January 30, 2009

1/30: The Battle Intensifies

The House GOP caucus's unanimous rejection of Barack Obama's economic stimulus bill has certainly energized the conservative blogosphere. Righty bloggers are stepping up their efforts to persuade Senate GOPers to vote against the bill. Michelle Malkin has thrown her support behind the RedState/#dontgo "Send a Pair" campaign, which seeks to pressure Senate Min. Leader Mitch McConnell into opposing the bill by bombarding his office with "golf balls, novelty items...or real items such as various 'dried scrotum' products found in grocery stores." Conservative bloggers are also buzzing about a new Rasmussen poll indicating that support for the stimulus bill is dropping. Righty bloggers view this poll as evidence that the GOP is winning the media war (incidentally, lefty bloggers also believe that GOP opponents of the bill are winning the media war).

Meanwhile, liberal bloggers continue to press the argument that Obama should stop trying to negotiate with congressional GOPers and instead pass whatever bill he thinks will be most effective. Lefty bloggers believe that congressional GOPers "should be written out of negotiations" because they're (allegedly) only interested in undermining Obama's efforts to turn around the economy.

In non-stimulus news, many liberal bloggers are excited about reports that Obama is considering asking Sen. Judd Gregg (R-NH) to serve as Commerce Sec., since Gregg's replacement could potentially give Dems 60 seats in the Senate. However, other lefty bloggers are warning their colleagues not to rejoice too much.

STIMULUS: Hold The Line, GOP Senators!

Righty bloggers are urging GOP Senators to follow the lead of House GOPers in forcefully rejecting the stimulus bill:

• RedState's Jeff Emanuel: "Call your Senator and tell him or her not to abandon the House GOP on the Front Lines of the current battle for Congress and for America's future. The Democrats have enough votes to pass this and every other rotten item on their agenda without Republican help. Let's make them do it -- and, through that, make them own every single negative outcome that results from their awful policies."
• Malkin: "Conservatives have several staunch advocates in the Senate, but not nearly enough. You will recall that GOP Sen. Minority Leader Mitch McConnell on Jan. 4 made strangely positive noises about the Generational Theft Act of 2009 -- prompting many on the Right to wonder if he had lost his, um, parts. RedState and #dontgo have come to his aid with Operation Send A Pair. No, not socks. Erick Erickson explains the campaign and asks for your help here."
• RedState's Moe Lane: "[T]he House GOP's decision yesterday to Hold The Line has seriously disconcerted the Democratic Party. They're in a position where they've got an increasingly-unpopular bill to carry, and they're willing to do anything to pass off some of the load...except let Congressional Republicans hack away at the accumulated special-interest pork. [...] In a very real sense, we won this round Wednesday night: the only question is whether McConnell and the rest of the Senate GOP have the guts to go for the bonus points. If they need a stiffener, remember: only 42% support. 50% of independents oppose."
• Hot Air's Ed Morrissey: "Republicans need to hold firm and insist that all non-immediate and non-stimulus spending get stripped -- which would probably make this a $120 billion bill rather than the $900 billion version sitting in the Senate."

NRO's Mark Hemingway thinks Senate GOPers should vote against the stimulus for reasons of self-preservation: "Aside from more conventional arguments against the bill...there's another interesting sub-plot here: campaign cash. Especially in the midst of a recession, there's only so much of it to go around. Thus Republicans in the Senate have been arguing behind closed doors that they deserve the lion's share of the GOP campaign funds available over the House. The argument is that the House is essentially a lost cause for the time being and that it's more important that the Senate preserve their precarious filibuster and expand the number of votes there. But if the Republican leadership in the Senate can't either manage a filibuster of the stimulus package or at the very least wrangle nearly all of their 41 votes against it, it will be much harder to justify giving money to them over the House where the leadership just proved itself in a big way. A lot can happen between now and when the Senate votes but, somewhat perversely, the Senate Republicans have at least one big incentive to come out against the stimulus."

STIMULUS II: Is The GOP Winning The Media War?

Conservative bloggers are buzzing about a new Rasmussen poll indicating that support for the stimulus bill is dropping:

• Morrissey: "The nine-point drop in the gap over a one-week period shows that the electorate has gotten more skeptical about massive government spending. Republicans have done a good job of getting their message out, and they have succeeded especially among independents. A week ago, independents had a virtual dead heat on the bill, 37%-36% in favor. Now independents oppose it 50%-27%. Democrats really are on their own with this bill."
• AmSpec Blog's Philip Klein: "If these results end up being corroborated by other polls, it would suggest that Republican attacks on the bill have been gaining traction. Another two weeks of hammering away at this thing, and we could see a massive errosion of public support. At the very minimum, we should hold off on adopting the conventional wisdom that the legislation is broadly popular."

Meanwhile, NRO's Yuval Levin thinks Dems "have seriously botched [things] up": "When they manage to unify the entire House Republican caucus with David Brooks and Peggy Noonan, you know the Democrats have seriously botched something up. And boy, they really have. The more you look at the stimulus bill the clearer it becomes that it is the Congressional Democrats, not the opponents of this bill, who have failed to see that we are in a genuine and exceptional crisis. They're working to use the moment as an opportunity to advance the same agenda they haven't been able to move (with good reason) for a decade and more, and in the process are showing that agenda to be what we always knew it was: a massively wasteful, reckless, profligate, slovenly, higgledy-piggledy mess of interest group troughs and technocratic fantasies devoid of any economic thinking or sense of proportion."

