December 08, 2008

12/8: "Dollar Bill" Goes Down

Bloggers are buzzing about GOP atty Anh 'Joseph' Cao's upset win over indicted Dem Rep. William Jefferson in LA's 2nd cong. district. Conservative bloggers are rejoicing over the result and are describing Cao as "a dream Republican candidate" with "a VERY compelling story". They're also portraying Jefferson's loss -- along with Dem losses in the GA Senate runoff and the LA-04 cong. race -- as evidence that Barack Obama's coattails do not extend to other Dems when Obama himself is not on the ballot. Ed Morrissey declares: "Without Barack Obama on the ballot, the Democrats have little draw -- which is no surprise given the approval rating of Congress at the moment." For this reason, many righty bloggers are predicting big gains for the GOP in the 2010 midterms.

Liberal bloggers, meanwhile, aren't too distraught about Jefferson's loss; many are declaring "good riddance" to the corrupt congressman. They're also confident that Dems will regain the Dem-leaning seat in 2010.

LA-02: What A Lovely Surprise!

Conservative bloggers are giddy about Cao's upset victory:

• AmSpec Blog's Robert Stacy McCain: "A Republican wins in New Orleans? Somebody pinch me."
• Michelle Malkin: "Well, this helps take the sting out of the re-election of corruptocrat [PA Rep.] Jack Murtha. Republican upstart Joseph Cao defeated Bill 'Cold Cash Jefferson' in the runoff for Louisiana's 2nd Congressional district race. This is -- this was -- a solidly Democrat, Democrat-dominated district. Yes, the voters are sending a message. They want hope, change, and a clean start."
• Townhall's Amanda Carpenter: "[Cao's] biography is so stunning, I can't property retell it, so I am going to copy and paste it from his website. He has a VERY compelling story, keep an eye on Joseph Cao!!!"
• Power Line's Scott Johnson: "Like [LA] Governor Bobby Jindal, Anh 'Joseph' Cao is something of a dream Republican candidate. [...] In his first run for office, Cao has already made a dent in his mission to improve the world through politics by forcing the retirement of Rep. Jefferson from office."

RedState's Moe Lane praises the Dem voters in the district who voted for Cao: "My apologies to Democratic voters in Louisiana's Second District. I did not believe that enough of you would be willing to put aside your partisan affiliation to cast a meaningful vote against rampant corruption. The results have proven me wrong, and I am sorry for doubting your collective judgment."

RedState's Erick Erickson, on the other hand, doesn't think the Dem voters in LA-02 deserve praise: "Let's be honest. In [Jefferson's] district, his loss had more to do with him not sharing the money in his freezer than it does him having put the money in his freezer."

LA-02 II: Another Ominous Sign For Dems?

Conservative bloggers are portraying Jefferson's loss as further evidence that Obama's coattails do not extend to other Dems when Obama is not on the ballot:

• Hot Air's Morrissey: "What does this mean for the Democrats? It's an embarrassment, since they could have saved this seat by finding and backing a credible candidate in the primary. The turnout model reinforces the lesson from Georgia's Senate run-off as well. Without Barack Obama on the ballot, the Democrats have little draw -- which is no surprise given the approval rating of Congress at the moment."
• NRO's Jim Geraghty: "Coupled with Georgia, this is further evidence that Election Day 2008 saw a massive 'Obama effect' that may not return until Election Day 2012, presuming the president-elect runs for reelection."
• RedState's Pejman Yousefzadeh: "This is yet more evidence...that Barack Obama's coattails are rather short. Obama-backers will argue, of course, that the President-elect didn't do all that much to involve himself in these races, or, for that matter, in the runoff race for the U.S. Senate seat in Georgia that was held by an overwhelming margin by Republicans. Perhaps the President-elect might have done more, but perhaps his lack of involvement is a sign that he knows his persuasive power on the campaign trail on behalf of others is somewhat more limited than many once thought."

Meanwhile, The Next Right's Patrick Ruffini argues that Cao's upset victory demonstrates the importance of fielding a candidate in every single Congressional race: "As I noted yesterday and reiterate tonight, there could be no more vivid example of why we need to run Republican candidates in every district than Louisiana's 2nd. Cao won his [D+28] seat more solidly than [GOP physician John] Fleming did in an R+7 seat. Starting with Obama CoS Rahm Emanuel, Democrats started to understand that Congressional races can be very nonpartisan under the right circumstances and that poor performance or other personal shortcomings by the incumbent can render even a hefty party ID deficit meaningless. We can't recreate Bill Jefferson in every district -- the guy was indicted on 16 counts and the feds found 90 G's in his freezer. It's also an accident of history that the election happened today instead of on 11/4 when Jefferson could have ridden Obama's coattails -- it was delayed by Hurricane Gustav. There isn't a Bill Jefferson in every district, but there is a Joseph Cao."

