used by the Fed to support the financial sector, and the banks and brokerages used that money to give themselves 70 billion dollars in bonuses for wrecking the economy. But twenty-five billion to save 3 million jobs and a major industry? Forget it."

Daily Kos' Devilstower, on the other hand, is upset that Congressional Dems agreed to remove several of the bill's environmental provisions: "With the results of the loan package close to final, it now appears that Democrats have folded up like wet tissue on the last matter of importance. [...] So, the agreement being reached is one that takes money for a fund set up for producing cleaner, efficient vehicles that protect our environment and free us from the vagaries of the oil market, and gives it to the car companies who can then spend part of that money to block the development of cleaner vehicles. Brilliant. [...] A worse combination could not have been struck had [VP] Dick Cheney stirred up this agreement in [ex-Def. Sec.] Donald Rumsfeld's kitchen. Stupid does not begin to capture it. We're offering to cut our own throats, and pay for the knife. What's next? The supplemental fund for destroying union labor and the earmark for clinic bombers? If this goes forward as it stands, I will cheer if the Republicans filibuster and personally buy a Daniel Webster cigar for every Democrat who votes against it."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Appointed Senators Rarely Win Re-Election

FiveThirtyEight's Nate Silver:

"In November, two Republicans, Roger Wicker of Mississippi and John Barrasso of Wyoming, appeared on the ballot for the first time as candidates for U.S. Senate, after having been appointed to the chamber midway through the 110th Congress as replacements for Trent Lott and Craig Thomas, respectively. Both won their special elections easily, with Wicker defeating an underwhelming opponent in Ronnie Musgrove, and Barrasso hardly facing any serious challenge at all.

This, however, is rather unusual. In fact, senators appointed to fill midterm vacancies have fared rather poorly when it came time for the voters to give them a verdict. Over the past 25 Congresses, there have been, by my count, 49 senators who selected by gubernatorial appointment in midterm (this excludes cases where a senator-elect acceded to office a few days early to gain seniority on his colleagues, a once-common courtesy that is becoming less so.) Of those 49 senators, only 19 -- fewer than 40 percent -- won their subsequent special election. [...]

These numbers are far below the usual benchmarks for incumbent senators. Since 1990, about 81% of incumbent senators have sought re-election, and among those have sought it, 88% have won it. By contrast, among the 80% of gubernatorial appointees since 1956 who chose to seek re-election, only 49% survived both the primary and the general election."

LEST WE FORGET: Rudolph The Jewish-American Reindeer

WRAL's Mike Charbonneau:

"Wilmington, N.C. — 'Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer' caused a stir at a New Hanover County school. A parent complained about the song's religious reference and got it pulled from her child's kindergarten Christmas show at Murrayville Elementary School. The song was pulled 'because it had the word Christmas in it,' said Rick Holliday, assistant school superintendent.

A Jewish mother, who didn't want her name published, objected to what she called 'religious overtones' in the song. So the principal agreed to pull it from the program."

The Atlantic's Jeffrey Goldberg makes an observation:

"Of course, the song 'Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer' was written by a Jewish-American songwriter, Johnny Marks. He also wrote 'I Heard the Bells on Christmas Day.' Also written by Jews: 'I'll be Home for Christmas,' 'It's the Most Wonderful Time of the Year,' 'The Christmas Song (Chestnuts Roasting on an Open Fire),' and of course, the mother of all Jewish-written Christmas songs, 'White Christmas,' by Irving Berlin. Why, you could almost say there's a conspiracy by Jews to dominate the Christmas-jingle-writing industry!"

Posted by Ian Faerstein at 01:00 PM

December 10, 2008

12/10: The Blagojevich Fallout

Conservative bloggers are buzzing about the various connections between disgraced IL Gov. Rod Blagojevich and Pres.-elect Barack Obama. They believe that the Blagojevich scandal will force journalists to finally investigate Obama's background in Chicago politics, which they felt did not receive adequate scrutiny during the presidential race. Ed Morrissey predicts: "This scandal will do what the national media refused to do during the campaign: tie Obama directly to this kind of corrupt political maneuvering and force some answers as to why Obama managed to rise so fast in that environment." Righty bloggers believe that this scandal has the potential to do significant political damage to Obama. One particularly excited blogger is even raising the specter of impeachment.

Liberal bloggers expected GOPers to "try to manufacture links between the incoming [Obama] administration and Blagojevich", so they're not surprised that it's already happening. They don't expect this effort to succeed, however, because (a.) Obama is "so obviously uninvolved" in Blagojevich's alleged wrongdoing, and (b.) "there's just too much news and too many problems for a phony scandal to have any legs". Lefty bloggers are pointing to the fact that Blagojevich cursed Obama out in his taped phone conversations as evidence that Obama and Blagojevich are not close.

OBAMA: Six Degrees Of Blagojevich

Conservative bloggers continue to link Obama to Blagojevich (and Chicago machine politics more generally):

• Michelle Malkin: "[Atty Patrick] Fitzgerald says President-elect Obama was not implicated in the plethora of charges against Democrats Blago and [CoS John] Harris. The national media went out of their way to absolve him, too. But declaring Team Obama's hands clean -- especially with Blago crony and indicted Obama donor Tony Rezko in the middle of it all -- is premature."
• Power Line's John Hinderaker: "Obama's proximity to the scandal highlights a basic fact about his career: Obama's political career began, and was lived until very recently, in the very dirty pond of Chicago politics. It is quite remarkable that Obama has been able to emerge not only intact but ostensibly pristine from that political swamp. In part, this is because his history and associations have been too little scrutinized. [...] Obama has been a loyal soldier in the Democrats' corrupt Cook County machine. Obama's first statewide campaign was as an adviser to Blagojevich. He endorsed Blagojevich for re-election and offered to campaign for him. In August 2006, the Associated Press quoted Obama saying, 'We've got a governor in Rod Blagojevich who has delivered consistently on behalf of the people of Illinois.' No doubt Obama would now say that the Rod Blagojevich who tried to sell his vacant Senate seat 'isn't the Rod Blagojevich I knew.' Maybe it's time to take notice of the fact that Barack Obama is either 1) an astonishingly poor judge of character, or 2) a politician who swims comfortably and successfully in what must be America's most corrupt pond. This is, apparently, the 'change' that millions of Americans voted for."
• AmSpec Blog's Philip Klein: "The Blagojevich connection is merely the latest in a long line of troubling associations for Obama. The most charitable assessment of the pattern is that Obama is content looking the other way in the face of wrongdoing to gain political advantage at the time. This is the case with the financing he received from Tony Rezko, his membership in Jeremiah Wright's church, and his relationship with Blagojevich. While the issues didn't cost him the election, the question that remains is whether the judgment he's displayed in his associations in the past, will be a prologue to how he conducts himself as president. Can somebody emerge from a corrupt political world, navigating it adroitly, without internalizing some of its tactics?"

OBAMA II: Finally, He's Going To Get Some Scrutiny!

Conservative bloggers believe that the Blagojevich scandal will force journalists to investigate Obama's background in Chicago politics, which they felt did not receive adequate scrutiny during the presidential race:

• Hot Air's Ed Morrissey: "This scandal will do what the national media refused to do during the campaign: tie Obama directly to this kind of corrupt political maneuvering and force some answers as to why Obama managed to rise so fast in that environment."
• Townhall's Hugh Hewitt: "The number of long-time Chicagoland figures in and around the president-elect's inner circle is so large as to make a Blago-connection to at least some of them inevitable. [...] Obvious questions that will have to be answered by the president-elect in detail: When did you first meet with B? How often and how closely have you worked with him? Did you know his chief-of-staff? If any member of your Administration is implicated in any of these scandals, will you dismiss them immediately? The MSM issued a huge pass to candidate Obama during the election when it came to Rezko et al. They cannot keep that up through an entire presidency."
• AmSpec Blog's David Weigel: "This is why the people filing junk lawsuits about Obama's ties to Kenya need to simmer down -- there are real crimes occuring in Illinois government, and Obama was allied with the criminals. The Blagojevich investigation has, so far, implicated Obama in none of the illegal activity engaged in by the governor, his aides, and fellow travellers like Rezko. But we need full investigations."

AmSpec Blog's Jeffrey Lord wonders if impeachment is in Obama's future: "This is staggering news for Obama and company. [...] The obvious question is the old Howard Baker line from Watergate: What did the President (elect) and the Senate Majority Whip know -- and when did they know it? The troubling part of this is that the country has deeply serious problems obvious to all. Is this the tip of an iceberg that is about to unleash the hounds to such an extent that it adds unimagined turmoil to a situation chaotic enough as is? Impeach Obama -- already? Or have we elected the Virgin King? Is [VP-elect] Joe Biden already remembering Vice President Jerry Ford's words to wife Betty [Ford] as she went on and on about the decorations of the newly acquired VP's residence where the Fords were scheduled to move from their longtime home in Alexandria? 'Honey, we're never going to move in.' Buckle in!"

OBAMA III: Something Smells Fishy...

Conservative bloggers are buzzing about the fact that Obama adviser David Axelrod said during a November interview that Obama had "talked to [Blagojevich]" about filling the vacant IL Senate seat, which contradicts Obama's claim that he "had no contact with [Blagojevich] or his office." An Obama aide later said that Axelrod misspoke when he made his November remarks, but conservative bloggers are suspicious:

• Philip Klein: "Two possibilities: Axelrod was lying yesterday to cover for Obama, or, a few weeks ago, when he said 'I know he's talked to the governor,' he actually had no clue what he was he was saying."
• RedState's Pejman Yousefzadeh: "To be sure, today, Patrick Fitzgerald stated that Obama was not implicated in any way in the investigation. We have no reason to believe otherwise, but how is it that a smart man like David Axelrod 'misspoke' on the issue of whether Obama met with Blagojevich to talk about successors to Obama's Senate seat? Either the meeting occurred or it didn't; how is it that Axelrod imagined it? And why was the 'misstatement' not corrected until Blagojevich was arrested and the President-elect's news cycle started looking...well...iffy?"
• NRO's Jim Geraghty: "Axelrod is saying he misspoke, although it's curious as to how he would get the notion that Obama and Blagojevich spoke, and why he would go around saying they had spoken without knowing so. Ben Smith cannot get an answer to another simple question: When was the last time the two men spoke?"

OBAMA IV: Making The Right Enemies

Liberal bloggers think Blagojevich did Obama a favor by cursing him out in his taped phone conversations:

• TalkLeft's Jeralyn Merritt: "Obama should be happy Blagojevich trashed him in the tapes. As Fitz said, there's no information Obama was aware any of these attempts were taking place, and the tapes make it pretty clear Blagojevich didn't think Obama's people would 'pay to play.'"
• Ezra Klein: "As [Jason] Zengerle says, if Obama had made a slightly different decision and decided to play ball with Blagojevich, engage in some minor quid pro quo and help Blagojevich's wife onto some meaningless corporate board, 'the feds would have had the president-elect dead to rights.' His presidency would've been effectively over before it had ever begun. As it is, he's got Blagojevich on tape saying, 'Fuck him. For nothing? Fuck him.' That's a helluva endorsement. Obama owes this guy a Christmas card."

Daily Kos' Jed Lewison: "In the coming days, as Republicans try to manufacture links between the incoming administration and Blagojevich, it will be important to remember this fact: Not only was there was no link between Blagojevich's corruption and the Obama team, but Blagojevich cursed out Obama for not being willing to play ball."

Meanwhile, Balloon Juice's John Cole criticizes the RNC for trying to tie Obama to Blagojevich: "Apparently the RNC missed Blagojevich hating on Obama in the indictment. At any rate, today's poll says 80% of the country approves of how Obama has been handling himself with the transition. Good luck with the smear. Morons."

OBAMA V: Get Ready For More Guilt-By-Association!

digby expects GOPers to try to link Obama to Blagojevich: "The minute I heard about Fitzgerald's press conference, I knew this would follow shortly: 'Questions Arise About the Obama/Blagojevich Relationship'. That's Jake Tapper, not making any charges but bringing up all kinds of cross currents in Illinois politics to suggest that there are 'questions.' And all over TV they are talking about 'corrupt Chicago politics,' which is being splashed onto Obama. It's natural that Obama and many of his staff have crossed paths with the players in this scandal. But according to Lynn Sweet of the Tribune, who has followed Obama for some time and is not a sycophant, [the] campaign put a mile between itself and Blagojevich, not even allowing him to speak at the Democratic convention. They are not close. [...] I don't know if this will go anywhere. At this point, I think there's just too much news and too many problems for a phony scandal to have any legs. But, as I wrote almost a year ago, these Chicago shennanigans have elements of a perfect right wing smear by association if they have the energy to launch one and the press decides it's sexy enough."

Other lefty bloggers don't think the effort to tie Obama to Blagojevich will succeed:

• Lewison: "Even as Democrats across the board are calling for Blagojevich to resign or to be impeached, even as most Americans want to see Blagojevich behind bars so we can adddress this nation's great and pressing challenges, Republicans want to drag this out -- purely for partisan gain. In other times, this kind of a gambit might just work. But not now. Not in the middle of the [George W.] Bush Recession. Just like John McCain crashed and burned, so to will Republicans who head down this path. There is no surer route to political irrelevancy for their Party than to obsessively try to fan the flames of political outrage at the same time that there is so much important work to be done."
• Mother Jones' Kevin Drum: "I think Obama will be so open about this, and so obviously uninvolved, that it won't cause him any pain whatsoever. It's an Illinois story, not an Obama story."

TAPPED's Adam Serwer thinks Obama should call on Blagojevich to resign: "Whatever Obama's relationship has been with Blagojevich in the past, it seems really unwise for Obama to offer meager Bush-like statements about 'ongoing investigations' when it's quite clear from the report that Blagojevich engaged in some pretty disreputable behavior, and as of now Blagojevich simply lacks the legitimate moral authority to be the chief executive of the state of Illinois. The complaint suggests Obama refused to curry favor with Blagojevich, so it doesn't make sense for Obama not to call for his resignation. Under what circumstances can Blagojevich remain the governor of Illinois?"

MEDIA CRITICISM: Supporting Ethics Reform Means You're Corrupt?

Liberal bloggers are blasting today's New York Times article by Mike McIntire and Jeff Zeleny, which alleges that Obama's recent decision "to urge passage of a state ethics bill" "was a reminder that despite his historic ascendancy to the White House, he has never quite escaped the murky and insular world of Illinois politics":

• TPM's Josh Marshall: "Shorter New York Times: By lobbying for ethics reform, Obama showed he could not escape the murky world of corrupt Chicago pols."
• Firedoglake's Attaturk: "You can tell a Democrat is coming to power, because the New York Times is revisiting the era when money-losing land deals were a tell-tale sign of corruption. [...] Making an effort at reform in your home state equals corruption?"
• AMERICAblog's John Aravosis: "One of the weirdest stories ever from the New York Times. Will Bunch dissects it, but in a nutshell, it's apparently Obama's fault that the Illinois governor is corrupt. Why? Because Obama supported an ethics law that the Illinois governor was trying to get around, so Obama forced the Illinois governor to disobey the law, or some such idiocy. Kind of like saying it's the police's fault that people commit crimes, because if there were no laws, then there'd be no crime because everything would be legal. Simply, amazingly, astonishingly, bizarre of Times to write this piece."

BLAGOJEVICH: This Is Why We Need Special Elections

Liberal bloggers support IL Sen. Dick Durbin's call for a special election to fill Obama's old Senate seat:

• TAPPED's Sam Boyd: "Dick Durbin is right that the state legislature should immediately pass a bill abolishing the governor's right to appoint a new Senator and replacing it with a special-election process. It works for House seats everywhere and Senate seats in some other states. It would prevent Blagojevich-style shenanigans (and more prosaic political horse-trading) and simply be a more democratic and transparent process—something Illinois very much needs."
• Open Left's Chris Bowers: "There should be a special election to fill Obama's seat. One of the main reasons is, obviously, that no appointment could be made without a cloud of corruption surrounding it now. But really, there should be a special election to fill all vacant Senate seats, not just this one. While there will be an undeniable whiff of corruption surrounding anyone Blagojevich picks at this point, there is an undeniable whiff of aristocracy surrounding our method to replace vacant Senate seats in general. Democracies elect people and vote on stuff. Monarchies and oligarchies appoint people and make decisions in small groups of elites. (And then they often make aristocratic appointments like Caroline Kennedy.)"

