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 December 1, 2008 12:52 PM