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 December 2, 2008 01:29 PM