Conservative blogger Matt Lewis agrees with Bowers: "Might want to re-think the notion that Governors should be empowered to appoint U.S. Senators."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Who Loses?

Commentary's Jennifer Rubin:

"Aside from the criminal defendants and the Illinois Democratic Party, who are the big losers in Blago-gate? Really anyone who wants to get away with something or get something they don't really deserve. I'd put in that category: Al Franken, [NY Rep.] Charlie Rangel, Caroline Kennedy and [ex-Deputy AG] Eric Holder. No one now has the stomach for even a hint [of] slick dealing or nefarious politics -- at least for awhile. Those listed above, and others, may be handicapped in achieving their political aspirations.

Is Majority Leader Harry Reid going to hang up the Senate to overturn an election and seat Franken? Nope. Is Charlie Rangel going to be able to cling to the chairmanship of Ways and Means as the scandals dribble out, one by one? Not if [House Speaker] Nancy Pelosi has her way. Unqualified Caroline Kennedy wants to use the Kennedy name to leapfrog over a dozen more qualified candidates? Not unless [NY] Gov. [David] Paterson wants grief. And will Democrats boldly step forward to defend Holder's behavior in the Marc Rich pardon as 'business as usual'? Not so much."

LEST WE FORGET: Blagojevich Offers Senate Seat To Arresting Officer

The Huffington Post's Andy Borowitz:

"In what is being called one of the most daring escape attempts in the history of law enforcement, Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich today offered the U.S. Senate seat vacated by President-elect Barack Obama to the FBI agent who took him into Federal custody this morning.

According to U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald, the astonishing escape attempt occurred moments after Mr. Blagojevich was handcuffed by the agent, who was wearing a wire and captured the entire expletive-laden offer on tape.

'"You can be the [bleeping] junior Senator from [bleeping] Illinois if you let me out of these [bleeping] handcuffs,"' Mr. Fitzgerald read from a transcript. '"And if that mother-[bleeper] Barack Obama tries to [bleep] with me, I'll [bleep] him up."'"

Posted by Ian Faerstein at 01:30 PM

December 09, 2008

12/9: Scandalous!

Like the rest of the political world, the blogosphere is buzzing about the news that IL Gov. Rod Blagojevich was arrested by FBI agents this morning on charges of "conspiring to obtain personal financial benefits" through his authority to appoint a U.S. senator to Pres.-elect Barack Obama's old seat. Liberal bloggers are amazed at Blagojevich's "brazenness and stupidity", and they've already begun speculating about who will now appoint the next IL senator. Conservative bloggers, meanwhile, are playing up Obama's ties to Blagojevich and are complaining that press reports are neglecting to mention that Blagojevich is a Dem.

Before the Blagojevich news broke, the dominant topic in the political blogosphere was ex-Obama strategist Steve Hildebrand's Huffington Post diary, in which he told Obama's "progressive critics" that "this is not a time for the left wing of our Party to draw conclusions [about Obama's appointments]." Liberal bloggers were outraged by Hildebrand's piece, calling it patronizing and counterproductive. Hildebrand later told TPM that "the Obama team had had no hand in writing or approving the piece", which is probably a good thing for Obama. If the Obama admin wants to do effective outreach to the liberal blogosphere, it's going to have to do a whole lot better than this.

BLAGOJEVICH: What A Scumbag

Liberal bloggers are amazed by Blagojevich's corruption:

• Daily Kos' BarbinMD: "It's mind boggling to see the utter venality and stupidity of (the hopefully soon-to-be ex) Governor of Illinois laid out so transparently. [...] And setting aside the disgust one feels at his blatant plans to sell a United States Senate seat to the highest bidder, just how stupid, or detached from reality, is Blagojevich? He considered appointing himself to the Senate to avoid being impeached and position himself for a presidential run?"
• TPM's Josh Marshall: "Even setting aside the primordial level of corruption of trying to sell the senate seat of the President-elect of the United States, I never fail to be amazed at the brazenness and stupidity of some political crooks. I mean, I think everyone involved in politics or interested in political corruption in the country had to know that Blagojevich's phones were tapped and probably his offices were bugged, and that [U.S. atty] Pat Fitzgerald had him under the craziest level of scrutiny. And he tries to sell the senate seat with that hanging over his head? That's simply amazing. I guess you could say he's just a traditionalist, trying to keep up heritage of Chicago machine politics. But with some of these characters, it must just be pathological."
• The Washington Monthly's Steve Benen: "We're not just talking about playing fast and loose with ethics rules here; we're talking about almost comical levels of corruption. [...] With [LA Rep.] William Jefferson losing on Saturday, and Rod Blagojevich getting busted today, the Democratic Party should be thrilled to be rid of its two most embarrassing members."

MyDD's Todd Beeton has questions about Obama's old Senate seat: "It is now really important that Blago NOT be the one to make the appointment to the Senate. Blago can resign or even step aside temporarily to let [IL LG] Pat Quinn step into the Governorship. If he refuses, the state legislature would have to impeach him but I suspect the pressure will be great for Blago to step aside, if only so that the appointed new Senator does not have any taint hanging over his or her head. Does this impact who that appointee will be? Distance from Blago and a squeaky clean reputation probably just became really important qualities in a candidate."

BLAGOJEVICH II: Did You Know That He's Obama's BFF?

Several conservative bloggers are linking Obama to Blagojevich (and Chicago machine politics more generally):

• AmSpec Blog's Philip Klein: "Keep in mind that Blagojevich was, in part, the political creation of Obama and his incoming chief of staff Rahm Emanuel, and a close ally."
• Gateway Pundit: "Why is it that all of Obama's close freinds and associates are either anti-American loons or crooks?"
• NRO's David Freddoso: "There will be tons to say later about Chicago's extreme corruption, to which Barack Obama was always willing to turn a blind eye. We will learn quite a bit more about Chicago and Springfield from Blagojevich's downfall in the next few months."
• Dan Riehl: "Pay-to-play for Obama's replacement? I wonder what Obama sold, or sold-out on, to the Chicago machine for support when he ran for the seat?"

Conservative bloggers are also complaining that press reports are neglecting to mention that Blagojevich is a Dem:

• NRO's John J. Miller: "Blagojevich is a Democrat. Just thought I'd mention it, because Monica Davey of the New York Times couldn't manage to squeeze that little detail into her 9-paragraph story on the governor of Illinois."
• Michelle Malkin: "Time to play: Name that party!"

HILDEBRAND: Who The Heck Does He Think He Is?

Liberal bloggers are unloading on Hildebrand, Obama's Nat'l Deputy Campaign Manager, after he wrote a Huffington Post diary entitled, "A Message to Obama's Progressive Critics":

"...This is not a time for the left wing of our Party to draw conclusions about the Cabinet and White House appointments that President-Elect Obama is making. Some believe the appointments generally aren't progressive enough. Having worked with former Senator Obama for the last two years, I can tell you, that isn't the way he thinks and it's not likely the way he will lead. The problems I mentioned above and the many I didn't, suggest that our president surround himself with the most qualified people to address these challenges. After all, he was elected to be the president of all the people -- not just those on the left."

Liberal bloggers are sharply criticizing Hildebrand's post, which they consider patronizing and counterproductive:

• Daily Kos' brownsox: "First off, the line 'After all, he was elected to be the President of all the people -- not just those on the left' is just incredibly condescending. At least the old Democratic establishment never pretended to give a flying damn what we thought. That's almost preferable to pretending you care about progressives by posting a diary at Huffington Post in which you talk to them like seven-year-olds. Second, since when are progressives not allowed to ask for progressive representation in the Cabinet? And why is the left excluded from the discussion of how to govern? Why doesn't being President of All The People actually include those on the left? [...] Steve Hildebrand is apparently a really nice guy, and an exceptionally brilliant Democratic operative. He was instrumental in electing a Democratic president of remarkable ability and judgment, and creating a moment in history of which we'll all be proud to tell our grandchildren. He should refrain from posting garbage like this in the future."
• dday: "I am gobsmacked by this HuffPo piece by Steve Hildebrand, punching the hippies on the left for... having opinions. [...] This lashing out from a senior Obama aide at a really small group of critics, who aren't really displaying much more than concern, and who for the most part have offered support for the policy pronouncements coming out of the transition, is extremely depressing. I don't think he's serving his former boss very well by seeking to silence dissent and building straw men on 'the left,' lying about their interests and concerns."
• TPM's Greg Sargent and Eric Kleefeld: "Hildebrand's tone here -- simultaneously defending the need to come together and castigating critics -- might not do much to calm things down. Really, one has to ask if Hildebrand is really trying to reassure 'the left wing of our party,' or whether he's trying to stir them up further out of some unknown political calculation or other. After all, many on 'the left' have also made Hildebrand's point: They've noted that Obama should be allowed to let his actual policies do the talking, while simultaneously asking completely legit questions about what his choices portend about the future direction of his administration. If merely asking such questions is enough to incite an attack on 'the left' from someone in Obama's inner circle, it seems reasonable to conclude that the motive here isn't to mend fences at all."
• AMERICAblog's John Aravosis: "It does seem that no one from the progressive side of the party is getting any cabinet posts at all. And that's not a litmus test, or a desire to lurch the Obama administration to the far left (at least not as far what I'd like to see) -- it's the simple desire to have a Cabinet that aspires to 'look like America' actually look like America, and some of those Americans are progressives."

HILDEBRAND II: Stop Asking Questions, Liberals!

Firedoglake's Jane Hamsher defends the netroots' criticism of some of Obama's appointments: "People on the left are not looking at Obama's appointments with a jaundiced eye because they think he needs to apply some liberal orthodoxy litmus test. They have legitimate concerns that people like [NY Fed Chair Timothy] Geithner, [ex-Treasury Sec. Lawrence] Summers and other [ex-Treasury Sec. Robert] Rubin acolytes created this mess, and it's reasonable to ask why they're being appointed to get us out of it. While some of us want to give Obama a chance to fulfill the promises he campaigned on and work with the staff of his choice in order to do so, we'd have to be a bunch of intellectually dishonest kool-aid swilling freaks to pretend his economics team didn't have some troublesome baggage. And after the past eight years, it's a bit much to stomach someone saying 'just shut up and trust me, because I know better.'"

Hamsher continues: "There is a lot of speculation right now about what will happen with the 13 million member email list the Obama campaign built, and there is some talk of Hildebrand running an organization that manages it. I wonder how long those membership numbers will hold up when any criticism of Obama is greeted with patronizing lectures and sneering condescension for its liberals?"

Meanwhile, Open Left's Chris Bowers offers Hildebrand some advice:

"Let me draft what would have been a more appropriate, coalition-sensitive response from Hildebrand:

'While some members of the left-wing of the Democratic Party are concerned over some of President-elect Obama's cabinet selections, they can rest assured that President-elect Obama welcomes a vigorous debate inside his administration, and that such debates will include voices from the left.'

How hard would that have been? Just invite the left into the discussion and the debate. Say that Obama is listening to a diverse range of voices. Let progressives know that they are included, but that they won't dominate, because Obama wants to hear from all sides. Being told, instead, that this isn't a time for the left to draw conclusions will, to most people on the left, sound a lot like 'the left shouldn't criticize Democrats during election season.' To be told, again, when the election is over that it still isn't time for the left to criticize Democrats kind of sounds like there is never an appropriate time for the left to criticize Democrats. It sends a clear implication that left-wing viewpoints are simply never welcome."

HILDEBRAND III: Thank You, Sir, May I Have Another?

Atrios has a high tolerance for verbal abuse directed at liberals, as long as Obama follows through on his campaign promises: "The Obama campaign didn't exist to make me feel good, and the Obama presidency won't either. I don't especially like his people punching the dirty fucking hippies under the bed, but on the other hand if they manage to convince people that Obama is a sensible centrist who wants to do sensible centrist things like build SUPERTRAINS, get out of Iraq, not torture people or invade random countries, strengthen labor protections, reduce income inequality, improve education, provide health care for people, and reduce poverty, while those DAMNED DIRTY HIPPIES just won't shut up about their magic ponies, it's fine by me. For years we've had Democrats railing against those crazy hippies as an excuse to not do all of those things. If Obama's people are going to rail against the hippies and use it as an excuse to do them, fine with me. If."

Open Left's Matt Stoller agrees: "Steve Hildebrand's little childish screed against unnamed leftists who won't let Obama govern like a centrist, along with his silly self-identification as one of those leftists (but not one of the bad ones!), is just a way of cornering a certain slice of his supporter base. That's fine, he's done it his whole campaign, he ran on kicking the left, and he's going to govern like that. And I'm open-minded, if his administration can build universal broadband and SUPERTRAINS and the like while certain members act snotty towards unnamed outspoken leftwingers, fine. I get it. He's my President, I hope he does a great job, as depressions really suck for everyone. But you know, there is that 'if' Atrios tucked in there."

Open Left's David Sirota is more upset, as he thinks that Hildebrand's criticism of "the left wing of our Party" is self-defeating: "The reason the Republican Party and conservative movement were so successful was because they developed a symbiotic relationship. Specifically, the party apparatus knew that sustained conservative movement pressure on the party was good for the party in keeping it disciplined and on message. By contrast, the culture of the Democratic Party since the [George] McGovern debacle in 1972 has been to bash the progressive movement -- to triangulate against it as proof of 'independence' and 'centrism.' We saw where that got the Democratic Party for the last 30 years -- but by the looks at the public post-election attacks on 'the left' from Democrats, it seems like the party higher-ups still haven't learned the simple lesson that pressure from a strong movement strengthens the party as a whole."

Salon's Glenn Greenwald agrees with Sirota: "If someone wants to say -- as Atrios did today -- that they're willing to tolerate the exclusion of liberals from Obama's cabinet and even demonization campaigns against the Left if that's the vehicle and strategy for enacting a progressive agenda, that at least is a rational assessment (though I think there's serious costs to encouraging not only Republicans and the media, but also Democrats, to all join together to agree that the one unspeakable bogeyman is the Left)."

HILDEBRAND IV: In Steve's Defense...

A few liberal bloggers are defending Hildebrand's comments:

• TAPPED's Tim Fernholz: "Hildebrand's piece struck me as a fairly conventional dog-whistle from the Obama folks to the left, trying to reassure them that Obama still supports liberal policies despite centrist appointments. [...] Sirota takes the most issue with a paragraph where Hildebrand seems to draw a distinction between liberal priorities and other pressing issues, writing, 'But first let's get our economy moving, bring our troops home safely, fix health care, end climate change and restore our place in the world.' It's a somewhat unfortunate construction, but I read this as an attempt to move the center to leftwards. If those four goals -- including climate change and health care reform! -- are identified as centrist, then progressives are freer to advocate for the sensible proposals that are even further out of the supposed 'mainstream' -- prison reform! the labor agenda! ending the DOMA and DADT! You get my point. Winning elections shouldn't be where progressives measure victory. A real win for the left is when their ideas become the mainstream and ridiculous conservative ideas become the fringe. Hildebrand seems to be writing to defened that conception, and not to attack liberals."
• TAPPED's Mori Dinauer: "I think Tim [Fernholz] has exactly the right take on [Hildebrand's piece], and in light of the fact that Obama is openly supporting a strike, making a progressive agenda his administration's top priority, and enjoying the overwhelming support of Democrats, it seems a bit premature to panic. By all means keep the pressure on, but judge this administration by its eventual policies, not its designated appointees."

