December 05, 2008

12/5: The Netroots Eye Specter's Seat

Liberal bloggers reacted coolly to reports that MSNBC pundit Chris Matthews is "dead serious" about challenging PA Sen. Arlen Specter in 2010. Some lefty bloggers are fiercely opposed to the notion of a Matthews candidacy; they consider him a "blowhard" who cares more about getting attention for himself than promoting progressive principles. They're also offended by his numerous controversial on-air statements.

Other liberal bloggers aren't quite so strongly opposed to Matthews, but they would prefer that PA Dems nominate someone else. Chris Bowers thinks that PA Reps. Allyson Schwartz and Patrick Murphy could both be strong candidates. Markos Moulitsas prefers Schwartz, as he thinks Murphy made a "bad move" by joining the Blue Dog Coalition.

Regardless of who PA Dems end up nominating, it's clear that the netroots will be watching this race closely, as they're convinced that Specter is vulnerable.

PA SEN: Don't Do It, Chris

Several liberal bloggers are very critical of Matthews:

• Open Left's David Sirota: "Having grown up outside of Philadelphia, I just want to say I really hope Chris Matthews runs for the U.S. Senate in Pennsylvania, and is humiliatingly obliterated in a Democratic primary (preferably by a good progressive like, for instance, former Rep. Joe Hoeffel). The sense of entitlement that this blowhard personifies is truly stunning. He's spent his entire life as a principle-free political gossip in Washington -- a human embodiment of all that is sick and wrong with Beltway culture. And yet, he really thinks he can just parachute into one of the largest states in the country, buy a mansion in Philadelphia and be a senator on sheer celebrity alone."
• Balloon Juice's John Cole: "I can't think of anyone who wants Chris Matthews as a Senator."

Open Left's Bowers would support Matthews if he were the Dem nominee, but he would prefer that he not run: "I have enjoyed Matthews over much of the past few months, but he seems like more of a Villager than a progressive. Obviously, I would support him if he is the nominee, but I think he would be better off as a talk show host. Pundits just seem to have a better life than elected officials."

Conservative blogger Jim Geraghty thinks PA Dems would be foolish to nominate Matthews: "How eager are Pennsylvania Democrats to concede what will probably be a pretty winnable race against Sen. Arlen Specter to some television show host blowhard? Doesn't any Keystone State Democrat who's actually been elected to office want to take a shot at that seat? Or are he and [Al] Franken (and Jerry Springer!) a sign that Democrats now outsource their Senate races to whoever's on T.V. these days?"

PA SEN II: Who Else Is Out There?

Liberal bloggers are discussing the other Dem candidates who could potentially challenge Specter in 2010, as they believe that Specter is "more vulnerable than many think":

• Daily Kos' Moulitsas: "Specter clocks in the mid-40s, and facing a possible primary rematch with Club for Growth chief Pat Toomey, will have two tough contests ahead. Given his ill health, I give better than even odds that Specter decides to retire instead. As for Matthews, all indications are that despite his serious man crushes on George W. Bush (and his codpiece), he's serious -- even if some think it's all one big contract negotiating ploy with MSNBC. As for more serious potential candidates, Rep. Joe Sestak's office issued a statement saying that he wouldn't run for the seat. Reps. Allyson Schwartz and Patrick Murphy are likely considering runs. Murphy, while originally supported by this site in the 2006 Netroots Candidates ActBlue fundraising list, headed over to the dark side by joining the Blue Dogs. Bad move. Schwartz, on the other hand, would be awesome."
• Bowers: "[Schwartz's] voting record puts her roughly in the middle of the House Democratic caucus. She would be the first woman elected either U.S. Senator or Governor in Pennsylvania, and is a real champion for reproductive rights, so she would probably receive EMILY's List backing. Combine this with her support of the bankruptcy bill, and she should have money up the ying-yang. [...] Since taking office, Murphy has joined the Blue Dogs and voted with the conservative end of the caucus on most issues, coming in between [MN Rep.] Colin Peterson and [KS Rep.] Nancy Boyda over the last two years on Progressive Punch. Still, I like Patrick quite a bit personally, and his magnetism as a candidate should not be underestimated. [...Another] possibility is Josh Shapiro, a Montgomery County member of the State Assembly. Josh is highly thought of in many local political circles, but he would have a difficult time competing with any of the three candidates already listed."

MyDD's Jonathan Singer thinks Murphy would be a strong candidate: "Patrick Murphy does have a good track record of winning in the suburban areas of Philadelphia key to winning statewide in Pennsylvania, and with more than $1.5 million in the bank as of the middle of October, Murphy would have a good basis from which to launch a Senate run if he wanted to jump in."

OBAMA: Enough With The Conspiracy Theorizing!

