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."