Bowers, on the other hand, thinks it's absurd to claim that personnel is irrelevant: "A quick note from the 'this should be obvious' department: policies and personnel both matter. It is not either / or. One is not wholly dependant upon the other. If personnel did not matter, and only the policies of the President mattered, then there would be no need for any President to appoint anyone new in the federal government. Obama would not need to fire anyone in the [George W.] Bush administration, except Bush himself. Before that, Bush would have not needed to fire anyone in the [Bill] Clinton administration. And Clinton would not have needed to fire anyone from [George] Bush Sr.'s administration. Etc. [...] The point is that policy and personnel both matter, and that they both matter independently of each other. The people hired to run the federal government will have to follow Obama's policies. At the same time, the people hired to run the federal government will have a lot of say over exactly how Obama's policies are followed, and also over the formulation of new policies."

HAYDEN: Please Let This Just Be A Rumor...

Liberal bloggers were disturbed by an item in the U.S. News & World Report which suggested that Obama "might ask CIA Director Michael Hayden to stay on for a while":

• Atrios: "[Hayden] should be arrested, not rewarded."
• TalkLeft's Jeralyn Merritt: "I hope the US News Report is just a rumor being floated for reaction. Keeping Hayden would be unfortunate. It would represent the wrong kind of change for Obama who voted against Hayden's confirmation."
• Jay Ackroyd: "I get the idea of carrying over Gates at Defense. I do not get the idea of carrying over any of these people [at the CIA]."
• Bowers: "[K]eeping Mike Hayden on as Director of the CIA would signal Obama has no intention of revisiting [FISA], and really has gone right-wing on this [issue]. It is still just speculation, and not confirmed, but if it happens, this one would really suck. Keeping Bush's CIA and Defense heads on is awful for a candidate who, in the primaries, I backed significantly because of foreign policy."
• Greenwald: "In May, 2006, Barack Obama voted against confirming Gen. Hayden as CIA Director. Obama was one of only 15 Senators to oppose Hayden. In his speech on the Senate floor explaining his vote, Obama emphasized Hayden's role as Bush's NSA Director in implementing and overseeing Bush's illegal warrantless surveillance programs -- programs Obama has repeatedly decried as an assault on the rule of law. In fact, Obama, while acknowledging in his speech that Hayden was 'qualified,' described Hayden -- accurately -- 'as the architect and chief defender of a program of wiretapping and collection of phone records outside of FISA oversight.' [...] If, less than 3 years later, Obama chooses as his CIA Director the very same Michael Hayden -- who, during his confirmation hearing, justified Bush's illegal NSA spying and said how proud he was to help implement it [to say nothing of his (at best) equivocations on torture] -- then it should be quite...let us, for the moment, say 'interesting'...to watch him and his most loyal supporters explain and justify that."

OBAMA: Silly Liberals!

Conservative bloggers are arguing that progressives were naive to place their faith in Obama:

• The Atlantic's Megan McArdle: "Some progressives [are] apparently shocked to discover that they elected a politician, not (awesomely wise secular teacher!) Jesus. [...] Did progressives really think they'd woken up in Sweden on November 5th?"
• RedState's Pejman Yousefzadeh: "So, the netroots finds out that 'the new boss looks like the old boss'. Who is actually surprised that the Left would allow itself to be taken for a ride like this? And who doesn't believe that the Obama Administration will be audacious enough to continue to ask the netroots and the Left in general to continue giving money and manpower while frustrating the Left on policy issues and making them like it? I mean, the seeds of this betrayal were sown when Obama did things like agree with the Bush Administration on the FISA reform bill this past summer. Did the netroots and the Left believe that somehow, someway, Obama would respect them in the morning after his victory?"
• Hot Air's Ed Morrissey: "Maybe everyone got fooled in this election. The Right believed as the Left did that the nation elected a man who would pull American policy in as sharply a liberal direction as anything since the [Jimmy] Carter administration. After seeing most of Barack Obama's selections for his Cabinet, however, the Left doesn't get a sense of Carter deja vu as much as they detect a whiff of Bush. [...] During the election, Jim Geraghty and others of us warned voters that every Obama campaign position came with an expiration date. Maybe the Left should have paid more attention."
• RedState's Jeff Emanuel: "The fact is, Barack Obama believes in Barack Obama. Now that he's President, he's going to do just what he did during the campaign, and during his Senate term, and during his state Senate term, and during the time before that: exactly what he thinks is best for himself. The fact is, Obama's cabinet appointments to date haven't been center-right, as the Left is claiming; rather, they've been of the pragmatic center-left variety, bringing in experienced Clintonites (who worked in the more successful of the last two Democrat administrations) rather than experienced Carterites. The latter's experience is made up of little but failure -- something which raises their stature to the Left, but which makes them ineligible for a place in a narcissistically pragmatic administration like Obama's."

AUTO BAILOUT: The Rightroots Revolt

Conservative bloggers are fiercely opposed to the reported auto bailout legislation, in which congressional Dems are proposing "tight government control of the crippled American auto industry":

• Right Wing News' John Hawkins: "Good news, everybody! Not only does it look like a bailout is on the way for the Big 3, our federal government, which has wasted more money than any other organization in the history of the planet, has decided to get intimately involved to make sure our money isn't wasted. Gosh, what could possible go wrong? [...] Putting aside the fact that the government is setting itself up as an overseer of an industry it knows absolutely nothing about, their priorities foretell that this will be a disaster. They want the Big 3 to drop lawsuits, to look into making public transportation no one wants, to sell private jets, and they've also discussed limiting corporate pay. If you'll notice, absolutely none of these changes have anything to do with making the companies more viable over the long term. As a matter of fact, losing these lawsuits and keeping top executives from coming on board because of low pay could actually make the Big 3 significantly less likely to survive."
• The Heritage Foundation's Conn Carroll: "Government has a miserable record as a corporate manager. We shouldn't want politicians or federal bureaucrats managing private companies. Unfortunately that is exactly what liberals in Congress are poised to do. [...] The Center for Data Analysis estimates that the bankruptcy of the Big Three automakers would cause a loss of 453,000 jobs. Every single one of these job losses is extremely unfortunate, but ask yourself this: How much worse will future job losses be after Congress is done running the auto companies into the ground?"

Hot Air's Allahpundit: "54 percent, including 59 percent of people under age 45, oppose the bailout. Good luck, Barry."

RNC CHAIR: Dawson's Country Club Problem

Several conservative bloggers are wary of the prospect of SC GOP Chair Katon Dawson becoming RNC Chair, since Dawson spent 12 years as a member of a whites-only country club:

• Klein: "I have no idea whether Dawson himself is personally a bigot, so I won't make such accusations. But what is clear is that Dawson derived benefits from belonging to a club that excluded blacks as members, whether in terms of prestige, business and political contacts, or merely because he spent some pleasant time there. The proper method to change the ways of these exclusive clubs is not through the legal system, but by showing its members that there are consequences to excluding minorities. The Republican Party would be making a clear statement along these lines if they were to deny him the chairmanship. At the very minimum, Republicans should be seriously considering whether, after America elected its first black president, the party wants to be led by somebody who spent more than a decade as a member of a whites-only club."
• NRO's Geraghty: "We've seen these kinds of storms before -- [ex-MS Sen.] Trent Lott, [ex-VA Sen.] George Allen, [radio show host] Don Imus, the Duke Lacrosse players. The media loves to go after villains, and membership in a country club with no black members is sufficient to make one a villain in many eyes. If Dawson is the nominee, it is extremely likely you will see CNN and MSNBC camera crews outside the country club, recording B-roll footage. If there's any footage of Dawson ever participating in a charity golf tournament, you'll see it. The question of whether the Forest Lake Country Club is all-white because of a deed, or an official policy, or an unofficial policy will be sorted out and analyzed in depth. At the height of the storm, Dawson could discover the cure for cancer and the news would run on page A3. The media's coverage of a Dawson victory in the RNC chair race would, in all likelihood, not be fair to him or the party. But it doesn't mean the potential fallout should be ignored, either."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Blagojevich Had Presidential Ambitions?

Reading the FBI affidavit, The New Republic's Jason Zengerle notes "the icing on the Blago cake":

"It comes at the very end of the complaint. Despite his 4 percent approval rating, Blagojevich still thought he was a viable presidential candidate:

'In addition, in the course of the conversations over the last month, ROD BLAGOJEVICH has spent significant time weighing the option of appointing himself to the open Senate seat, and has expressed a variety of reasons for doing so, including frustration at being 'stuck' as governor, a belief that he will be able to obtain greater resources if he is indicted as a sitting Senator as opposed to a sitting governor, and a desire to remake his image in consideration of a possible run for President in 2016, avoid impeachment by the Illinois legislature, make corporate contacts that would be of value to him after leaving public office, facilitate his wife's employment as a lobbyist, and assist in generating speaking fees should he decide to leave public office.'

Blago '16: Tanned, Rested, and Ready!"

LEST WE FORGET: So, How Great Is It To Be Back, Huh?

From Overheard in the Office:

Employee, returning after a month away: Hey, you've lost weight!
Manager: Thanks! I've been...
Employee: No, wait, you just got your hair cut. Nevermind.

Posted by Ian Faerstein at 01:06 PM

December 08, 2008

12/8: "Dollar Bill" Goes Down

Bloggers are buzzing about GOP atty Anh 'Joseph' Cao's upset win over indicted Dem Rep. William Jefferson in LA's 2nd cong. district. Conservative bloggers are rejoicing over the result and are describing Cao as "a dream Republican candidate" with "a VERY compelling story". They're also portraying Jefferson's loss -- along with Dem losses in the GA Senate runoff and the LA-04 cong. race -- as evidence that Barack Obama's coattails do not extend to other Dems when Obama himself is not on the ballot. Ed Morrissey declares: "Without Barack Obama on the ballot, the Democrats have little draw -- which is no surprise given the approval rating of Congress at the moment." For this reason, many righty bloggers are predicting big gains for the GOP in the 2010 midterms.

Liberal bloggers, meanwhile, aren't too distraught about Jefferson's loss; many are declaring "good riddance" to the corrupt congressman. They're also confident that Dems will regain the Dem-leaning seat in 2010.

LA-02: What A Lovely Surprise!

Conservative bloggers are giddy about Cao's upset victory:

• AmSpec Blog's Robert Stacy McCain: "A Republican wins in New Orleans? Somebody pinch me."
• Michelle Malkin: "Well, this helps take the sting out of the re-election of corruptocrat [PA Rep.] Jack Murtha. Republican upstart Joseph Cao defeated Bill 'Cold Cash Jefferson' in the runoff for Louisiana's 2nd Congressional district race. This is -- this was -- a solidly Democrat, Democrat-dominated district. Yes, the voters are sending a message. They want hope, change, and a clean start."
• Townhall's Amanda Carpenter: "[Cao's] biography is so stunning, I can't property retell it, so I am going to copy and paste it from his website. He has a VERY compelling story, keep an eye on Joseph Cao!!!"
• Power Line's Scott Johnson: "Like [LA] Governor Bobby Jindal, Anh 'Joseph' Cao is something of a dream Republican candidate. [...] In his first run for office, Cao has already made a dent in his mission to improve the world through politics by forcing the retirement of Rep. Jefferson from office."

RedState's Moe Lane praises the Dem voters in the district who voted for Cao: "My apologies to Democratic voters in Louisiana's Second District. I did not believe that enough of you would be willing to put aside your partisan affiliation to cast a meaningful vote against rampant corruption. The results have proven me wrong, and I am sorry for doubting your collective judgment."

RedState's Erick Erickson, on the other hand, doesn't think the Dem voters in LA-02 deserve praise: "Let's be honest. In [Jefferson's] district, his loss had more to do with him not sharing the money in his freezer than it does him having put the money in his freezer."

LA-02 II: Another Ominous Sign For Dems?

Conservative bloggers are portraying Jefferson's loss as further evidence that Obama's coattails do not extend to other Dems when Obama is not on the ballot:

• Hot Air's Morrissey: "What does this mean for the Democrats? It's an embarrassment, since they could have saved this seat by finding and backing a credible candidate in the primary. The turnout model reinforces the lesson from Georgia's Senate run-off as well. Without Barack Obama on the ballot, the Democrats have little draw -- which is no surprise given the approval rating of Congress at the moment."
• NRO's Jim Geraghty: "Coupled with Georgia, this is further evidence that Election Day 2008 saw a massive 'Obama effect' that may not return until Election Day 2012, presuming the president-elect runs for reelection."
• RedState's Pejman Yousefzadeh: "This is yet more evidence...that Barack Obama's coattails are rather short. Obama-backers will argue, of course, that the President-elect didn't do all that much to involve himself in these races, or, for that matter, in the runoff race for the U.S. Senate seat in Georgia that was held by an overwhelming margin by Republicans. Perhaps the President-elect might have done more, but perhaps his lack of involvement is a sign that he knows his persuasive power on the campaign trail on behalf of others is somewhat more limited than many once thought."

Meanwhile, The Next Right's Patrick Ruffini argues that Cao's upset victory demonstrates the importance of fielding a candidate in every single Congressional race: "As I noted yesterday and reiterate tonight, there could be no more vivid example of why we need to run Republican candidates in every district than Louisiana's 2nd. Cao won his [D+28] seat more solidly than [GOP physician John] Fleming did in an R+7 seat. Starting with Obama CoS Rahm Emanuel, Democrats started to understand that Congressional races can be very nonpartisan under the right circumstances and that poor performance or other personal shortcomings by the incumbent can render even a hefty party ID deficit meaningless. We can't recreate Bill Jefferson in every district -- the guy was indicted on 16 counts and the feds found 90 G's in his freezer. It's also an accident of history that the election happened today instead of on 11/4 when Jefferson could have ridden Obama's coattails -- it was delayed by Hurricane Gustav. There isn't a Bill Jefferson in every district, but there is a Joseph Cao."

LA-02 III: Goodbye And Good Riddance

The netroots aren't too upset about Jefferson's loss:

• AMERICAblog's Joe Sudbay: "This really is not a great loss for the Dems. They'll get that seat back in 2010 and won't have to endure spectacle of having a member of the Democratic caucus on trial for bribery."
• Oliver Willis: "[This is] good news. [...] A guy like Jefferson shouldn't be in our government, and considering the Dem margin of control in the House, we can afford to add a wingnut for a couple years."
• Balloon Juice's John Cole: "Just as in the case with [AK Sen.] Ted Stevens and the Republicans, the voters protect the Democrats and relieve them of any 'tough' decisions. [...] At any rate, good riddance."

Daily Kos' brownsox is less cheery: "I'm glad Jefferson is gone, but the Republicans are going to have a field day with this (having apparently won the first three elections of the Obama Era, including one in a D+28 district). There were extenuating circumstances and they almost lost an election in LA-04 they should have won, but that won't stop them from having their fun."

Meanwhile, Open Left's Chris Bowers thinks Jefferson's loss -- coupled with Dem losses in the LA-04 race and the GA Senate race -- indicates that Dems are hurting themselves with their "bi-partisan talk": "[T]he constant talk about the need for bi-partisanship and a 'team of rivals' coming from Democrats isn't exactly encouraging Democratic turnout these days. All three of these elections, especially GA-Sen and LA-02, featured very low Democratic turnout. It probably didn't help that national Democratic leaders, including Barack Obama, are telling everyone, Democrats included, how great it is for Republicans to be included in the federal government. When one of the major parties is telling everyone that it is great when the opposing party wins, then the opposing party is probably going to win."

SHINSEKI: A "Screw You" To Bush?

