December 09, 2008

12/9: Scandalous!

Like the rest of the political world, the blogosphere is buzzing about the news that IL Gov. Rod Blagojevich was arrested by FBI agents this morning on charges of "conspiring to obtain personal financial benefits" through his authority to appoint a U.S. senator to Pres.-elect Barack Obama's old seat. Liberal bloggers are amazed at Blagojevich's "brazenness and stupidity", and they've already begun speculating about who will now appoint the next IL senator. Conservative bloggers, meanwhile, are playing up Obama's ties to Blagojevich and are complaining that press reports are neglecting to mention that Blagojevich is a Dem.

Before the Blagojevich news broke, the dominant topic in the political blogosphere was ex-Obama strategist Steve Hildebrand's Huffington Post diary, in which he told Obama's "progressive critics" that "this is not a time for the left wing of our Party to draw conclusions [about Obama's appointments]." Liberal bloggers were outraged by Hildebrand's piece, calling it patronizing and counterproductive. Hildebrand later told TPM that "the Obama team had had no hand in writing or approving the piece", which is probably a good thing for Obama. If the Obama admin wants to do effective outreach to the liberal blogosphere, it's going to have to do a whole lot better than this.

BLAGOJEVICH: What A Scumbag

Liberal bloggers are amazed by Blagojevich's corruption:

• Daily Kos' BarbinMD: "It's mind boggling to see the utter venality and stupidity of (the hopefully soon-to-be ex) Governor of Illinois laid out so transparently. [...] And setting aside the disgust one feels at his blatant plans to sell a United States Senate seat to the highest bidder, just how stupid, or detached from reality, is Blagojevich? He considered appointing himself to the Senate to avoid being impeached and position himself for a presidential run?"
• TPM's Josh Marshall: "Even setting aside the primordial level of corruption of trying to sell the senate seat of the President-elect of the United States, I never fail to be amazed at the brazenness and stupidity of some political crooks. I mean, I think everyone involved in politics or interested in political corruption in the country had to know that Blagojevich's phones were tapped and probably his offices were bugged, and that [U.S. atty] Pat Fitzgerald had him under the craziest level of scrutiny. And he tries to sell the senate seat with that hanging over his head? That's simply amazing. I guess you could say he's just a traditionalist, trying to keep up heritage of Chicago machine politics. But with some of these characters, it must just be pathological."
• The Washington Monthly's Steve Benen: "We're not just talking about playing fast and loose with ethics rules here; we're talking about almost comical levels of corruption. [...] With [LA Rep.] William Jefferson losing on Saturday, and Rod Blagojevich getting busted today, the Democratic Party should be thrilled to be rid of its two most embarrassing members."

MyDD's Todd Beeton has questions about Obama's old Senate seat: "It is now really important that Blago NOT be the one to make the appointment to the Senate. Blago can resign or even step aside temporarily to let [IL LG] Pat Quinn step into the Governorship. If he refuses, the state legislature would have to impeach him but I suspect the pressure will be great for Blago to step aside, if only so that the appointed new Senator does not have any taint hanging over his or her head. Does this impact who that appointee will be? Distance from Blago and a squeaky clean reputation probably just became really important qualities in a candidate."

BLAGOJEVICH II: Did You Know That He's Obama's BFF?

Several conservative bloggers are linking Obama to Blagojevich (and Chicago machine politics more generally):

• AmSpec Blog's Philip Klein: "Keep in mind that Blagojevich was, in part, the political creation of Obama and his incoming chief of staff Rahm Emanuel, and a close ally."
• Gateway Pundit: "Why is it that all of Obama's close freinds and associates are either anti-American loons or crooks?"
• NRO's David Freddoso: "There will be tons to say later about Chicago's extreme corruption, to which Barack Obama was always willing to turn a blind eye. We will learn quite a bit more about Chicago and Springfield from Blagojevich's downfall in the next few months."
• Dan Riehl: "Pay-to-play for Obama's replacement? I wonder what Obama sold, or sold-out on, to the Chicago machine for support when he ran for the seat?"

Conservative bloggers are also complaining that press reports are neglecting to mention that Blagojevich is a Dem:

• NRO's John J. Miller: "Blagojevich is a Democrat. Just thought I'd mention it, because Monica Davey of the New York Times couldn't manage to squeeze that little detail into her 9-paragraph story on the governor of Illinois."
• Michelle Malkin: "Time to play: Name that party!"

HILDEBRAND: Who The Heck Does He Think He Is?