Now that the Supreme Court is considering whether to take up a lawsuit challenging Obama's U.S. citizenship, conservative bloggers are throwing cold water on the notion that Obama isn't a U.S. citizen:

• Michelle Malkin: "A dangerously large segment of the birth certificate hunters have lurched into rabid Truther territory. The most prominent crusader against Obama's American citizenship claim, lawyer Philip Berg (who, not coincidentally, is also a prominent 9/11 Truther), disputes that Obama was born in Hawaii and claims that Obama's paternal grandmother told him she saw Obama born in Kenya. Berg and his supporters further assert that the 'Certification of Live Birth' produced by Obama was altered or forged. They claim that the contemporaneous birth announcement in a Hawaii newspaper of Obama's birth is insufficient evidence that he was born there. (Did a fortune-teller place it in the paper knowing he would run for president?)."
• RedState's Erick Erickson: "Let's say Obama really is from Kenya. Let's say the birth certificate, despite being validated by a Republican administration in Hawaii and despite a birth announcement in a Hawaiian newspaper -- let's say it's all a fraud. So what? Does anyone really, really think five justices of the United States Supreme Court are going to throw him out of office or deny him the right to run again? Seriously? After over 50% of the nation voted to elect him? That will not happen. And if it did, there'd be a greater percentage of people up in arms over than voted for the guy. So, in all of this talk about the birth certificate, the people pushing the story are distracting themselves from the real news. I bet Obama is really, really thrilled that so many people are focusing on the birth certificate because these same people will wholly ignore all the other stuff."
• Hot Air's Ed Morrissey: "I'm sure the comments section will fill with various conspiracy theories over Indonesian school records, Kenyan births, and so on. None of it -- absolutely none -- has any real, solid evidence showing that Obama was born anywhere else than Hawaii apart from sheer speculation and hearsay, and even less evidence that Obama's stepfather renounced Obama's birthright citizenship, which he didn't have the power to do anyway. It's a conspiracy theory spun by conspiracy theorists (Philip Berg is a 9/11 truther) who use their normal thresholds of evidence for this meme."
• Right Wing News' John Hawkins: "This story isn't a conspiracy theory per se. A President has to be an American citizen from birth to qualify for the presidency and I think some of the questions raised about the certificate of live birth that has been floating around are legitimate (although I also think the preponderance of the evidence shows that it's real). Combine that with the fact that Obama spent much of his childhood in a foreign country and I understand why people have questions. That being said, this whole debate has taken on the tone of a conspiracy theory. I have yet to see anyone who believes that Barack Obama is not an American citizen put together any sort of logical, coherent explanation for why he thinks that's the case. Nor have I seen any attempt to explain things like 'a newspaper clipping from the 1961 Honolulu Advertiser that mentions Obama being born.'"

CLINTON: Not Everyone On The Right Has Fallen For Her...

Several American Spectator bloggers are urging Senate GOPers not to confirm NY Sen. Hillary Clinton as Sec/State:

• AmSpec Blog's Quin Hillyer: "The idea of Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State ought to make conservatives tremble with foreboding. It is truly bizarre to see so many on the right unquestioningly accepting a notion that just a year ago would have been laughable, namely that she is a relative 'moderate' on foreign policy. And it's even more astonishing that any reasonable news organization, or any serious senator, would consider her manifold ethical lapses as being anything other than immediately disqualifying for such a lofty appointive position."
• AmSpec Blog's Robert Stacy McCain thinks it would be politically smart for GOPers to aggressively fight Clinton's nomination: "First, tough questioning during Hillary's confirmation hearings would give Republicans a chance to play on familiar turf, emptying out the oppo-research files (see Amanda Carpenter's Dossier, for starters). The New York-based media loves any Hillary-related news and so, at a bare minimum, the GOP could get a week's worth of front-page headlines out of the hearings. Second, a real fight over Hillary's nomination would give Republicans a chance to establish the 'corruption' meme at the outset of the Obama administration. The Clinton connection -- including all of Bill [Clinton]'s shadowy conflicts of interest -- ties Obama to the politics of the past (rather than Hope and Change) and a confirmation fight will help cement that connection in the public mind. [...] Could Senate Republicans actually defeat the Clinton nomination? Probably not, but that doesn't mean it isn't worth trying."

The Next Right's Jon Henke thinks Clinton will get confirmed no matter what: "Quin Hilyer doesn't think Hillary Clinton should be confirmed as Secretary of State, for a variety of reasons. Others suggest the emolument clause of the Constitution or the Clinton's foreign entanglements could create problems during Senator Clinton's confirmation hearing. Maybe, but I doubt it. Most of the potential problems seem basically unrelated to the role of Secretary of State, or have been addressed long ago. Perhaps more relevantly, relationships matter and by all accounts Hillary Clinton has good relationships with her Senate colleagues. I very much doubt her fellow Senators (especially in a large majority Democratic Senate) will play hardball against a colleague."