Liberal bloggers are praising Obama's decision to tap retired Gen. Eric K. Shinseki as VA Sec. Lefty bloggers love the symbolic effect of Obama's appointment of a general who famously clashed with ex-Def. Sec. Donald Rumsfeld:

• digby: "I may not be happy with [Def. Sec.] Bob Gates at the pentagon, but this guy is a great choice. There should be at least one big screw you to [Pres. George W.] Bush and this is a good one. It says to the world that the crazy Codpiece and Rumsfeld years are well and truly behind us."
• BooMan: "Obama has finally delivered a finger-in-the-eye moment to the Bush administration. [...] In selecting [Shinseki] as the Secretary of Veteran's Affairs, Obama is providing a constant reminder to all veterans that the Bush administration was wrong about Iraq, while the incoming president was right. It's a small measure of revenge, but it feels good."
• AMERICAblog's John Aravosis: "You have to give the Obama people credit. They are quite adept at slipping the knife in slowly. Obama is appointing retired General Eric Shinseki to be our next secretary of Veterans Affairs. You might recall that Shinseki is the guy who basically canned by Rumsfeld after he testified to Congress that we might need hundreds of thousands of US troops to quell Iraq."
• Bowers: "Given that he was right about this disaster, it is a positive development that Eric Shinseki has now been selected to run the Department of Veteran's Affairs. People who were right about such major decisions facing our country should be rewarded, just as President-elect Obama was rewarded by the country at least in part due to his early opposition to the war in Iraq. In truth, Shinseki should probably have received an even higher post for his foresight, such as Secretary of Defense."
• Firedoglake's Spencer Ackerman: "To say this is an inspired choice underscores its magnitude. Shinseki's personal courage and virtue are close to unparalleled in the current generation of general officers. He knows the sacrifices of war personally, as he left part of his right foot in Vietnam. The new generation of Iraq and Afghanistan veterans -- already underserved by the country that sent them to war -- can know that he has their backs. After all, before the war began, he all but ended his career (Rumsfeld had announced his successor months before after they feuded over the Crusader artillery system) by telling Congress that the indefinite occupation of Iraq would require hundreds of thousands of troops to keep the peace, far beyond the antiseptic and now-discredited estimates of the Bush administration."

On the right side of the blogosphere, RedState's Streiff offers his thoughts: "I'm not a big fan of Shinseki for a number of reasons. [...] What the AP, and the press in general, fails to note is that Shinseki was essentially fired, i.e. his successor was announced while he still had 14 months left in his tenure as CSA, for being a disloyal **** and actively lobbying to preserve a weapons system the OSD did not want. [...] In short, Shinseki was 'fired' nearly a year before his testimony, and his testimony has more to do with the need to stick a finger in Rumsfeld's eye than with any professional assessment. Having said that, I am cheered by the selection of General Shinseki as the Secretary of Veterans Affairs rather than a politcal hack like [ex-GA Sen.] Max Cleland who has made a career of riding his admittedly serious injuries."

SEBELIUS: Keeping Her Options Open?

Liberal bloggers don't mind the fact that KS Gov. Kathleen Sebelius has removed her name from consideration for any position in Obama's cabinet, as they're hoping that Sebelius runs for Sam Brownback's Senate seat in 2010:

• Daily Kos' Scout Finch: "Now that [Sebelius] has formally withdrawn herself for consideration of a cabinet position, let's hope it is a signal she does intend to run for senate in 2010. She has the best opportunity to win in generations and it sure would be nice to finally see some Jayhawk blue representation in Washington."
• MyDD's Jonathan Singer: "While Sebelius would have brought a great deal to an Obama administration, having her on the outside, potentially running for the Senate two years from now, could actually do more to help Obama and the Democratic Party in the long run."
• BooMan: "I admit that I'm happy [about Sebelius's decision], not because I don't think Sebelius deserves to be in the cabinet, but because she is the only Democrat capable of winning Sam Brownback's senate seat in 2010."

NY SEN: The Netroots Don't Like Dynasties

Liberal bloggers reacted coolly to the news that Obama aide Caroline Kennedy is interested in filling Hillary Clinton's Senate seat once Clinton becomes Sec/State:

• Firedoglake's Jane Hamsher: "[This is] a truly terrible idea. [Kennedy's] leadership could have been really helpful when the rest of us were trying to keep the progressive lights on and getting the stuffing beaten out of us by a very well-financed right wing for the past eight years. But when things were tough, she was nowhere to be found. Now that the Democrats are in power, she'd like to come in at the top. We have absolutely no idea if she's qualified, or whether she can take the heat of being a Kennedy in public life. She's certainly shown no appetite for it in the past. She'll have a target on her back and if she can't take it, if she crumbles, she will become a rallying point that the right will easily organize around. [...] I'm glad she had fun being part of a winning campaign in a year that saw a rather rosy playing field for Democrats. But simply being well-known and a member of the 'American nobility' in a celebrity-driven society shouldn't be enough to axiomatically entitle her to be a member of the US Senate."
• Daily Kos' Markos Moulitsas: "I hate political dynasties. Hate them. But Jane [Hamsher] is right, in this case, the idea is particularly egregious -- Caroline has done nothing to help beat back the right-wing machine. But now, she's supposed to be handed by fiat what others fight their whole lives to attain?"
• Atrios: "It's one thing when the children of politicians use their name and network advantages to make political careers for themselves -- regrettable but inevitable in our very imperfect meritocracy -- but quite another when it's just bestowed on them."

MyDD's Todd Beeton: "Certainly her celebrity, which comes with 100% name recognition, is worth a fortune when it comes to running statewide in 2010. But that's the thing, she'll have to run and win in a couple of years and that's something Kennedy has never done. I've seen her speak, she is almost painfully reserved and charisma-free; will she be able to convince the state that they should vote for her on her own merits? And will her appointment be seen as having been earned or just a function of her famous name? Or will any of this matter because really, how do you run against Caroline Kennedy?"

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: You Don't Understand -- This Bush Is A Conservative!

RedState's Erickson defends his decision to endorse ex-FL Gov. Jeb Bush's potential Senate candidacy:

"On Friday, when we first gave voice to the idea of Jeb Bush for United States Senate, a number of readers and others opined against the idea. The general refrain was 'We're tired of Bushes.' There were some additional 'amnesty' and 'offshore drilling' chants thrown in, as well. [...]

It is a rather noxious notion in a democracy that any person would punish an innocent man for the crimes of his siblings or parents. In this case, it is noxious that we would show distain for a true conservative champion because people are tired of his brother. [...] Jeb Bush said he would govern as a conservative, and he did exactly that. For all the liberalism his brother pumped into conservatism in an attempt to show 'compassion,' Jeb Bush has used legitimately conservative means to be compassionate. [...]

For conservatives who are tired of Bushes, the Bushes got into power with a lot of your support. You don't fix your mistake by running from it. Fix your mistake by fixing it -- embrace Jeb Bush and help redeem the image of a party largely hurt by its connection to the wrong Bush. Supporting Jeb Bush does, in fact, help rebuild the brand, and it does so in sharp [contrast] to his brother."

LEST WE FORGET: Gotta Enforce The Rules

From Overheard in the Office:

Counter person at Boston Market: Hi, can I help you?
Customer: Yes, I'd like a dinner for twelve, please.
Counter person: Oh, I'm sorry. For orders that large you have to call catering at least twenty-four hours in advance.
Customer: Er, then how about two dinners for six?
Counter person: Oh, sure, we can do that.

Posted by Ian Faerstein at 12:33 PM

December 05, 2008

12/5: The Netroots Eye Specter's Seat

Liberal bloggers reacted coolly to reports that MSNBC pundit Chris Matthews is "dead serious" about challenging PA Sen. Arlen Specter in 2010. Some lefty bloggers are fiercely opposed to the notion of a Matthews candidacy; they consider him a "blowhard" who cares more about getting attention for himself than promoting progressive principles. They're also offended by his numerous controversial on-air statements.

Other liberal bloggers aren't quite so strongly opposed to Matthews, but they would prefer that PA Dems nominate someone else. Chris Bowers thinks that PA Reps. Allyson Schwartz and Patrick Murphy could both be strong candidates. Markos Moulitsas prefers Schwartz, as he thinks Murphy made a "bad move" by joining the Blue Dog Coalition.

Regardless of who PA Dems end up nominating, it's clear that the netroots will be watching this race closely, as they're convinced that Specter is vulnerable.

PA SEN: Don't Do It, Chris

Several liberal bloggers are very critical of Matthews:

• Open Left's David Sirota: "Having grown up outside of Philadelphia, I just want to say I really hope Chris Matthews runs for the U.S. Senate in Pennsylvania, and is humiliatingly obliterated in a Democratic primary (preferably by a good progressive like, for instance, former Rep. Joe Hoeffel). The sense of entitlement that this blowhard personifies is truly stunning. He's spent his entire life as a principle-free political gossip in Washington -- a human embodiment of all that is sick and wrong with Beltway culture. And yet, he really thinks he can just parachute into one of the largest states in the country, buy a mansion in Philadelphia and be a senator on sheer celebrity alone."
• Balloon Juice's John Cole: "I can't think of anyone who wants Chris Matthews as a Senator."

Open Left's Bowers would support Matthews if he were the Dem nominee, but he would prefer that he not run: "I have enjoyed Matthews over much of the past few months, but he seems like more of a Villager than a progressive. Obviously, I would support him if he is the nominee, but I think he would be better off as a talk show host. Pundits just seem to have a better life than elected officials."

Conservative blogger Jim Geraghty thinks PA Dems would be foolish to nominate Matthews: "How eager are Pennsylvania Democrats to concede what will probably be a pretty winnable race against Sen. Arlen Specter to some television show host blowhard? Doesn't any Keystone State Democrat who's actually been elected to office want to take a shot at that seat? Or are he and [Al] Franken (and Jerry Springer!) a sign that Democrats now outsource their Senate races to whoever's on T.V. these days?"

PA SEN II: Who Else Is Out There?

Liberal bloggers are discussing the other Dem candidates who could potentially challenge Specter in 2010, as they believe that Specter is "more vulnerable than many think":

• Daily Kos' Moulitsas: "Specter clocks in the mid-40s, and facing a possible primary rematch with Club for Growth chief Pat Toomey, will have two tough contests ahead. Given his ill health, I give better than even odds that Specter decides to retire instead. As for Matthews, all indications are that despite his serious man crushes on George W. Bush (and his codpiece), he's serious -- even if some think it's all one big contract negotiating ploy with MSNBC. As for more serious potential candidates, Rep. Joe Sestak's office issued a statement saying that he wouldn't run for the seat. Reps. Allyson Schwartz and Patrick Murphy are likely considering runs. Murphy, while originally supported by this site in the 2006 Netroots Candidates ActBlue fundraising list, headed over to the dark side by joining the Blue Dogs. Bad move. Schwartz, on the other hand, would be awesome."
• Bowers: "[Schwartz's] voting record puts her roughly in the middle of the House Democratic caucus. She would be the first woman elected either U.S. Senator or Governor in Pennsylvania, and is a real champion for reproductive rights, so she would probably receive EMILY's List backing. Combine this with her support of the bankruptcy bill, and she should have money up the ying-yang. [...] Since taking office, Murphy has joined the Blue Dogs and voted with the conservative end of the caucus on most issues, coming in between [MN Rep.] Colin Peterson and [KS Rep.] Nancy Boyda over the last two years on Progressive Punch. Still, I like Patrick quite a bit personally, and his magnetism as a candidate should not be underestimated. [...Another] possibility is Josh Shapiro, a Montgomery County member of the State Assembly. Josh is highly thought of in many local political circles, but he would have a difficult time competing with any of the three candidates already listed."

MyDD's Jonathan Singer thinks Murphy would be a strong candidate: "Patrick Murphy does have a good track record of winning in the suburban areas of Philadelphia key to winning statewide in Pennsylvania, and with more than $1.5 million in the bank as of the middle of October, Murphy would have a good basis from which to launch a Senate run if he wanted to jump in."

OBAMA: Enough With The Conspiracy Theorizing!

Now that the Supreme Court is considering whether to take up a lawsuit challenging Obama's U.S. citizenship, conservative bloggers are throwing cold water on the notion that Obama isn't a U.S. citizen:

• Michelle Malkin: "A dangerously large segment of the birth certificate hunters have lurched into rabid Truther territory. The most prominent crusader against Obama's American citizenship claim, lawyer Philip Berg (who, not coincidentally, is also a prominent 9/11 Truther), disputes that Obama was born in Hawaii and claims that Obama's paternal grandmother told him she saw Obama born in Kenya. Berg and his supporters further assert that the 'Certification of Live Birth' produced by Obama was altered or forged. They claim that the contemporaneous birth announcement in a Hawaii newspaper of Obama's birth is insufficient evidence that he was born there. (Did a fortune-teller place it in the paper knowing he would run for president?)."
• RedState's Erick Erickson: "Let's say Obama really is from Kenya. Let's say the birth certificate, despite being validated by a Republican administration in Hawaii and despite a birth announcement in a Hawaiian newspaper -- let's say it's all a fraud. So what? Does anyone really, really think five justices of the United States Supreme Court are going to throw him out of office or deny him the right to run again? Seriously? After over 50% of the nation voted to elect him? That will not happen. And if it did, there'd be a greater percentage of people up in arms over than voted for the guy. So, in all of this talk about the birth certificate, the people pushing the story are distracting themselves from the real news. I bet Obama is really, really thrilled that so many people are focusing on the birth certificate because these same people will wholly ignore all the other stuff."
• Hot Air's Ed Morrissey: "I'm sure the comments section will fill with various conspiracy theories over Indonesian school records, Kenyan births, and so on. None of it -- absolutely none -- has any real, solid evidence showing that Obama was born anywhere else than Hawaii apart from sheer speculation and hearsay, and even less evidence that Obama's stepfather renounced Obama's birthright citizenship, which he didn't have the power to do anyway. It's a conspiracy theory spun by conspiracy theorists (Philip Berg is a 9/11 truther) who use their normal thresholds of evidence for this meme."
• Right Wing News' John Hawkins: "This story isn't a conspiracy theory per se. A President has to be an American citizen from birth to qualify for the presidency and I think some of the questions raised about the certificate of live birth that has been floating around are legitimate (although I also think the preponderance of the evidence shows that it's real). Combine that with the fact that Obama spent much of his childhood in a foreign country and I understand why people have questions. That being said, this whole debate has taken on the tone of a conspiracy theory. I have yet to see anyone who believes that Barack Obama is not an American citizen put together any sort of logical, coherent explanation for why he thinks that's the case. Nor have I seen any attempt to explain things like 'a newspaper clipping from the 1961 Honolulu Advertiser that mentions Obama being born.'"

CLINTON: Not Everyone On The Right Has Fallen For Her...

Several American Spectator bloggers are urging Senate GOPers not to confirm NY Sen. Hillary Clinton as Sec/State:

• AmSpec Blog's Quin Hillyer: "The idea of Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State ought to make conservatives tremble with foreboding. It is truly bizarre to see so many on the right unquestioningly accepting a notion that just a year ago would have been laughable, namely that she is a relative 'moderate' on foreign policy. And it's even more astonishing that any reasonable news organization, or any serious senator, would consider her manifold ethical lapses as being anything other than immediately disqualifying for such a lofty appointive position."
• AmSpec Blog's Robert Stacy McCain thinks it would be politically smart for GOPers to aggressively fight Clinton's nomination: "First, tough questioning during Hillary's confirmation hearings would give Republicans a chance to play on familiar turf, emptying out the oppo-research files (see Amanda Carpenter's Dossier, for starters). The New York-based media loves any Hillary-related news and so, at a bare minimum, the GOP could get a week's worth of front-page headlines out of the hearings. Second, a real fight over Hillary's nomination would give Republicans a chance to establish the 'corruption' meme at the outset of the Obama administration. The Clinton connection -- including all of Bill [Clinton]'s shadowy conflicts of interest -- ties Obama to the politics of the past (rather than Hope and Change) and a confirmation fight will help cement that connection in the public mind. [...] Could Senate Republicans actually defeat the Clinton nomination? Probably not, but that doesn't mean it isn't worth trying."