Liberal bloggers are unloading on Hildebrand, Obama's Nat'l Deputy Campaign Manager, after he wrote a Huffington Post diary entitled, "A Message to Obama's Progressive Critics":

"...This is not a time for the left wing of our Party to draw conclusions about the Cabinet and White House appointments that President-Elect Obama is making. Some believe the appointments generally aren't progressive enough. Having worked with former Senator Obama for the last two years, I can tell you, that isn't the way he thinks and it's not likely the way he will lead. The problems I mentioned above and the many I didn't, suggest that our president surround himself with the most qualified people to address these challenges. After all, he was elected to be the president of all the people -- not just those on the left."

Liberal bloggers are sharply criticizing Hildebrand's post, which they consider patronizing and counterproductive:

• Daily Kos' brownsox: "First off, the line 'After all, he was elected to be the President of all the people -- not just those on the left' is just incredibly condescending. At least the old Democratic establishment never pretended to give a flying damn what we thought. That's almost preferable to pretending you care about progressives by posting a diary at Huffington Post in which you talk to them like seven-year-olds. Second, since when are progressives not allowed to ask for progressive representation in the Cabinet? And why is the left excluded from the discussion of how to govern? Why doesn't being President of All The People actually include those on the left? [...] Steve Hildebrand is apparently a really nice guy, and an exceptionally brilliant Democratic operative. He was instrumental in electing a Democratic president of remarkable ability and judgment, and creating a moment in history of which we'll all be proud to tell our grandchildren. He should refrain from posting garbage like this in the future."
• dday: "I am gobsmacked by this HuffPo piece by Steve Hildebrand, punching the hippies on the left for... having opinions. [...] This lashing out from a senior Obama aide at a really small group of critics, who aren't really displaying much more than concern, and who for the most part have offered support for the policy pronouncements coming out of the transition, is extremely depressing. I don't think he's serving his former boss very well by seeking to silence dissent and building straw men on 'the left,' lying about their interests and concerns."
• TPM's Greg Sargent and Eric Kleefeld: "Hildebrand's tone here -- simultaneously defending the need to come together and castigating critics -- might not do much to calm things down. Really, one has to ask if Hildebrand is really trying to reassure 'the left wing of our party,' or whether he's trying to stir them up further out of some unknown political calculation or other. After all, many on 'the left' have also made Hildebrand's point: They've noted that Obama should be allowed to let his actual policies do the talking, while simultaneously asking completely legit questions about what his choices portend about the future direction of his administration. If merely asking such questions is enough to incite an attack on 'the left' from someone in Obama's inner circle, it seems reasonable to conclude that the motive here isn't to mend fences at all."
• AMERICAblog's John Aravosis: "It does seem that no one from the progressive side of the party is getting any cabinet posts at all. And that's not a litmus test, or a desire to lurch the Obama administration to the far left (at least not as far what I'd like to see) -- it's the simple desire to have a Cabinet that aspires to 'look like America' actually look like America, and some of those Americans are progressives."

HILDEBRAND II: Stop Asking Questions, Liberals!

Firedoglake's Jane Hamsher defends the netroots' criticism of some of Obama's appointments: "People on the left are not looking at Obama's appointments with a jaundiced eye because they think he needs to apply some liberal orthodoxy litmus test. They have legitimate concerns that people like [NY Fed Chair Timothy] Geithner, [ex-Treasury Sec. Lawrence] Summers and other [ex-Treasury Sec. Robert] Rubin acolytes created this mess, and it's reasonable to ask why they're being appointed to get us out of it. While some of us want to give Obama a chance to fulfill the promises he campaigned on and work with the staff of his choice in order to do so, we'd have to be a bunch of intellectually dishonest kool-aid swilling freaks to pretend his economics team didn't have some troublesome baggage. And after the past eight years, it's a bit much to stomach someone saying 'just shut up and trust me, because I know better.'"

Hamsher continues: "There is a lot of speculation right now about what will happen with the 13 million member email list the Obama campaign built, and there is some talk of Hildebrand running an organization that manages it. I wonder how long those membership numbers will hold up when any criticism of Obama is greeted with patronizing lectures and sneering condescension for its liberals?"

Meanwhile, Open Left's Chris Bowers offers Hildebrand some advice:

"Let me draft what would have been a more appropriate, coalition-sensitive response from Hildebrand:

'While some members of the left-wing of the Democratic Party are concerned over some of President-elect Obama's cabinet selections, they can rest assured that President-elect Obama welcomes a vigorous debate inside his administration, and that such debates will include voices from the left.'

