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 December 11, 2008 01:00 PM