The Next Right's Jon Henke thinks Clinton will get confirmed no matter what: "Quin Hilyer doesn't think Hillary Clinton should be confirmed as Secretary of State, for a variety of reasons. Others suggest the emolument clause of the Constitution or the Clinton's foreign entanglements could create problems during Senator Clinton's confirmation hearing. Maybe, but I doubt it. Most of the potential problems seem basically unrelated to the role of Secretary of State, or have been addressed long ago. Perhaps more relevantly, relationships matter and by all accounts Hillary Clinton has good relationships with her Senate colleagues. I very much doubt her fellow Senators (especially in a large majority Democratic Senate) will play hardball against a colleague."

ECONOMY: Do They Want A Recession?

Liberal bloggers are speculating about the motives of GOP politicians who oppose a fiscal stimulus bill:

• Think Progress' Matthew Yglesias: "As I documented, the right initially tended toward a neo-Hooverite line on the economic crisis. Then came a seeming shift and the emergence of a broad consensus in favor of strong action. Recently, though, there's been a tilt back in the neo-Hooverite direction even as the crisis has grown more severe..."
• Open Left's Matt Stoller: "Deflation transfers wealth from debtors to creditors, which is another way of saying from people who are cash poor (the poor, the middle class, entrepreneurs, risk-takers) to people who have cash (the risk-averse rich). [...] In order to restart the economy, the distribution has to work in reverse, part of the monetary base has to move to people who will spend from those who hoard through various monetary and fiscal arrangements (ie. government). And here you see the political problem; people that have money would prefer that they remain on top, and will oppose attempts to restart spending from a broad base. These people are known as 'conservatives', and they have their Beltway facing servants writing screeds about how the New Deal failed in the 1930s."
• The Democratic Strategist's Ed Kilgore: "While I am quite sure that Republicans are not about to hoist banners reading 'Deflation Now!' a look back at the conflicts over the first 'bailout' package and some of the GOP rhetoric surrounding the presidential campaign should make it clear that there is in fact a strong undercurrent of conservative hostility to any sort of relief measures that don't simply involve tax cuts or deregulation. Those who convinced themselves that the mortgage crisis was caused by ACORN and poor and minority borrowers certainly are in no hurry to succor such Obama-supporting miscreants. More generally, there's always been a large faction of conservatives who favored the occasional 'healthy' recession to wring 'excess demand' out of the economy."
• TPM's Josh Marshall: "There's an interesting and I think important question here as to whether neo-Hooeverite Republicans are pushing Hooverite policies for strictly economic reasons (creditors can do well in a deflationary economy), moral reasons (need a good hard recession to re-teach the poor moral values) or just because they're economic illiterates who just don't feel right echoing the calls of centrist and liberal economists."

The Washington Monthly's Steve Benen: "To hear GOP leaders tell it, the appropriate response to the current crisis is less investment and more spending cuts. I'd like to assume that [SC Gov. Mark] Sanford, [House Min. Leader John] Boehner, and other conservatives don't want to deliberately destroy the economy, so perhaps it's best if they take this opportunity to enjoy a little quiet time."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Statehood For D.C.?

Yglesias wants Congress "to use its power to admit new states to admit the State of Columbia as the fifty-first state":

"For Democrats, this would mean two new Senators and one new Representative. It would also uphold the basic American idea that citizens should be allowed to vote and should be represented in congress. It would be totally constitutional. And though Columbia would be a small state, it would have a larger population than several current states. Republicans, obviously, wouldn't like the idea. But I don't think there are serious arguments of principle against it."

Moulitsas isn't so enthusiastic about the idea:

"I get the problem with DC residents not having representation in Congress. It's a travesty of democracy. And the partisan in me likes the idea of adding two guaranteed Democratic senators. I also get that DC has a larger population than one other state [Wyoming]. That said, it would be weird to have a state essentially be a city, and a mid-sized one, at that. Is 'weird' a reason to deny people the right of representation? Obviously not. But why then not make NYC its own state? Indeed, with a population of 8.3 million, it's larger than 39 other states. Same with Chicago, LA, Philadelphia, or whatever. Washington is only the 27th largest city in the US. Why should it enjoy more representation than any of those urban centers? To me, the more obvious solution is to simply have DC annexed by either Maryland or Virginia. (Preferably Virginia, which would solidify it as a solid Blue state, and most of NOVA is a suburb of DC anyway.)"

LEST WE FORGET: Bill Clinton Agrees To Disclose Guacamole Recipe

From The Onion:

"WASHINGTON -- In a major stride toward increased transparency of former presidents' culinary activities, Bill Clinton agreed Monday to disclose a highly guarded guacamole recipe -- including a full list of ingredients -- so that his wife, Sen. Hillary Clinton, can be named the next Secretary of State. 'President Clinton's efforts will help us avoid any potential ethical problems that the continued secrecy of the preparation instructions for this delicious Mexican appetizer could cause,' said Obama transition team spokesperson Ian Gloucester, who added that the recipe will be vetted for any undue foreign influence from Middle Eastern flavors such as cumin. 'We're just trying to steer clear of the issues that would arise if this dish was to be served in the White House, and it was discovered that the provenance of the recipe was less than savory.' Administration insiders said that if the guacamole recipe is traced back to celebrity television chef Rachael Ray, Sen. Clinton will be compelled to decline her nomination."

Posted by Ian Faerstein at 12:30 PM

December 04, 2008

12/4: Senate Speculation

Senate races -- past, present, and future -- have been a major topic in the blogosphere lately. First of all, bloggers continue to debate the significance of GA Sen. Saxby Chambliss's comfortable victory in Tuesday's runoff election. As we noted yesterday, many conservative bloggers are portraying Chambliss's victory as a great sign for GOP prospects in the 2010 midterms. However, liberal bloggers (along with a few conservative ones) are arguing that GOPers are foolish to rejoice over the fact that Chambliss was re-elected in a red state like GA. Markos Moulitsas argues that "a [Jim] Martin victory would've been the upset of the decade" and writes: "Special elections are funny beasts, and it's not worth reading too much into them."

Meanwhile, bloggers are buzzing about the news that ex-FL Gov. Jeb Bush is considering running for Mel Martinez's Senate seat in 2010. Most liberal bloggers view Bush as a formidable opponent and believe that the race "would start as his to lose" if he decided to run. Other lefty bloggers claim that Bush "has his weaknesses" and may be vulnerable to someone like FL CFO Alex Sink. Righty bloggers, for the most part, are welcoming the news that Bush is considering a run.

FL SEN: Bush Fatigue Doesn't Apply Here

Liberal bloggers worry that Jeb Bush will be a formidable contender if he decides to run for Senate in 2010:

• Daily Kos' brownsox: "Bush left office with high approvals, and would be the strongest candidate the Republicans could find for the seat (with the possible exception of Governor Charlie Crist, who doesn't seem interested in a Senate bid). His entry would clear the field for the Republicans, and might knock a few Democrats out of the field as well, although it being an open-seat race, someone decent would no doubt take the plunge, figuring that the toxicity of the Bush name alone could help out, despite Jeb's personal popularity. He could be beaten by a Democrat, but if he ran, he'd start the race as the favorite. He wouldn't be favored like [VA Sen.-elect] Mark Warner was favored, but the race would start as his to lose."
• FiveThirtyEight's Nate Silver: "Bush left office in 2006 with approval ratings in the +20 range; they may have diminished slightly since then as a result of Bush Fatigue, but Floridians have little problem distinguishing Jeb from George W., even if that's less true of the rest of the country. Bush, should he choose to run, will have most of the advantages that an incumbent usually has: capital, name recognition, organization, enough stature to deter primary challengers. That is not to suggest that Bush would have a cakewalk into the Senate. He has his own baggage, and would be a fundraising magnet for Democrats. [...] Nevertheless, I think Martinez probably did do the Republicans a favor if their candidate winds up being Bush -- or Charlie Crist, who like Bush could run with most of the advantages of an incumbent."

Open Left's Matt Stoller argues that Bush "has his weaknesses": "In 1998, Jeb won the election against a weak opponent, [ex-FL LG] Buddy McKay, and triumphed in 2002 again against a relatively weak opponent, [lawyer] Bill McBride. Both times he was perceived as a moderate and highly competent Governor in a relatively apathetic state, and he's always able to shield his conservative views from public view because he's in a state level position. [...] Should he run for Senate, Jeb Bush will have an entirely different experience. If his opponent is Alex Sink, my guess is that he's going to have a really tough time. [...] Remember, the Bush family is immensely corrupt, but that doesn't emerge unless there's actual scrutiny. Jeb has never been subjected to any such scrutiny, but it's hard to imagine that this situation can continue if he gets a serious contender. The Bush family is in disgrace, and I don't see how that changes in just two years, especially with the rumors flying around about Jeb's personal behavior and business shenanigans. 2010 will probably not be a good year for Democrats, but just because Jeb Bush is popular now doesn't mean that he's necessarily a strong candidate in two years."

MyDD's Jonathan Singer thinks it will hurt the GOP if Bush runs for Senate: "In the past two election cycles, in which George W. Bush loomed large, the Republicans have lost significant number of House seats (closing on 60), Senate seats (at least 13) and Governorships (seven), moving from what appeared to be a national party into a regional one. Yet now they might have a Bush as their most prominent candidate and what could be the most watched election contest in 2010? Republicans may even be able to win the Florida Senate race with Jeb Bush as their nominee, but at what cost? If they're willing to believe that having Bush as their standard bearer in 2010 would be a net positive, I've got a bridge to sell them..."

On the right side of the blogosphere, Hugh Hewitt hopes Bush will run: "Jeb 2010? This would be very welcome news within the GOP, providing a great start to the cycle and encouraging other strong candidates to follow suit."

GA SEN: Let's Not Get Too Overjoyed

Yesterday we observed that many conservative bloggers were playing up the significance of Sen. Chambliss's comfortable victory in Tuesday's runoff election. However, a few righty bloggers are urging their colleagues not to read too much significance into Chambliss's win:

• Townhall's Carol Platt Liebau: "It's great that Saxby Chambliss has won his re-election campaign and that the Democrats now will definitely lack a filibuster-proof majority. That being said, at risk of sounding like the skunk at the garden party (or the Lowell Weicker of the Townhall blog), it strikes me that too much GOP congratulation is a mistake. After all, if a Republican couldn't win a run-off election in Georgia (and when Barack Obama has largely declined to campaign for him), wouldn't that be more of a sign of political cataclysm than the opposite being a sign of impending victories? [...] What will be interesting is what happens if and when Obama hits the campaign trail in 2010. It's fair to say that he will probably be able to count on a core base of support for himself no matter what he does; the question is whether he will be able to rally those same supporters by his campaigning when he himself isn't on the ticket."
• AmSpec Blog's David Weigel: "Martin, let's remember, was never expected to win this election. He had lost a race for lieutenant governor in 2006 and was pulled out of mothballs to stop crooked DeKalb County CEO Vernon Jones from winning the Senate nomination and dragging down the ticket. [...] Not until the bailout vote did Chambliss start to slip, and even then I don't think he slipped below Martin in any poll. [...] Obviously, a Chambliss loss would have been a shocking death blow to Republican hopes. But Chambliss's survival hasn't altered Democratic plans at all."

Meanwhile, RedState's Erick Erickson slams Chambliss for suggesting that his campaign be a "model" for GOPers in 2010: "Saxby, do you realize your campaign did no significant outreach to third party groups in the general election? Seriously. Now I know some of your staff will say otherwise, but I've talked to the gun groups, the small business groups, the Christian groups, the free enterprise groups, and others -- they are all pretty damn unanimous that your outreach efforts were terrible. Likewise, you put yourself into this position. You talk about returning to your conservative roots -- well you start first. The immigration compromise hurt you with the base. The farm bill hurt you with the business community. The energy compromise hurt you with the part of the base not hurt by the immigration compromise. Then the bailout vote set you on fire and nobody could bother even peeing on you after that. You've gotten squishy on financial issues. You've gotten squishy on business issues. You've gotten comfortable in the establishment and the base does not see you as dependable anymore. In short Saxby, you pissed off everybody. And people did not come out to vote for you. They came out to stop a filibuster proof Democrat Senate."

GA SEN II: What Are You Cheering About, Conservatives?

Liberal bloggers continue to downplay the significance of Chambliss's victory:

• Daily Kos' Moulitsas: "Of course, while a Martin victory would've been the upset of the decade, Chambliss hanging on is now a stunning repudiation of Obama, or other such silliness. Yet it's about as significant as [Sen.] Mary Landrieu hanging on in a Louisiana runoff in 2002 while Republicans engaged in 'Operation Icing on the Cake' (after taking over the Senate). Well, the GOP didn't get their icing on the cake, but 2004 was a good enough consolation prize. [...] What yesterday's election definitely taught us is something we already knew -- that Democrats generally perform better the higher the turnout. Too many of our core constituencies are low performing ones -- racial and ethnic minorities and young voters. Obama got them out, and made Georgia close. Martin did not, and he got blown away in what is still a Red state. Throw in the fact that Democrats acted like the mission had been accomplished (Obama couldn't be bothered to lend too much of a hand), and there was little reason for his supporters to put in a similar effort."
• Firedoglake's Blue Texan: "Let's imagine for a second that [John] McCain-[Sarah] Palin had won the election with 365 electoral votes, and the Democrats had lost of bunch of seats in the House and Senate, after losing a boatload in 2006. And let's say that the Democratic brand was in such bad shape that [Sen.] Chuck Schumer was forced to mount a runoff campaign in dark blue New York. And then let's imagine that every national Democrat under the sun, including Obama, [NY Sen. Hillary] Clinton, [NM Gov. Bill] Richardson, [MA Sen. Ted] Kennedy, [MA Sen. John] Kerry, [ex-VP Al] Gore, [Jimmy] Carter, [ex-NC Sen. John] Edwards, and the ghosts of FDR and JFK schlepped up to New York state to save Schumer. And just for the hell of it, let's say [VP-elect] Joe Biden shows up the day before the election and gives 4 speeches. Schumer then wins the runoff election. So what would we conclude from all of this? That Biden is more awesome than McCain and that the Republicans better watch out in 2010. Memo to Erick [Erickson] -- McCain-Palin won Georgia last month as any Republican ticket would. But if you really want to interpret Chambliss the old white guy Christian incumbent hanging on to his seat in a state that until 2003 flew the Confederate battle flag as a sign that Palin is the future of a resurgent GOP -- knock yourself out."
• Daily Kos' Jed L: "When the GOP brags about winning the run-off in Georgia, it's worth remembering that through early October, most mainstream political analysts (with the notable exceptions of brownsox and Swing State Project) thought Saxby Chambliss had his re-election campaign locked up. Take, for example, Stu Rothenberg on September 14 or Charlie Cook on October 2. Both said that Georgia was a safe Republican senate seat. [...] So when the GOP crows about their 'big victory,' they should keep in mind that they won where they were supposed to win, and that the flip-side of denying Democrats a 60-vote majority is that with Georgia in the bag, Republicans now hold just 41 seats."

MN SEN: Fear The Frankenstein Monster!

Conservative bloggers continue to argue that Dem candidate Al Franken is trying to steal the Senate election in MN, which is currently undergoing a recount:

• Right Wing News' John Hawkins: "Here's how Democrats who want to steal elections play the game: the rules written before the election mean nothing. The only rule that means anything is that because 'every vote counts,' you must keep counting votes, some votes, any votes, until Democratic dirty tricksters can manufacture enough votes to get you ahead. Then -- and only then -- the counting is done. That's what Al Gore wanted to do. It's how Christine Gregoire won the governor's election in Washington back in 2004, and it's how Al Franken is going to try to win a Senate seat he lost at the ballot box. If, as expected, [Sen. Norm] Coleman wins the actual recount and is ahead when the results of the challenged ballots come through, Franken will insist that they count the absentee ballots despite the fact that Minnesota law clearly and unambiguously says that isn't done. If that doesn't work, Franken will to go to court and get enough votes added to his total or taken away from Coleman's total to win. If that fails, then it's off to the Senate, where he'll try to convince [Sen. Maj. Leader] Harry Reid to thwart the democratic process and force a revote rather than seat Coleman."
• Power Line's Scott Johnson: "Franken isn't talking or acting like a winner. As I wrote on Power Line this week, I conclude that Franken anticipates losing the recount. Franken has already resorted to litigation over rejected absentee ballots and threatened further litigation over the rejection of certain absentee ballots. He has met with Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid on the subject and won Reid's expression of concern implicitly raising the threat that the Senate Democratic majority may overturn the result reached in Minnesota if the rejected absentee ballots in issue aren't counted. Al Franken hasn't been funny in a very long time, but that is really unfunny."