ECONOMY: Do They Want A Recession?

Liberal bloggers are speculating about the motives of GOP politicians who oppose a fiscal stimulus bill:

• Think Progress' Matthew Yglesias: "As I documented, the right initially tended toward a neo-Hooverite line on the economic crisis. Then came a seeming shift and the emergence of a broad consensus in favor of strong action. Recently, though, there's been a tilt back in the neo-Hooverite direction even as the crisis has grown more severe..."
• Open Left's Matt Stoller: "Deflation transfers wealth from debtors to creditors, which is another way of saying from people who are cash poor (the poor, the middle class, entrepreneurs, risk-takers) to people who have cash (the risk-averse rich). [...] In order to restart the economy, the distribution has to work in reverse, part of the monetary base has to move to people who will spend from those who hoard through various monetary and fiscal arrangements (ie. government). And here you see the political problem; people that have money would prefer that they remain on top, and will oppose attempts to restart spending from a broad base. These people are known as 'conservatives', and they have their Beltway facing servants writing screeds about how the New Deal failed in the 1930s."
• The Democratic Strategist's Ed Kilgore: "While I am quite sure that Republicans are not about to hoist banners reading 'Deflation Now!' a look back at the conflicts over the first 'bailout' package and some of the GOP rhetoric surrounding the presidential campaign should make it clear that there is in fact a strong undercurrent of conservative hostility to any sort of relief measures that don't simply involve tax cuts or deregulation. Those who convinced themselves that the mortgage crisis was caused by ACORN and poor and minority borrowers certainly are in no hurry to succor such Obama-supporting miscreants. More generally, there's always been a large faction of conservatives who favored the occasional 'healthy' recession to wring 'excess demand' out of the economy."
• TPM's Josh Marshall: "There's an interesting and I think important question here as to whether neo-Hooeverite Republicans are pushing Hooverite policies for strictly economic reasons (creditors can do well in a deflationary economy), moral reasons (need a good hard recession to re-teach the poor moral values) or just because they're economic illiterates who just don't feel right echoing the calls of centrist and liberal economists."

The Washington Monthly's Steve Benen: "To hear GOP leaders tell it, the appropriate response to the current crisis is less investment and more spending cuts. I'd like to assume that [SC Gov. Mark] Sanford, [House Min. Leader John] Boehner, and other conservatives don't want to deliberately destroy the economy, so perhaps it's best if they take this opportunity to enjoy a little quiet time."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Statehood For D.C.?

Yglesias wants Congress "to use its power to admit new states to admit the State of Columbia as the fifty-first state":

"For Democrats, this would mean two new Senators and one new Representative. It would also uphold the basic American idea that citizens should be allowed to vote and should be represented in congress. It would be totally constitutional. And though Columbia would be a small state, it would have a larger population than several current states. Republicans, obviously, wouldn't like the idea. But I don't think there are serious arguments of principle against it."

Moulitsas isn't so enthusiastic about the idea:

"I get the problem with DC residents not having representation in Congress. It's a travesty of democracy. And the partisan in me likes the idea of adding two guaranteed Democratic senators. I also get that DC has a larger population than one other state [Wyoming]. That said, it would be weird to have a state essentially be a city, and a mid-sized one, at that. Is 'weird' a reason to deny people the right of representation? Obviously not. But why then not make NYC its own state? Indeed, with a population of 8.3 million, it's larger than 39 other states. Same with Chicago, LA, Philadelphia, or whatever. Washington is only the 27th largest city in the US. Why should it enjoy more representation than any of those urban centers? To me, the more obvious solution is to simply have DC annexed by either Maryland or Virginia. (Preferably Virginia, which would solidify it as a solid Blue state, and most of NOVA is a suburb of DC anyway.)"

LEST WE FORGET: Bill Clinton Agrees To Disclose Guacamole Recipe

From The Onion:

"WASHINGTON -- In a major stride toward increased transparency of former presidents' culinary activities, Bill Clinton agreed Monday to disclose a highly guarded guacamole recipe -- including a full list of ingredients -- so that his wife, Sen. Hillary Clinton, can be named the next Secretary of State. 'President Clinton's efforts will help us avoid any potential ethical problems that the continued secrecy of the preparation instructions for this delicious Mexican appetizer could cause,' said Obama transition team spokesperson Ian Gloucester, who added that the recipe will be vetted for any undue foreign influence from Middle Eastern flavors such as cumin. 'We're just trying to steer clear of the issues that would arise if this dish was to be served in the White House, and it was discovered that the provenance of the recipe was less than savory.' Administration insiders said that if the guacamole recipe is traced back to celebrity television chef Rachael Ray, Sen. Clinton will be compelled to decline her nomination."

Posted by Ian Faerstein at December 5, 2008 12:30 PM