How hard would that have been? Just invite the left into the discussion and the debate. Say that Obama is listening to a diverse range of voices. Let progressives know that they are included, but that they won't dominate, because Obama wants to hear from all sides. Being told, instead, that this isn't a time for the left to draw conclusions will, to most people on the left, sound a lot like 'the left shouldn't criticize Democrats during election season.' To be told, again, when the election is over that it still isn't time for the left to criticize Democrats kind of sounds like there is never an appropriate time for the left to criticize Democrats. It sends a clear implication that left-wing viewpoints are simply never welcome."

HILDEBRAND III: Thank You, Sir, May I Have Another?

Atrios has a high tolerance for verbal abuse directed at liberals, as long as Obama follows through on his campaign promises: "The Obama campaign didn't exist to make me feel good, and the Obama presidency won't either. I don't especially like his people punching the dirty fucking hippies under the bed, but on the other hand if they manage to convince people that Obama is a sensible centrist who wants to do sensible centrist things like build SUPERTRAINS, get out of Iraq, not torture people or invade random countries, strengthen labor protections, reduce income inequality, improve education, provide health care for people, and reduce poverty, while those DAMNED DIRTY HIPPIES just won't shut up about their magic ponies, it's fine by me. For years we've had Democrats railing against those crazy hippies as an excuse to not do all of those things. If Obama's people are going to rail against the hippies and use it as an excuse to do them, fine with me. If."

Open Left's Matt Stoller agrees: "Steve Hildebrand's little childish screed against unnamed leftists who won't let Obama govern like a centrist, along with his silly self-identification as one of those leftists (but not one of the bad ones!), is just a way of cornering a certain slice of his supporter base. That's fine, he's done it his whole campaign, he ran on kicking the left, and he's going to govern like that. And I'm open-minded, if his administration can build universal broadband and SUPERTRAINS and the like while certain members act snotty towards unnamed outspoken leftwingers, fine. I get it. He's my President, I hope he does a great job, as depressions really suck for everyone. But you know, there is that 'if' Atrios tucked in there."

Open Left's David Sirota is more upset, as he thinks that Hildebrand's criticism of "the left wing of our Party" is self-defeating: "The reason the Republican Party and conservative movement were so successful was because they developed a symbiotic relationship. Specifically, the party apparatus knew that sustained conservative movement pressure on the party was good for the party in keeping it disciplined and on message. By contrast, the culture of the Democratic Party since the [George] McGovern debacle in 1972 has been to bash the progressive movement -- to triangulate against it as proof of 'independence' and 'centrism.' We saw where that got the Democratic Party for the last 30 years -- but by the looks at the public post-election attacks on 'the left' from Democrats, it seems like the party higher-ups still haven't learned the simple lesson that pressure from a strong movement strengthens the party as a whole."

Salon's Glenn Greenwald agrees with Sirota: "If someone wants to say -- as Atrios did today -- that they're willing to tolerate the exclusion of liberals from Obama's cabinet and even demonization campaigns against the Left if that's the vehicle and strategy for enacting a progressive agenda, that at least is a rational assessment (though I think there's serious costs to encouraging not only Republicans and the media, but also Democrats, to all join together to agree that the one unspeakable bogeyman is the Left)."

HILDEBRAND IV: In Steve's Defense...

A few liberal bloggers are defending Hildebrand's comments:

• TAPPED's Tim Fernholz: "Hildebrand's piece struck me as a fairly conventional dog-whistle from the Obama folks to the left, trying to reassure them that Obama still supports liberal policies despite centrist appointments. [...] Sirota takes the most issue with a paragraph where Hildebrand seems to draw a distinction between liberal priorities and other pressing issues, writing, 'But first let's get our economy moving, bring our troops home safely, fix health care, end climate change and restore our place in the world.' It's a somewhat unfortunate construction, but I read this as an attempt to move the center to leftwards. If those four goals -- including climate change and health care reform! -- are identified as centrist, then progressives are freer to advocate for the sensible proposals that are even further out of the supposed 'mainstream' -- prison reform! the labor agenda! ending the DOMA and DADT! You get my point. Winning elections shouldn't be where progressives measure victory. A real win for the left is when their ideas become the mainstream and ridiculous conservative ideas become the fringe. Hildebrand seems to be writing to defened that conception, and not to attack liberals."
• TAPPED's Mori Dinauer: "I think Tim [Fernholz] has exactly the right take on [Hildebrand's piece], and in light of the fact that Obama is openly supporting a strike, making a progressive agenda his administration's top priority, and enjoying the overwhelming support of Democrats, it seems a bit premature to panic. By all means keep the pressure on, but judge this administration by its eventual policies, not its designated appointees."