EFCA: Make It Happen, Dems!

Liberal bloggers are urging passage of the Employee Free Choice Act:

• Daily Kos' Trapper John: "Without a real opportunity to join unions and build bargaining power, American workers will continue to experience stagnant wages. And as [AFL-CIO Assoc. Gen. Counsel Damon] Silvers eloquently explains, stagnant wages lead to unsustainable debt and a a downward economic spiral. The Employee Free Choice Act isn't just about fairness in the workplace -- it's a tool for engineering stimulus. And it won't cost the government a dime."
• digby: "Bloggers have been wondering whether or not the administration was planning to scale back it's support for the Employee Free Choice Act (based upon some rather broad hints and pundit speculation) and they say they aren't. This is important, especially at a time of such economic insecurity. [...] With the kind of support Obama's got going in, EFCA is something that's both achievable and necessary. Despite the hysterical commentary from the right these days, the fact is that unions strengthen the economy not weaken it."

Firedoglake's Jane Hamsher thinks the Obama admin. is sending good signals: "David Sirota recently wrote about how the incoming Obama administration is largely staffed with conservative policy people, and progressive political appointments -- i.e., the people crafting policy are essentially conservative, while the people tasked with packaging and selling the policy are progressives. [...] The question remains, Sirota noted, as to how they will function together. Will the political people have any power of their own, or will they merely be considered pitchmen who are supposed to make bitter conservative pills easier for progressives to swallow? We got to see the machinery in action yesterday, when Pach wrote a post about his inquiry to the progressive pitchmen asking for confirmation about Obama's commitment to the Employee Free Choice Act after Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel did not mention it as one of the administration's priorities and implied that they might be willing to trade it for health care. The spokespeople said that they weren't empowered to respond. Yet today, a statement was given to Sam Stein of the Huffington Post confirming Team Obama's commitment to Employee Free Choice. It appears that even though the progressive 'handlers' have no power, the question Pach publicly asked reverberated at a level that someone thought it demanded an answer. And in the process, questions asked by [James] Boyce and Sirota got answered too, I think."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Our New Era Of Volatility

Time's Barbara Kiviat (h/t Yglesias):

"Here's a look at some different time periods and the number of days the S&P 500 has moved up or down more than 5% during the trading day:

• 1950-2000: 27 days
• 2000-2006: 7 days
• Jan. 1-Sept. 30, 2008: 20 days
• Since Oct. 1, 2008: 22 days

Historically, we've seen a 5% swing less than 1% of the time. Through September, we were running at about 10%. These days, we're hitting the threshold more than half the time. Wear your seatbelts."

LEST WE FORGET: Twenty Minutes Spent Making Tuna Fish Palatable

From The Onion:

"PERRY, NY -- Local resident Gary Ingram, 28, spent more than a quarter of an hour transforming a wet, grayish pile of canned tuna fish into something he would actually put in his mouth, sources said Monday. 'Gotta have some pickles in there,' Ingram said after draining the flaccid, oil-soaked fish and adding mayonnaise, red onions, and various other condiments to help mask its actual flavor. 'And you can't have a tuna sandwich without some chopped celery and a couple of shots from the ol' Tabasco bottle.' Ingram reportedly would have needed an additional 55 minutes of preparation time to make the tuna fish into something he would feel comfortable serving to a group of friends."

Posted by Ian Faerstein at 12:40 PM

December 03, 2008

12/3: The GOP Comeback Begins?

Conservative bloggers are in a good mood following GOP Sen. Saxby Chambliss's big victory over Dem challenger Jim Martin in yesterday's runoff election in GA. Righty bloggers are highlighting the fact that Chambliss's margin of victory yesterday was much larger than his margin of victory on Nov. 4th, when Barack Obama was on the ballot. Conservative bloggers see this as evidence that Obama's appeal is unique to him and does not extend to other Dems. Soren Dayton declares:

"This tells us that Americans picked Obama and change, but not a broad Democratic or left-leaning agenda for America. [...] When progressives were on the ballot, not just a celebrity, the progressives were roundly rejected."

Conservative bloggers are also portraying Chambliss's win as a good sign for GOP prospects in the 2010 midterms. Ed Morrissey notes that Martin's impressive showing on Nov. 4th was dependent on "Obama driving the turnout model." He concludes: "If that same dynamic holds true across the country in 2010, Obama may have an extremely disappointing midterm election and could find himself with at least one chamber of Congress under opposition control for the second half of his term."

GA SEN: An Ominous Sign For Dems?

Conservative bloggers are playing up the significance of Chambliss's big win in yesterday's runoff election, which they see as evidence that Obama's popularity is unique to him and does not extend to other Dems:

• RedState's Erick Erickson: "Ladies and Gentlemen, black voters turned out for Obama, but not for Obama's candidates. Remember that for 2010."
• The Next Right's Dayton: "When Barack Obama was on the ballot in Georgia, Jim Martin was within 3% of Saxby Chambliss. Without Obama, Martin gets blown out by 20%. Saxby's message was that a vote for Martin was a vote for a blank check for Democrats. Today Georgians rejected a blank check for the Democratic Party by far more than typical GOP margins in a red state. This tells us that Americans picked Obama and change, but not a broad Democratic or left-leaning agenda for America. [...] So when the Democrats try to push through outrageous things like card-check, significant tax-increases, etc., all we need to do is point to tonight. When progressives were on the ballot, not just a celebrity, the progressives were roundly rejected."
• Hot Air's Morrissey: "[These results] call into question the Democrats' standing after the Obama phenomenon. At least in Georgia, Obama had a lot more coattails than anyone credited. I originally predicted that Chambliss would win by six or seven points without Barack Obama driving the turnout model, but his absence created a difference of 13 points between the two elections. If that same dynamic holds true across the country in 2010, Obama may have an extremely disappointing midterm election and could find himself with at least one chamber of Congress under opposition control for the second half of his term. [...Sen. Maj. Leader] Harry Reid and [House Speaker] Nancy Pelosi should take note: their modest gains in 2008 didn't come as an endorsement of their previous two years of leadership in Congress. If they think they can move even farther to the Left and survive the next midterms, they're fooling themselves."
• Townhall's Hugh Hewitt: "GOP activists are smiling across the country. Not only is a theoretical filibuster safe, but this is evidence that the Obama coattails are short indeed. If the GOP gets its house in order, there's every reason to expect 2010 and 2012 to be very good years for the Republicans as the 'change' mantra runs its course and voters begin to recollect that the Democrats took over the Congress in January of 2007 -- before the economy cratered."
• Power Line's Scott Johnson: "The decisive victory won by Saxby Chambliss over Jim Martin yesterday in the Georgia Senate runoff is reassuring in several respects. A contrary result would have carried a disproportionately large negative impact. It would have added further weight to the notion that some fundamental shift occurred on November 4. It would have added to the demoralization felt by Republicans licking their wounds following the results on November 4. It would have brought Democrats to within shouting distance of a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate."
• The Weekly Standard's John McCormack: "On November 4, Chambliss edged out Martin by a mere 3 points, so it's clear that Obama's coattails significantly helped Martin. I bet [NC Sen.] Liddy Dole wishes she could face off against [NC Sen.-elect] Kay Hagan again with the Obama Juggernaut on the sidelines."
• RedState's Pejman Yousefzadeh: "[W]ith Saxby Chambliss's big win in today's Georgia Senate runoff, Obamamania has met certain limits."

AmSpec Blog's Philip Klein sees Chambliss's win as proof that people are over-emphasizing the importance of organization: "For the Georgia run-off, Obama kept offices open and was lending his turnout operation to Democrat Jim Martin, yet Saxby Chambliss still won handily. This is a good indication of what I've believed for a long time -- that all of the emphasis on organization distracts us from facing the reality that candidates win when they give voters a reason to vote for them and/or against their opponent, not because of the superior use of the latest technology."

GA SEN II: Analyzing The Defeat

Several liberal bloggers are downplaying the significance of Chambliss's victory:

• The Washington Monthly's Steve Benen: "Republicans have the smallest House minority in nearly two decades, and the smallest Senate minority in nearly three decades. They got trounced in the presidential race, and are now easily outnumbered in the nation's governorships. But they managed, with surprising difficulty, to hold on to a Senate seat in Georgia. Can't you just feel the momentum?"
• Oliver Willis: "Woe are the Democrats who will have to make do with 58-59 members of their senate caucus, total control of the House and a President with a serious mandate. We'll muddle through."

Open Left's Chris Bowers, on the other hand, is upset by the loss: "Damn. Much now rests on Minnesota, including the Employee Free Choice Act."

FiveThirtyEight's Nate Silver argues that Chambliss embraced a centrist message that resonated with the electorate: "I tend to think that we should not be too dismissive of Saxby Chambliss's win in Georgia tonight. Although the outcome was expected, and although runoffs and special elections sometimes behave in idiosyncratic ways, moving from a 3-point margin of victory on November 4 to a 15-point margin of victory a month later is a significant accomplishment. [...Chambliss] ran fairly hard toward the center. Chambliss cut three new ads for the runoff; one was a positive spot that stressed his experience and bipartisanship, the second was a warm and fuzzy and almost completely apolitical Thanksgiving's greetings message, and the third was a contrast spot that accused Martin and Obama of wanting to increase taxes. This was fairly harmless stuff, not the sort of thing that raises liberal ire nor that associates Chambliss with the Rovian wing of the Republican party. [...] I believe that the 2010 election cycle may actually be a fairly substantive, grown-up affair, essentially a battle over who can frame themselves as being more reasonable and bipartisan."

Open Left's Matt Stoller: "If there's some lesson from Georgia, the relatively low turnout despite great organizing work suggests whatever changes occurred to the map [since] November, 2004 have not really shifted voter allegiances in any firm ideological sense yet. While the Democrats as a whole have changed the conversation somewhat, McCain nationally still got 46% of the vote, and that's only 4 points from a majority, or 1 in 25 Americans. And Georgia is still Georgia."

Obsidian Wings' publius thinks Obama was wise not to campaign for Martin: "I suppose there will be some grumbling that Obama could have done more for Martin, but I think Obama made the right call by staying out of it. Let's face it -- it was pretty much hopeless from the moment in went to the runoff. There was simply no way that black turnout levels today would match election night. [...] In addition, I think it would have been somewhat distasteful for Obama to spend his post-election honeymoon in a partisan political campaign -- particularly given the various emergencies the nation is facing. If Obama could have actually made a difference, then maybe it's worth burning the capital and alienating Republicans. But given that it was a hopeless cause, I think this was a no-brainer."

FL SEN: Bye, Mel

Conservative bloggers aren't too upset that GOP Sen. Mel Martinez has decided against seeking re-election in 2010:

• Michelle Malkin: "Finally, a bit of good news to report: GOP Sen. Mel 'Shamnesty' Martinez will not seek re-election in 2010."
• Hot Air's Allahpundit: "[Martinez] wants 'more free time and a less scheduled life', which, given his approval rating, is probably what he would have ended up with anyway. [...] Who'll be Maverick's Florida point man on that looming amnesty deal now?"
• AmSpec Blog's James Antle: "On the one hand, this looks like more of the same: Another Republican who could conceivably be reelected is throwing a seat to the wolves rather than toiling in the minority. On the other, it shouldn't be too difficult to find a Republican candidate who fires up the party's base -- still a significant force in Florida -- better than Mel Martinez."

Liberal bloggers were delighted by the news:

• MyDD's Jerome Armstrong: "This now leaves the Florida Senate seat for 2010 wide open, maybe. [...] Who will run on the Dems side? I'd like to see [FL Congressman-elect] Alan Grayson run for the Senate."
• Daily Kos' Markos Moulitsas: "It's no fun playing defense, especially when you're part of an essentially powerless minority and a member of a party that was just repudiated nationwide and in your own state. With Democrats close enough to 60 votes that they can defeat filibusters on an issue-by-issue basis, there's little for Republican lawmakers to do than warm their seats. The GOP is slated for some time in the wilderness, and there are personalities who can't handle sitting around and doing nothing. Note what else this means: The GOP caucus in the Senate will go back to being 100 percent anglo."

OBAMA: The Netroots Get Meta

Liberal bloggers are debating among themselves whether or not it's premature to criticize Obama based on his cabinet picks. Some bloggers have chosen to withhold judgment until Obama assumes the Presidency and starts implementing his policies. For instance, Moulitsas sarcastically writes:

"Raise your hand if you're disenchanted with the Obama Administration, even though we're only in day negative 49 of his reign."

On the other hand, Open Left's David Sirota argues that it's not too early to apply pressure on Obama: "There's nothing disloyal, silly or uniformed about looking at [Obama's] appointments and asking why many of them seem to individually represent positions and ideologies at odds with the positions and ideologies he campaigned on. And despite the insistence by some that we should 'just wait until Obama's in office' and shut up and 'give Obama a chance,' there's nothing disloyal, silly or uninformed about speaking out about those questions and concerns now -- because he is already exercising power when making these appointments, and as Frederick Douglass said, 'power concedes nothing without demand.'"

Meanwhile, Salon's Glenn Greenwald argues that bloggers are entitled to give Obama the benefit of the doubt with regard to his cabinet picks, but that they shouldn't praise Obama's picks either: "By all means, wait to judge Obama based on his decisions and policies, not who he appoints to administer them. But that should be true for both praise and criticism. Heaping praise and gratitude on the very same people who have been integral parts of the broken, dirty Washington system -- thank God that [ex-SD Sen.] Tom Daschle, [Def. Sec.] Bob Gates, [NY Sen.] Hillary Clinton and [VP-elect] Joe Biden are in charge! -- borders on the masochistic, particularly without seeing evidence that they will do things differently than what they've done in the past. Will [ex-Deputy AG] Eric Holder operate by different rules than what guided him in the [Marc] Rich pardon? One won't know until he begins operating, but skepticism (i.e., demanding evidence before issuing praise of political officials) is far more constructive than giddy, unearned optimism."

HOLDER: New Sh*t Has Come To Light, Man!

Several liberal bloggers are now voicing qualms about Holder -- Obama's choice for AG -- after The New York Times revealed that Holder "was more deeply involved in the Rich pardon than his supporters acknowledge":

• Ezra Klein: "This probably won't be a popular post, but I basically agree with [Washington Post columnist] Richard Cohen on Eric Holder. The Marc Rich episode continues to unsettle, in part because it has deeper implications. [...] I'm not one who thinks the attorney general should be some sort of lone renegade within the administration, but he should feel empowered to aggressively push back against abuses of presidential power. Holder's history offers little evidence of that sort of temperament."
• TAPPED's Adam Serwer: "Previously I've suggested that criticisms of Eric Holder's involvement in the Marc Rich pardon were insignificant, but I was significantly mistaken. The New York Times reports today that Holder was deeply involved in the pardon process, to the point of recommending to Rich's advocates that they retain the lawyer who Holder now says 'played' him. [...] This represents at best negligence, and at worst incompetence on Holder's part. And the hypocrisy of Holder suggesting Rich deserved a pardon, while supporting draconian drug penalties should not be lost."
• Firedoglake's looseheadprop: "You may recall that some of us here at FDL have been trying to point out to President Elect Obama that Eric Holder may not be the best choice for AG. [...] Not just for the Marc Rich pardon, but also for his handling of the Chiquita payments to terrorists case. There is a disturbing pattern in his behavior of going around the normal rules to get special treatment for the rich and already over privileged."