LA-02 III: Goodbye And Good Riddance

The netroots aren't too upset about Jefferson's loss:

• AMERICAblog's Joe Sudbay: "This really is not a great loss for the Dems. They'll get that seat back in 2010 and won't have to endure spectacle of having a member of the Democratic caucus on trial for bribery."
• Oliver Willis: "[This is] good news. [...] A guy like Jefferson shouldn't be in our government, and considering the Dem margin of control in the House, we can afford to add a wingnut for a couple years."
• Balloon Juice's John Cole: "Just as in the case with [AK Sen.] Ted Stevens and the Republicans, the voters protect the Democrats and relieve them of any 'tough' decisions. [...] At any rate, good riddance."

Daily Kos' brownsox is less cheery: "I'm glad Jefferson is gone, but the Republicans are going to have a field day with this (having apparently won the first three elections of the Obama Era, including one in a D+28 district). There were extenuating circumstances and they almost lost an election in LA-04 they should have won, but that won't stop them from having their fun."

Meanwhile, Open Left's Chris Bowers thinks Jefferson's loss -- coupled with Dem losses in the LA-04 race and the GA Senate race -- indicates that Dems are hurting themselves with their "bi-partisan talk": "[T]he constant talk about the need for bi-partisanship and a 'team of rivals' coming from Democrats isn't exactly encouraging Democratic turnout these days. All three of these elections, especially GA-Sen and LA-02, featured very low Democratic turnout. It probably didn't help that national Democratic leaders, including Barack Obama, are telling everyone, Democrats included, how great it is for Republicans to be included in the federal government. When one of the major parties is telling everyone that it is great when the opposing party wins, then the opposing party is probably going to win."

SHINSEKI: A "Screw You" To Bush?

Liberal bloggers are praising Obama's decision to tap retired Gen. Eric K. Shinseki as VA Sec. Lefty bloggers love the symbolic effect of Obama's appointment of a general who famously clashed with ex-Def. Sec. Donald Rumsfeld:

• digby: "I may not be happy with [Def. Sec.] Bob Gates at the pentagon, but this guy is a great choice. There should be at least one big screw you to [Pres. George W.] Bush and this is a good one. It says to the world that the crazy Codpiece and Rumsfeld years are well and truly behind us."
• BooMan: "Obama has finally delivered a finger-in-the-eye moment to the Bush administration. [...] In selecting [Shinseki] as the Secretary of Veteran's Affairs, Obama is providing a constant reminder to all veterans that the Bush administration was wrong about Iraq, while the incoming president was right. It's a small measure of revenge, but it feels good."
• AMERICAblog's John Aravosis: "You have to give the Obama people credit. They are quite adept at slipping the knife in slowly. Obama is appointing retired General Eric Shinseki to be our next secretary of Veterans Affairs. You might recall that Shinseki is the guy who basically canned by Rumsfeld after he testified to Congress that we might need hundreds of thousands of US troops to quell Iraq."
• Bowers: "Given that he was right about this disaster, it is a positive development that Eric Shinseki has now been selected to run the Department of Veteran's Affairs. People who were right about such major decisions facing our country should be rewarded, just as President-elect Obama was rewarded by the country at least in part due to his early opposition to the war in Iraq. In truth, Shinseki should probably have received an even higher post for his foresight, such as Secretary of Defense."
• Firedoglake's Spencer Ackerman: "To say this is an inspired choice underscores its magnitude. Shinseki's personal courage and virtue are close to unparalleled in the current generation of general officers. He knows the sacrifices of war personally, as he left part of his right foot in Vietnam. The new generation of Iraq and Afghanistan veterans -- already underserved by the country that sent them to war -- can know that he has their backs. After all, before the war began, he all but ended his career (Rumsfeld had announced his successor months before after they feuded over the Crusader artillery system) by telling Congress that the indefinite occupation of Iraq would require hundreds of thousands of troops to keep the peace, far beyond the antiseptic and now-discredited estimates of the Bush administration."

On the right side of the blogosphere, RedState's Streiff offers his thoughts: "I'm not a big fan of Shinseki for a number of reasons. [...] What the AP, and the press in general, fails to note is that Shinseki was essentially fired, i.e. his successor was announced while he still had 14 months left in his tenure as CSA, for being a disloyal **** and actively lobbying to preserve a weapons system the OSD did not want. [...] In short, Shinseki was 'fired' nearly a year before his testimony, and his testimony has more to do with the need to stick a finger in Rumsfeld's eye than with any professional assessment. Having said that, I am cheered by the selection of General Shinseki as the Secretary of Veterans Affairs rather than a politcal hack like [ex-GA Sen.] Max Cleland who has made a career of riding his admittedly serious injuries."