Bowers, on the other hand, thinks it's absurd to claim that personnel is irrelevant: "A quick note from the 'this should be obvious' department: policies and personnel both matter. It is not either / or. One is not wholly dependant upon the other. If personnel did not matter, and only the policies of the President mattered, then there would be no need for any President to appoint anyone new in the federal government. Obama would not need to fire anyone in the [George W.] Bush administration, except Bush himself. Before that, Bush would have not needed to fire anyone in the [Bill] Clinton administration. And Clinton would not have needed to fire anyone from [George] Bush Sr.'s administration. Etc. [...] The point is that policy and personnel both matter, and that they both matter independently of each other. The people hired to run the federal government will have to follow Obama's policies. At the same time, the people hired to run the federal government will have a lot of say over exactly how Obama's policies are followed, and also over the formulation of new policies."

HAYDEN: Please Let This Just Be A Rumor...

Liberal bloggers were disturbed by an item in the U.S. News & World Report which suggested that Obama "might ask CIA Director Michael Hayden to stay on for a while":

• Atrios: "[Hayden] should be arrested, not rewarded."
• TalkLeft's Jeralyn Merritt: "I hope the US News Report is just a rumor being floated for reaction. Keeping Hayden would be unfortunate. It would represent the wrong kind of change for Obama who voted against Hayden's confirmation."
• Jay Ackroyd: "I get the idea of carrying over Gates at Defense. I do not get the idea of carrying over any of these people [at the CIA]."
• Bowers: "[K]eeping Mike Hayden on as Director of the CIA would signal Obama has no intention of revisiting [FISA], and really has gone right-wing on this [issue]. It is still just speculation, and not confirmed, but if it happens, this one would really suck. Keeping Bush's CIA and Defense heads on is awful for a candidate who, in the primaries, I backed significantly because of foreign policy."
• Greenwald: "In May, 2006, Barack Obama voted against confirming Gen. Hayden as CIA Director. Obama was one of only 15 Senators to oppose Hayden. In his speech on the Senate floor explaining his vote, Obama emphasized Hayden's role as Bush's NSA Director in implementing and overseeing Bush's illegal warrantless surveillance programs -- programs Obama has repeatedly decried as an assault on the rule of law. In fact, Obama, while acknowledging in his speech that Hayden was 'qualified,' described Hayden -- accurately -- 'as the architect and chief defender of a program of wiretapping and collection of phone records outside of FISA oversight.' [...] If, less than 3 years later, Obama chooses as his CIA Director the very same Michael Hayden -- who, during his confirmation hearing, justified Bush's illegal NSA spying and said how proud he was to help implement it [to say nothing of his (at best) equivocations on torture] -- then it should be quite...let us, for the moment, say 'interesting'...to watch him and his most loyal supporters explain and justify that."

OBAMA: Silly Liberals!

Conservative bloggers are arguing that progressives were naive to place their faith in Obama:

• The Atlantic's Megan McArdle: "Some progressives [are] apparently shocked to discover that they elected a politician, not (awesomely wise secular teacher!) Jesus. [...] Did progressives really think they'd woken up in Sweden on November 5th?"
• RedState's Pejman Yousefzadeh: "So, the netroots finds out that 'the new boss looks like the old boss'. Who is actually surprised that the Left would allow itself to be taken for a ride like this? And who doesn't believe that the Obama Administration will be audacious enough to continue to ask the netroots and the Left in general to continue giving money and manpower while frustrating the Left on policy issues and making them like it? I mean, the seeds of this betrayal were sown when Obama did things like agree with the Bush Administration on the FISA reform bill this past summer. Did the netroots and the Left believe that somehow, someway, Obama would respect them in the morning after his victory?"
• Hot Air's Ed Morrissey: "Maybe everyone got fooled in this election. The Right believed as the Left did that the nation elected a man who would pull American policy in as sharply a liberal direction as anything since the [Jimmy] Carter administration. After seeing most of Barack Obama's selections for his Cabinet, however, the Left doesn't get a sense of Carter deja vu as much as they detect a whiff of Bush. [...] During the election, Jim Geraghty and others of us warned voters that every Obama campaign position came with an expiration date. Maybe the Left should have paid more attention."
• RedState's Jeff Emanuel: "The fact is, Barack Obama believes in Barack Obama. Now that he's President, he's going to do just what he did during the campaign, and during his Senate term, and during his state Senate term, and during the time before that: exactly what he thinks is best for himself. The fact is, Obama's cabinet appointments to date haven't been center-right, as the Left is claiming; rather, they've been of the pragmatic center-left variety, bringing in experienced Clintonites (who worked in the more successful of the last two Democrat administrations) rather than experienced Carterites. The latter's experience is made up of little but failure -- something which raises their stature to the Left, but which makes them ineligible for a place in a narcissistically pragmatic administration like Obama's."

