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 December 15, 2008 01:03 PM