Greenwald still supports Holder for AG despite his involvement in the Rich pardon: "Why doesn't Holder's involvement in the Rich pardon make him unqualified to be Attorney General? Aside from the vital fact that there are many other factors that must be taken into account -- principally, the likelihood that Holder can and will reverse the extreme Justice Department abuses of the last eight years, which I think is relatively high (though he should renounce his disturbing 2002 pro-[Donald] Rumsfeld statements about Guantanamo and the Geneva Conventions) -- it's because none of these sins are unique to Holder. This is vintage Washington. This is the filthy, venal sleaze on which both political parties feed. It's what fuels how the Beltway operates. [...] For that reason, it would be next to impossible to find people who have been a part of this system who haven't been infected -- or more accurately: who haven't infected themselves -- at one point or another with this disease."

Mother Jones' Kevin Drum also supports Holder: "Holder's role in the Rich pardon is obviously disturbing, as he himself has admitted, and there's no doubt it will get raised in his confirmation hearings. But the real question is whether this was an isolated mistake or evidence of a pattern, and so far I've seen no evidence to suggest the latter. [...] If we barred from high office every person who failed even once to stand up to his boss, we'd have a pretty small pool of candidates to choose from."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: You Call This A Meritocracy?

Greenwald decries the "nepotistic succession in the political class":

"Bill Clinton yesterday was forced to deny speculation that he would be appointed to replace his wife in the U.S. Senate. Leading candidates for that seat still include John F. Kennedy's daughter (Caroline [Kennedy]), Robert Kennedy's son (RFK, Jr.), and Mario Cuomo's son (Andrew [Cuomo]). In Illinois, a leading contender to replace Barack Obama in the Senate is Jesse Jackson's son (Jesse [Jackson], Jr.). In Delaware, it was widely speculated that Joe Biden would be replaced by his son, Beau [Biden], and after Beau took his name out of the running because he's now serving in Iraq, the naming of the actual replacement -- lone-time (Joe) Biden aide Ted Kaufmann -- 'upset local Democrats who believe the move was a ham-handed attempt to engineer the election of Biden's son, Beau, to the Senate in 2010.'

Meanwhile, in Alaska, Lisa Murkowski, who was appointed by her father to take his seat in the U.S. Senate when he became Governor, yesterday warned Sarah Palin not to challenge her in a 2010 primary, a by-product of tension between those two as a result of Palin's defeat of Lisa's dad for Governor. In Florida, Mel Martinez's announcement that he won't seek re-election in 2010 immediately led to reports that the current President's brother, Jeb [Bush], might run for that seat. And all of that's just from the last couple of weeks. [...]

One of the most encouraging aspects of Barack Obama's success -- and, for that matter, the ascension of someone like Sarah Palin or Bill Clinton -- is the pure self-sufficiency and lack of family connection behind it. But even pointing that out demonstrates how meritocratic self-sufficiency has almost become the exception rather than the rule."

LEST WE FORGET: U.S. Economy Continues Campaigning For Barack Obama

From The Onion:

"WASHINGTON --Nearly a month after Barack Obama was elected the 44th president of the United States, the nation's economy is still going strong in its efforts to secure him the highest office in the land. Through its trifecta of moribund housing prices, a wildly fluctuating stock market, and an unprecedented credit crisis, the U.S. economy helped propel Obama past rival John McCain in polls leading up to the Nov. 4 election -- a helpful boost the nation's financial system has since supplemented with the imminent collapse of the Big Three auto manufacturers and looming fears of a long-term depression. 'Thanks to the disastrous efforts of our economy, Obama would be virtually unbeatable were he to run again in December or January,' CNN political analyst Pat Harris said. 'According to the most recent data, Obama's edge continues to grow among those who just lost their jobs and have no idea how they're going to feed their children, as well as among citizens who are freezing to death on the streets at this very moment.' The outspoken U.S. economy, which has already been campaigning for months in Iceland and South America, reportedly plans to spend the next 10 to 15 years spreading its message to every single country on the globe."

Posted by Ian Faerstein at 12:22 PM

December 02, 2008

12/2: Outrage From The Left? Not Exactly...

Although some journalists are describing the liberal blogosphere's reaction to Barack Obama's cabinet picks as one of universal outrage, we think this characterization is misleading. If anything, Obama's roll-out of his national security team has provided clear evidence that the liberal blogosphere is not monolithic. While some lefty bloggers remain concerned about Obama's personnel choices, a surprising number of bloggers have decided to give Obama the benefit of the doubt. Tim Fernholz echoes the views of many liberal bloggers when he argues: "It's a more centrist team than many had expected, but there are good reasons for these appointments..."

Moreover, with the possible exception of John Brennan (who was never formally nominated), no Obama appointment has earned universal condemnation from the netroots. For every blogger who worries about NY Sen. Hillary Clinton's hawkishness, there's another who claims that her foreign policy views are essentially the same as Obama's. For every blogger who questions Obama's decision to keep Robert Gates as Defense Sec., there's another who argues that the decision is indicative of Obama's seriousness about reforming the Pentagon. Even Gen. James Jones -- whose energy organization has drawn sharp criticism from numerous liberal bloggers -- has his defenders.

The bottom line? While liberal bloggers have issues with some of Obama's appointments, they're mostly concerned with the policies that his administration implements, not the people implementing them. As Gregg Levine writes, "The proof is in the pudding."

OBAMA: The Benefit Of The Doubt

While many liberal bloggers have concerns about Obama's foreign policy team, some are willing to give Obama the benefit of the doubt:

• BooMan: "I would have selected a different national security team. But I can see what Obama is doing. He has effectively sidelined critics of his foreign policy vision to the kiddie table over there in the corner. You can take a look to see who's at the kiddie table. There's Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity. There's Bill Kristol and Charles Krauthammer. There's [CT Sen.] Joe Lieberman and [AZ Sen.] John McCain. There's even [OH Rep.] Dennis Kucinich and [ex-GA Rep.] Cynthia McKinney. They will all continue to screech now and then, and the adults will look over condescendingly and tell them to pipe down or there's no dessert. [...] Obama has just carved out a huge swath of territory within which he can safely maneuver."
• TAPPED's Fernholz: "It's a more centrist team than many had expected, but there are good reasons for these appointments..."

Open Left's Chris Bowers is perhaps the most prominent critic of Obama's picks: "The sheer number of media requests I have received on the Obama transition stuns me. [...] If I have become one of the go-to interviews for progressive dissatisfaction with Obama's transition, then either there isn't much progressive dissatisfaction with Obama's transition, or I am in a more prominent leadership position for the ideological left than I realized. [...] It does not feel comfortable to be in disagreement with such a large percentage, probably a majority, of the progressive blogosphere. It doesn't feel very good to stick out from your family like that. Maybe I know how Clinton supporters felt during the primary now."

Meanwhile, conservative blogger Hugh Hewitt praises Obama's foreign policy team: "Conservatives should acknowledge that this is as strong a team as they have a right to expect having lost the election. The biggest challenge facing the new president and his advisors after protection of the homeland is keeping Iran out of the nuclear club, with force if necessary. The second biggest challenge is to maintain at least the status quo in the Middle East intact, with Israel secure and the emerging democracy in Iraq protected. It is difficult to imagine any Democratic team better positioned to achieve both goals. And that is a cause for celebration."

OBAMA II: Time Will Tell

Other liberal bloggers aren't as quick to embrace the supposed logic behind Obama's picks; instead, they're adopting a "wait-and-see" attitude:

• Firedoglake's Levine: "[Obama] stressed that he and Hillary Clinton 'share a view' of the need for a 'well-rounded' view of US foreign policy that will include diplomacy. All of that would be good. The proof is in the pudding, as they say."
• Ezra Klein: "I would hypocritically second Mike Tomasky's call for calm as we wait to see what policies Obama's administration actually pursues rather than reading too deeply into the tea leaves of who he's appointed [...] But for a dose of humility, think two years into the future, and imagine how easy it will be to write the story of either the success or failure of the Obama administration. If it all goes well, then Obama will be lauded for convening a team of giants and putting their tremendous skills in service of reform. If much goes poorly, then commentators will soberly explain the inevitability of infighting and incoherence in an administration composed of political rivals and riven by policy disagreements."
• Think Progress' Matthew Yglesias: "If Obama is looking for political cover under which to undertake a dramatically new foreign policy, then he would have to avoid signaling clearly that that's what he wants to do. But he might just be acting cautious because he intends to implement a cautious strategy."
• The Rude Pundit: "Ultimately, the cabinet does the bidding of the president. Sure, they offer ideas and guide the departments. But they are policy implementers. Nothing less and nothing more. You have to be willing to go along with the boss to do the job, or you don't take it. And it's all a political game. If we know anything at all about Barack Obama, it's that he's one crafty motherfucker in the realm of politics. [...] Yeah, if Obama lets his hawks run the place and make him break his promises, then we can squawk. But for now, can we just take a breath and see how it all works out?"

CLINTON: The Netroots Trust Her (For Now)

Several liberal bloggers who supported Obama during the Dem primary are giving him the benefit of the doubt with regard to his choice of Clinton as Sec/State:

• FiveThirtyEight's Sean Quinn: "[Clinton's] future presidential ambition is now inextricably bound to Barack Obama's success as President. From Obama's perspective, harnessing that energy to work in his favor was apparently worth the risk of the horrendous message discipline the Clinton machine brings with it wherever it goes. At first blush, it wouldn't seem like a position endlessly scrutinized by foreign governments would be the ideal place for a political group that cannot keep a secret. But most Democrats seem willing to give Obama's judgment in the matter the benefit of the doubt. In a battle between skepticism of Clinton and trust of Obama, right now most of Obama's supporters who mistrust Clinton seem willing to trust Obama's judgment."
• Al Giordano: "Senator Clinton crossed a threshold today from leading her own organization to being in a chain of command led by President-elect Obama. And -- I speak as a critic of her historic approach to foreign policy and vocal opponent prior to her nomination...I welcome her, wish her well and will give her the benefit of the doubt that she will be a trustworthy team player unless and until she proves otherwise."

Open Left's Matt Stoller is wary of Clinton's "hawkishness" on Iraq, but he believes she has the unique ability to help broker a lasting peace between Israel and Palestine: "There's no question that Clinton's views on Iraq are tilted more towards hawkishness than many of us would like, but I've noted before that the criteria I'm going to use to evaluate her performance is Israel. My sense of the conflict is that, though there are many obstacles to peace, domestic US politics in the form of AIPAC has always been the elephant in the room. There are signs the group itself is moderating, the political environment has become much more favorable for diplomatic work and the Clinton's have the credibility and gravitas to work on a two state solution without worrying about upsetting right-wing Jews. Clinton believed in Presidential destiny, and not content to just be a Senator from New York, Hillary Clinton can certainly translate this desire 'go big' into another realm by solving the dominant problem in the Middle East. I hope she does."

Meanwhile, Daily Kos' Plutonium Page disagrees with Yglesias and argues that Clinton and Obama have always had similar foreign policy views: "The complaints that Obama is 'tilting right' are ridiculous; if anyone had been paying attention during the campaign and actually read the foreign policy and defense sections of Obama's website, they would have known that Obama's choice of Hillary Clinton for Secretary of State makes perfect sense."

GATES: Not Everyone Is Sold...

Several liberal bloggers are critical of Obama's decision to ask Gates to stay on as Def. Sec.:

• Mother Jones' David Corn: "There's an obvious reason for Obama to keep Gates at the Pentagon. Having a George W. Bush appointee in charge will give Obama political cover as he proceeds with his plan to withdraw troops from Iraq. But there are several potential problems with this move. [...] First, Gates is a lame duck. There has been no indication how long he will stay in the Pentagon's top post, but it seems Gates will remain there on a quasi-temporary basis. Consequently, Pentagon bureaucrats who don't want to see their prerogatives challenged -- if Gates wanted to do such a thing -- could try to wait him out. Second, Gates is no agent of change when it comes to the Pentagon budget. [...] Finally, what about Gates' team? Many of the senior jobs at the Pentagon are still held by Bush/[ex-Def. Sec. Donald] Rumsfeld appointees. If Gates stays in his job, do they stay in theirs? Or will Obama move to replace these assistant secretaries and other officials, thus creating something of a fractured band at the Pentagon of Gates/Rumsfeld people and fresh Obama people? Even if Gates is willing to salute the new president and head in a new policy direction, other holdovers at the Pentagon might not be as eager to follow a new set of orders."
• digby: "I have no respect for Gates going back many years, and his support for the surge, after being part of the Iraq Study Group Report doesn't make him any more of a hero in my eyes. He's got a long history of GOP loyalty and I see no reason to think that the habit of mind of decades has suddenly changed. [...] He may just be a place holder for a reasonable period of time, giving Obama some space to work without (hopefully) having to face down the brass and the pentagon bureaucracy right out of the box, and that may be smart. But the sooner he's replaced with someone who can start to reassure the military and the political establishment that Republicans aren't the only ones capable of running the pentagon and protecting the country, the better."
• Bowers: "Obama's retention of Gates as Secretary of Defense signals, above all, a clear unwillingness on Obama's part to engage in politically difficult fights at the start of his administration. [...] Even though I still think there are reasons to remain optimistic over defense spending, early on the improvement that Obama makes, if any, will probably be of the incremental, near-consensus variety. What this specifically means for things like missile defense, Pentagon 'waste,' and contractors / mercenaries remains to be seen."

On the other hand, The Huffington Post's Max Bergmann defends Obama's decision to keep Gates: "In keeping Gates, Obama is actually indicating that he is very serious about instituting significant reform of the Pentagon. Gates has advocated some very bold progressive reforms during the last couple of years. He has broken with the Rumsfeld emphasis on military transformation and has repeatedly talked about the need for the Pentagon to move away from procuring unnecessary weapons that are hugely expensive and have little strategic role. He also took on the Air Force's 'fighter mafia' by firing two top Air Force officials and appointing Gen. Norton Schwartz -- a non fighter pilot -- to be Chief of Staff. [...] By keeping him on, Obama is telling Gates to start implementing the reforms that he and progressives have been advocating for years."

JONES: Wrong On Energy?

Several liberal bloggers are criticizing the policy recommendations of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce's Institute for 21st Century Energy, which is run by Obama's soon-to-be National Security Adviser, Gen. Jones. These bloggers hope that Jones won't have a major role in setting energy policy for the Obama administration:

• Think Progress' Brad Johnson: "Following the recommendations of Jones' institute would be catastrophic for the security, prosperity, and health of the United States. [...] Jones' Transition Plan calls for billions of dollars in subsidies for the nuclear and coal industry, a dramatic expansion in domestic oil and natural gas drilling into protected areas, and massive new energy industry tax breaks and loopholes. [...] Not only are these recommendations foolhardy to the extreme, they come in direct opposition to Obama's stated policy objectives, which include a mandatory cap-and-trade program, development of renewable energy through quality jobs, and the enforcement of existing environmental laws. If America's future is to be secure, the next national security adviser must understand that the policies he has spent the last eighteen months promoting are reckless. Hopefully, he will renounce the efforts of his current employer to push this nation deeper into the fossil-energy hole."
• Stoller: "While I don't know him or how he works, after reading Jones's transition plan I have come to share the Center for American Progress's Brad Johnson's hope that Obama is setting energy policy and Jones is on the periphery of any policy formulation role. Based on this policy document, it's clear that Jones is not only not a progressive, but stands in clear opposition to the need to reconceptualize how our society uses and distributes energy. [...] Whether Jones was simply operating at the behest of the people paying his bills, whether he's going to take clear orders from Obama, and what the ultimate policies are going to be, are unknowable."
• Yglesias: "I had known that General James Jones had, since retirement, involved himself in some kind of Chamber of Commerce energy project. I didn't have great hopes for a Chamber of Commerce energy project, but I hadn't realized what a real stinker it was until I read Brad Johnson's writeup. It's some bad stuff. Presumably Jones will have his hands full doing the National Security Advisor's job and let's hope folks with sound views on climate and energy get picked to do those jobs."