AUTO BAILOUT: The Rightroots Revolt

Conservative bloggers are fiercely opposed to the reported auto bailout legislation, in which congressional Dems are proposing "tight government control of the crippled American auto industry":

• Right Wing News' John Hawkins: "Good news, everybody! Not only does it look like a bailout is on the way for the Big 3, our federal government, which has wasted more money than any other organization in the history of the planet, has decided to get intimately involved to make sure our money isn't wasted. Gosh, what could possible go wrong? [...] Putting aside the fact that the government is setting itself up as an overseer of an industry it knows absolutely nothing about, their priorities foretell that this will be a disaster. They want the Big 3 to drop lawsuits, to look into making public transportation no one wants, to sell private jets, and they've also discussed limiting corporate pay. If you'll notice, absolutely none of these changes have anything to do with making the companies more viable over the long term. As a matter of fact, losing these lawsuits and keeping top executives from coming on board because of low pay could actually make the Big 3 significantly less likely to survive."
• The Heritage Foundation's Conn Carroll: "Government has a miserable record as a corporate manager. We shouldn't want politicians or federal bureaucrats managing private companies. Unfortunately that is exactly what liberals in Congress are poised to do. [...] The Center for Data Analysis estimates that the bankruptcy of the Big Three automakers would cause a loss of 453,000 jobs. Every single one of these job losses is extremely unfortunate, but ask yourself this: How much worse will future job losses be after Congress is done running the auto companies into the ground?"

Hot Air's Allahpundit: "54 percent, including 59 percent of people under age 45, oppose the bailout. Good luck, Barry."

RNC CHAIR: Dawson's Country Club Problem

Several conservative bloggers are wary of the prospect of SC GOP Chair Katon Dawson becoming RNC Chair, since Dawson spent 12 years as a member of a whites-only country club:

• Klein: "I have no idea whether Dawson himself is personally a bigot, so I won't make such accusations. But what is clear is that Dawson derived benefits from belonging to a club that excluded blacks as members, whether in terms of prestige, business and political contacts, or merely because he spent some pleasant time there. The proper method to change the ways of these exclusive clubs is not through the legal system, but by showing its members that there are consequences to excluding minorities. The Republican Party would be making a clear statement along these lines if they were to deny him the chairmanship. At the very minimum, Republicans should be seriously considering whether, after America elected its first black president, the party wants to be led by somebody who spent more than a decade as a member of a whites-only club."
• NRO's Geraghty: "We've seen these kinds of storms before -- [ex-MS Sen.] Trent Lott, [ex-VA Sen.] George Allen, [radio show host] Don Imus, the Duke Lacrosse players. The media loves to go after villains, and membership in a country club with no black members is sufficient to make one a villain in many eyes. If Dawson is the nominee, it is extremely likely you will see CNN and MSNBC camera crews outside the country club, recording B-roll footage. If there's any footage of Dawson ever participating in a charity golf tournament, you'll see it. The question of whether the Forest Lake Country Club is all-white because of a deed, or an official policy, or an unofficial policy will be sorted out and analyzed in depth. At the height of the storm, Dawson could discover the cure for cancer and the news would run on page A3. The media's coverage of a Dawson victory in the RNC chair race would, in all likelihood, not be fair to him or the party. But it doesn't mean the potential fallout should be ignored, either."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Blagojevich Had Presidential Ambitions?

Reading the FBI affidavit, The New Republic's Jason Zengerle notes "the icing on the Blago cake":

"It comes at the very end of the complaint. Despite his 4 percent approval rating, Blagojevich still thought he was a viable presidential candidate:

'In addition, in the course of the conversations over the last month, ROD BLAGOJEVICH has spent significant time weighing the option of appointing himself to the open Senate seat, and has expressed a variety of reasons for doing so, including frustration at being 'stuck' as governor, a belief that he will be able to obtain greater resources if he is indicted as a sitting Senator as opposed to a sitting governor, and a desire to remake his image in consideration of a possible run for President in 2016, avoid impeachment by the Illinois legislature, make corporate contacts that would be of value to him after leaving public office, facilitate his wife's employment as a lobbyist, and assist in generating speaking fees should he decide to leave public office.'

Blago '16: Tanned, Rested, and Ready!"

LEST WE FORGET: So, How Great Is It To Be Back, Huh?

From Overheard in the Office:

Employee, returning after a month away: Hey, you've lost weight!
Manager: Thanks! I've been...
Employee: No, wait, you just got your hair cut. Nevermind.

Posted by Ian Faerstein at December 9, 2008 01:06 PM