SEBELIUS: Keeping Her Options Open?

Liberal bloggers don't mind the fact that KS Gov. Kathleen Sebelius has removed her name from consideration for any position in Obama's cabinet, as they're hoping that Sebelius runs for Sam Brownback's Senate seat in 2010:

• Daily Kos' Scout Finch: "Now that [Sebelius] has formally withdrawn herself for consideration of a cabinet position, let's hope it is a signal she does intend to run for senate in 2010. She has the best opportunity to win in generations and it sure would be nice to finally see some Jayhawk blue representation in Washington."
• MyDD's Jonathan Singer: "While Sebelius would have brought a great deal to an Obama administration, having her on the outside, potentially running for the Senate two years from now, could actually do more to help Obama and the Democratic Party in the long run."
• BooMan: "I admit that I'm happy [about Sebelius's decision], not because I don't think Sebelius deserves to be in the cabinet, but because she is the only Democrat capable of winning Sam Brownback's senate seat in 2010."

NY SEN: The Netroots Don't Like Dynasties

Liberal bloggers reacted coolly to the news that Obama aide Caroline Kennedy is interested in filling Hillary Clinton's Senate seat once Clinton becomes Sec/State:

• Firedoglake's Jane Hamsher: "[This is] a truly terrible idea. [Kennedy's] leadership could have been really helpful when the rest of us were trying to keep the progressive lights on and getting the stuffing beaten out of us by a very well-financed right wing for the past eight years. But when things were tough, she was nowhere to be found. Now that the Democrats are in power, she'd like to come in at the top. We have absolutely no idea if she's qualified, or whether she can take the heat of being a Kennedy in public life. She's certainly shown no appetite for it in the past. She'll have a target on her back and if she can't take it, if she crumbles, she will become a rallying point that the right will easily organize around. [...] I'm glad she had fun being part of a winning campaign in a year that saw a rather rosy playing field for Democrats. But simply being well-known and a member of the 'American nobility' in a celebrity-driven society shouldn't be enough to axiomatically entitle her to be a member of the US Senate."
• Daily Kos' Markos Moulitsas: "I hate political dynasties. Hate them. But Jane [Hamsher] is right, in this case, the idea is particularly egregious -- Caroline has done nothing to help beat back the right-wing machine. But now, she's supposed to be handed by fiat what others fight their whole lives to attain?"
• Atrios: "It's one thing when the children of politicians use their name and network advantages to make political careers for themselves -- regrettable but inevitable in our very imperfect meritocracy -- but quite another when it's just bestowed on them."

MyDD's Todd Beeton: "Certainly her celebrity, which comes with 100% name recognition, is worth a fortune when it comes to running statewide in 2010. But that's the thing, she'll have to run and win in a couple of years and that's something Kennedy has never done. I've seen her speak, she is almost painfully reserved and charisma-free; will she be able to convince the state that they should vote for her on her own merits? And will her appointment be seen as having been earned or just a function of her famous name? Or will any of this matter because really, how do you run against Caroline Kennedy?"

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: You Don't Understand -- This Bush Is A Conservative!

RedState's Erickson defends his decision to endorse ex-FL Gov. Jeb Bush's potential Senate candidacy:

"On Friday, when we first gave voice to the idea of Jeb Bush for United States Senate, a number of readers and others opined against the idea. The general refrain was 'We're tired of Bushes.' There were some additional 'amnesty' and 'offshore drilling' chants thrown in, as well. [...]

It is a rather noxious notion in a democracy that any person would punish an innocent man for the crimes of his siblings or parents. In this case, it is noxious that we would show distain for a true conservative champion because people are tired of his brother. [...] Jeb Bush said he would govern as a conservative, and he did exactly that. For all the liberalism his brother pumped into conservatism in an attempt to show 'compassion,' Jeb Bush has used legitimately conservative means to be compassionate. [...]

For conservatives who are tired of Bushes, the Bushes got into power with a lot of your support. You don't fix your mistake by running from it. Fix your mistake by fixing it -- embrace Jeb Bush and help redeem the image of a party largely hurt by its connection to the wrong Bush. Supporting Jeb Bush does, in fact, help rebuild the brand, and it does so in sharp [contrast] to his brother."

LEST WE FORGET: Gotta Enforce The Rules

From Overheard in the Office:

Counter person at Boston Market: Hi, can I help you?
Customer: Yes, I'd like a dinner for twelve, please.
Counter person: Oh, I'm sorry. For orders that large you have to call catering at least twenty-four hours in advance.
Customer: Er, then how about two dinners for six?
Counter person: Oh, sure, we can do that.

Posted by Ian Faerstein at December 8, 2008 12:33 PM