MyDD's Charles Lemos still likes Jones' energy expertise: "I am...an avid student of energy issues thus Jones' appointment pleases me even if I don't wholeheartedly agree with the entire basket of proposals that Institute for 21st Century Energy is recommending."

PALIN: Republican Rock Star

Several conservative bloggers posted upbeat dispatches from GA yesterday, where AK Gov. Sarah Palin was campaigning for GA Sen. Saxby Chambliss:

• RedState's eireirish: "I went to the rally the vote event for Saxby Chambliss this afternoon. And, again Sarah Palin showed, as she has in every venue before this one, what charisma and star power are. It may have not been a record but the thousands of people -- young women, at least 3 or 4 beauty queens with their tiaras and sashes, little kids, young couples with babies, and the staple of the GA RNC, old people -- came out to see her and her only."
• Townhall's Amanda Carpenter: "[There is] lots of love for Palin in Geogia. More than 3,000 Atlanta metro residents turned out to see their GOP Sen. Saxby Chambliss campaign with Republican rockstar Sarah Palin this afternoon at the Gwinnet Arena."

It's clear that conservative bloggers still adore Palin:

• Michelle Malkin: "Let there be no doubt: Palinmania lives."
• Robert Stacy McCain: "Barracuda! [...] Sounds like Sarah's the most popular Yankee in Georgia."
• Townhall's Matt Lewis: "There is a reason that neither Bush nor McCain are doing the victory lap for Saxby. It is Sarah Palin who is the rock star with the base right now."
• Right Wing News' John Hawkins: "Given that it's a close race and holding on to his seat is incredibly important, [Chambliss] could have just about any Republican he wants on the campaign trail for him today. He could have John McCain, [CA Gov.] Arnold Schwarzenegger, George Bush, [ex-MA Gov.] Mitt Romney, [ex-AR Gov.] Mike Huckabee, [KY Sen.] Mitch McConnell, you name it -- out there campaigning for him in crunch time. Yet, he's spending the most important time of the campaign appearing as often as humanly possible with Sarah Palin. I guess he didn't get the memo from all the Inside-the-Beltway super geniuses in D.C. who've said she's political death, dragged down the McCain campaign, is a sure loser, etc., etc., etc. Well, tomorrow night, if Chambliss comes out on top -- and I think he has a good shot at it -- there are going to be two big winners in this race: Saxby Chambliss and Sarah Palin."
• AmSpec Blog's J. Peter Freire: "This photo from sometime-AmSpec reader Chris Cree shows that [Palin]'s not going to disappear from the national stage even if flights from Alaska tend to be kind of long."

MN SENATE: Don't Act So Desperate, Al!

Conservative bloggers are issuing a warning to Dem candidate Al Franken after his campaign said that it may appeal to the U.S. Senate in order to ensure that 1,000 disqualified absentee ballots be counted in the MN Senate recount:

• RedState's Pejman Yousefzadeh: "Since the recount in Minnesota is going badly for Al Franken, he is contemplating asking the Senate to intervene. To be sure, the Senate has the Constitutional authority to do so but few things could de-legitimize Franken more than having a Democrat-controlled Senate state that he is the winner when the election officials in the state of Minnesota -- no red state, that -- seem to think differently. Indeed, who doesn't think that the Senate would decide the election purely on partisan grounds -- especially with [Sen. Maj. Leader] Harry Reid at the helm."
• Hot Air's Ed Morrissey: "If the DFL wants to win future elections in Minnesota, sponsoring a rejection of the expressed will of Minnesotans seems like a bad way to do it. Expect Republicans to use even an attempt to reverse the election through Senate fiat as a major theme not just in Minnesota but across the country in 2010."
• AmSpec Blog's Philip Klein: "The nuclear option would be a startling overreach by Senate Democrats, and one that would be out of sync with Obama's pledge to end partisan bickering as well as a departure from the pragmatism exhibited by keeping Joe Lieberman in the Democratic tent. [...] It would be a huge mistake for them to spend the early stages of Obama's administration instigating a partisan floor fight in which Democrats try to overrule the verdict of Minnesota voters, reaffirmed by an orderly recount process supervised by a liberal Secretary of State and by courts, in a desperate attempt to gain one extra Senate seat when they already have 58 others."
• Power Line's Scott Johnson: "Threatening the authorities who hold your case in their hands is not usually a winning strategy. Yet Franken appears to see little prospect of winning the election the old-fashioned way."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Don't Be Too Hard On The McCain Campaign

Yglesias:

"NBER is scoring [the recession] as having begun in December 2007. This puts a lot of these 'McCain: What Went Wrong?' discussions into context. I don't think you've ever seen an incumbent party hold on to the White House amidst a recession. Maybe it could have been done, but it would have taken some kind of really dramatic effort to break the natural partisan linkage and there's no real precedent for what could have worked."

LEST WE FORGET: American Airlines Now Charging Fees To Non-Passengers

From The Onion:

"FORT WORTH, TX -- Cash-strapped American Airlines announced a new series of fees this week that will apply to all customers not currently flying, scheduled to fly, or even thinking about flying aboard the commercial carrier.

The fees, the latest introduced by American Airlines in a continuing effort to combat its financial woes, will take effect on Monday. According to company officials, these charges will include a $25 tax on citizens traveling with any other airline, as well as a mandatory $30 surcharge for passengers who decide to just stay home for the holidays instead.

'Tough times unfortunately mean tough measures,' American Airlines president Gerard Arpey said. 'It's never an easy decision to ask our loyal customers, as well as thousands of people chosen at random out of a telephone book, to pay a little extra, but that's just the reality of today's economic climate. We hope all Americans will understand this when receiving one of our new bills in the mail.'"

Posted by Ian Faerstein at 01:29 PM

December 01, 2008

12/1: Turning Skeptics Into Believers

As we've previously noted, liberal bloggers have been voicing concerns about the paucity of progressives among Pres.-elect Barack Obama's cabinet picks, especially in the foreign policy realm. These bloggers are wary of NY Sen. (and incoming Sec/State) Hillary Clinton, as they're concerned about her hawkishness and the possibility that she will staff the State Dep't with "loyalists and traditional thinkers". Lefty bloggers also have qualms about Obama's decision to tap two non-Democrats -- Def. Sec. Robert Gates and Gen. James Jones -- as his Def. Sec. and Nat'l Security Adviser (respectively).

However, liberal bloggers are feeling a bit better about Obama's picks following a New York Times report that Clinton, Gates, and Jones have all "embraced a sweeping shift of priorities and resources in the national security arena," including "a greatly expanded corps of diplomats and aid workers." Lefty bloggers share Obama's desire to place more emphasis on diplomacy and less emphasis on defense spending, and they're delighted that Clinton, Gates, and Jones reportedly support Obama's priorities, since they believe that these relatively hawkish individuals will give Obama political cover. Publius is one of several liberal bloggers who have decided to give Obama the benefit of the doubt with regard to his personnel choices:

"I've come around to the idea that this decidedly less-progressive national security team is the right call. The reason, I've decided, is that this particular national security team -- with Obama at the helm -- makes true progressive reform more likely."

OBAMA: Signaling The Left?

Liberal bloggers are feeling a bit better about Obama's relatively hawkish national security appointments after The New York Times reported that Obama's three major appointees -- Clinton, Gates, and Jones -- have all "embraced a sweeping shift of priorities and resources in the national security arena," including "a greatly expanded corps of diplomats and aid workers":

• Think Progress' Matthew Yglesias: "This is a really good idea! We do spend way too much on the military, and we do severely under-resource other elements of our foreign policy strategy. If Clinton and Gates and Jones are all on board for a big push to turn this around, and that's why Obama wants them all on his team, then that strikes me as a very good reason."
• The Washington Monthly's Steve Benen: "It seems two of the more common criticisms of late about the team Obama is putting together is that there aren't enough 'fresh faces' in key roles, and that the officials are less likely to help push U.S. policy in a fundamentally different, more progressive, direction. A Clinton/Gates/Jones team may not fare well on the first complaint, but it seems poised to debunk the second. In fact, this NYT report points to a fairly dramatic shift, not only in foreign policy tactics, but also in priorities."
• Mark Kleiman: "Investing actual buckaroonies in the capacity to do things other than kill folks and blow stuff up? Now there's an interesting idea!"
• Obsidian Wings' hilzoy: "We have needed for a long time to have more tools at our disposal for addressing problems abroad. If Obama plans to build up alternatives to military force, that's really, really good news. And if, moreover, Jones and Gates are on board with cutting some defense programs, then I imagine that the odds that they will actually be cut go up considerably. That would also be very good news."
• Obsidian Wings' publius: "[I] was encouraged by the NYT report that Obama's national security team wants to shift resources away from the bloated military budget to fund other diplomatic initiatives. It's encouraging not merely for its own sake, but because it reassures skeptics like me that Clinton and Gates will prove good choices. [...] I've come around to the idea that this decidedly less-progressive national security team is the right call. The reason, I've decided, is that this particular national security team -- with Obama at the helm -- makes true progressive reform more likely."

BUSH: Going Out With A Bang

Liberal bloggers are criticizing the George W. Bush admin.'s 11th-hour efforts to relax environmental regulations. Several lefty bloggers are upset that the Bush admin. is urging its allies to oppose limits on greenhouse gas emissions:

• Yglesias: "Just a little reminder of what a shitty, shitty president George W. Bush is and what a bunch of immoral jackasses are working for him. A little taste of how they're burning the midnight oil over at the White House: 'White House Prods Allies to Oppose Limits on Greenhouse Gases.' The more I think about it, the more I think that from the vantage point of 2108, Bush's actions on climate may well rank right up their with the [James] Buchanan administration in the annals of bad presidenting."
• Ezra Klein: "I've never quite understood these eleventh hour stabs at villainy. What's the incentive? For my own sanity, I've generally used a mental model of the Bush administration that is deeply corrupt and mainly interested in enriching its friends and assuring its own survival, but we're past all that now. The administration is on its way out, it has no successor, and no need for campaign contribution. So this sort of thing suggests something closer to an ideological commitment to heat the earth and destroy the world."

Other lefty bloggers are upset that the Consumer Product Safety Commission is resisting Congress' efforts to ban the sale of toys containing chemicals called phthalates:

• Daily Kos' mcjoan: "BushCo's last Christmas gift to us: toxic toys. [...] A fitting parting shot."
• AMERICAblog's John Aravosis: "These people truly are incredible. It's as if none of them have children or grandchildren they care about it."

TAPPED's Mori Dinauer: "I don't know why Bush hates our country, but he's certainly letting us know how he truly feels in his final days in office."

MUMBAI: The Right Lessons To Take

Following the terrorist attacks in Mumbai, India, conservative bloggers are praising Bush's counter-terrorism policies:

• Townhall's Carol Platt Liebau: "Although it's become fashionable to castigate George W. Bush as a failed president, it's also worth keeping in mind that he has worked hard to make sure that our country stays alert to the terrorist threat that only emerged most recently in Mumbai -- and that we remain committed to dealing with it."
• Townhall's Michael Medved: "President-elect Obama may want to concentrate on economic issues, but his first priority must remain continuing the admirable security record compiled by President Bush in the seven years since 9/11, and continuing to protect our nation from devastating assault."
• NRO's Victor Davis Hanson: "I think the terrible news from India, coupled with intelligence reports of the al-Qaeda desire to do something similar here, may well prompt Obama et al. to think very carefully about repealing the FISA accords, elements of the Patriot Act, immediately closing Guantanamo, and other homeland-security measures."

Conservative bloggers also see the Mumbai attacks as evidence of the importance of America's gun culture:

• Power Line's John Hinderaker: "I wondered earlier today how a mere ten terrorists could bring a city of 19 million to a standstill. Here in the U.S., I don't think it would happen. I think we have armed security guards who know how to use their weapons, supplemented by an unknown number of private citizens who are armed and capable of returning fire. The Indian experience shows it is vitally important that this continue to be the case. This is a matter of culture as much as, or more than, a matter of laws."
• RedState's Kowalski: "One of the astonishing things about the massacre in Mumbai is that the sole terrorist survivor (the baby-faced guy from the train station) should have been stopped a long time before he could be captured and made a consumer of the Indian health care and legal system. However, the police in the train station didn't shoot back at him. Instead they ran the other way and hid, leaving him to kill as many people as he wanted. In the pictures from Mumbai, you've seen the blood puddles on the floor that resulted. [...] Which brings me to the subject of my post today, the new Ruger LCP .380. This is a personal protection firearm that weighs less than a pound and can be carried wihout unduly burdening yourself -- male or female, large body or small, under your clothing and with excellent handling and reliability. Enjoy the video, and don't be afraid to shoot back."

PA SEN: Chris Matthews For Senate? No, Thanks.

Liberal bloggers are not enthusiastic about the prospect of ex-Dem aide/MSNBC host Chris Matthews challenging PA Sen. Arlen Specter in 2010:

• Benen: "I glanced through Media Matters' recent hits on Matthews' on-air comments, and it's safe to assume the MSNBC host would have a lot of explaining to do before Pennsylvania Democrats gave him the nod."
• Atrios: "I really hope the PA Dem party and the DSCC aren't going to consider muscling everyone but Tweety out of the senate primary."
• Oliver Willis: "If, God forbid, Chris Matthews runs for senate and wins the Dem primary, I think I'll support and donate to Arlen Specter. We have more than enough idiots in congress as is."
• TalkLeft's Big Tent Democrat: "I would strongly oppose a Tweety candidacy for ANY office, including, but not limited to, dog catcher. The man is an embarrassment."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Enough With The Hyperbole!

Hinderaker thinks journalists are exaggerating the extent of the economic crisis:

"News reports and commentary have been so relentlessly negative for so long that it is easy to lose sight of the actual performance of the economy. [...] Most people's incomes are no worse today than they were a year ago, notwithstanding daily references to 'hard times' and casual talk about a possible depression. That reality was reflected in what actually happened [on Friday]: a 3 percent increase over last year's 'black Friday' sales, which itself represented a fat 8 percent rise over 2006. [...Friday's] healthy sales came on top of a week in which the Dow gained nearly 10 percent."

This is not to suggest that all is rosy on the economic front; it isn't. The financial crisis is real, and we are most likely in a recession. But the hysterical terms in which the economy is discussed are unwarranted and unhelpful. They are also, I think, politically motivated. Reporters and editors like the idea of a looming depression (or, failing that, an unusually severe recession) for a number of reasons. If it happens, it will be taken as refutation of the relatively conservative consensus that has influenced government policies since the early 1980s -- a consensus under which a great many people have flourished, but not, notably, reporters and editors. And if it doesn't happen, they will give the credit to Barack Obama and the more-liberal policies they expect from his administration. So for the left, hysteria over the economy is a win-win proposition. Not so for the rest of us."

LEST WE FORGET: GM Covered With Giant Tarp Until It Has Money To Work On Cars Again

From The Onion:

"DETROIT -- The General Motors Corporation announced Monday that it has covered its main production plant with a 500,000-square-foot blue tarp until it can get some revenue together to work on its cars again. 'The rear-axle assembly line is all out of whack, and the carburetor department needs a complete rebuild,' CEO G. Richard Wagoner, Jr. said while wiping his hands with an oily rag. 'It's going to be at least a $50 billion job. Goddamn piece of shit American car industry.' According to Wagoner, the automotive giant spent its last $18 on cinder blocks to help secure the tarp."

Posted by Ian Faerstein at 12:52 PM