STIMULUS III: You Can't Negotiate With Sharks, Obama

Liberal bloggers continue to hammer home the point that Obama should stop trying to appease congressional GOPers:

• Dylan Matthews: "This stimulus will still pass in the end, and it's probably better to get something through fast than to repeat the fight in order to get a better deal. But I hope that Obama is taking away the right lesson from this. He tried cooperating. He reached out to John Boehner and Eric Cantor, even though he didn't need their support. And they screwed him. They had their choice between having an input into policy and becoming irrelevant, and they decided they'd rather be irrelevant. So here's hoping Obama helps them stay that way."
• Daily Kos' Devilstower: "The problem is not that Obama was unwilling to compromise, it's that the Republicans no longer understand the meaning of compromise. [...] What happened yesterday is that Republicans decided that they would rather have a stunt, demonstrating their allegiance to the unsupported mythology of Reaganomics and undiluted party politics, rather than an honest look at how best to address the problems of the nation."
• Salon's Glenn Greenwald: "Republicans aren't interested in 'bipartisanship' except to the extent that they can force Democrats to enact their policies even though they have only a small minority thanks to being so forcefully rejected by the citizenry. And why should they be interested in bipartisanship? Why should they vote for a stimulus package that they don't support and that is anathema to what their most ardent supporters believe? It's very hard to find any virtuous attribute of the contemporary Republican Party, but one thing that can be said for them is that -- unlike Democrats, whose overarching desire in life is to please the needy harmony fetishists by adopting as many GOP views as possible -- Republicans are willing to incur criticisms by opposing what they oppose and supporting what they support. And that's how it should be."
• Amanda Marcotte: "Republicans are lying when they pretend to object to this small bit or that, and concessions offered to get their votes will equal knives planted firmly in your back. Despite this lesson, I guarantee that Republicans will be able to whine and cry until more concessions are granted in the Senate, at what point none of them will vote for the economic stimulus package. [...] Republicans are more afraid of [Rush] Limbaugh than they are of Obama. And Limbaugh has expressed his marching orders -- Obama must fail, and they must put their efforts to that goal. Obama was able to count on a least a handful of Republicans to be decent friends to him in the Senate, but I hope he realizes that they are his blood enemies now and will sacrifice anything to fuck him over now that he's President."

Daily Kos' Markos Moulitsas: "[A]s we've discussed ad infinitum, there was no margin for Republicans to support this. If the stimulus succeeds, Obama and the Dems will get all the credit. If it fails, everyone who voted for it will get tarred with it. So Republicans are better off making sure it's seen as a Democratic proposal rather than a bipartisan one. That way, they can wield it as a political weapon. And that's not a bad thing. There's one last negative byproduct of bipartisanship -- lack of accountability. It's harder to hold people responsible for their mistakes when everyone points a finger at someone else. In this case, let the voters note which party is responsible for the stimulus. If it succeeds (and I'm not 100 percent confident that it will), let the credit go to those who deserve it, and if it fails, then Democrats will have to take their accountability lumps. And that's the way it should be."

Moulitsas continues: "Republicans played this properly, unlike the constantly-capitulating Dems the past decade. It's Obama's chasing of the magic 'bipartisan' pony that deserves scorn, because no number of concessions was going to get him a single Republican vote in the House. The Senate is different, and he'll get crossover support there which he can use to laud his 'bipartisanship'. But House Republicans? Screw them. They are irrelevant, unpopular, and should henceforth be treated as such."

STIMULUS IV: If Dems Are Gonna Own This Thing, They Better Make It Good

Like MA Sen. John Kerry and other congressional Dems, some liberal bloggers are calling for the removal of GOP-favored provisions (such as business tax cuts) from the stimulus bill if GOPers refuse to vote for the final product:

• Open Left's David Sirota: "[I]n offering no support for a stimulus bill that includes quite a lot of tax cuts, the GOP really should be written out of negotiations, not just because they have no legislative power, but because their votes yesterday confirmed that they are legislative terrorists interested only in sabotaging the economy."
• MyDD's Todd Beeton: "While the House 'isn't there yet' when it comes to the prospect of stripping Republican measures from the stimulus if they're not going to vote for it anyway, it's nice to see House Dems at least acknowledge the absurdity of conceding anything if they're getting nothing in return."

Meanwhile, Daily Kos's BarbinMD thinks House GOPers made a huge political mistake in unanimously voting against the stimulus bill: "[W]hat a bunch of clueless lemmings. People overwhelmingly trust and support the President, they want his plan to succeed, they watched Obama travel to Capitol Hill to listen to Republican concerns, saw that he had provisions removed that they objected to, and the GOP responds by having all 177 members vote against the bill. And then 'the team' spread out ... to right wing radio, to the Heritage Foundation, and no doubt littering the landscape at Fox News, to pat themselves on the back for a job well done. What will they do for an encore? Gather on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial to sing 'Barack the Magic Negro'?"

GREGG: Ready To Abandon Ship?

Liberal bloggers are buzzing about a Huffington Post report that Obama is considering asking Sen. Gregg to serve as Commerce Sec. The move could potentially give Dems 60 seats in the Senate, since Dem Gov. John Lynch would appoint Gregg's replacement:

• AMERICAblog's Joe Sudbay: "This kind of bi-partisanship works for me."
• MyDD's Josh Orton: "Doesn't seem like a done deal yet, but politically it's genius. Commerce Secretary is a relatively substance-free post -- [George W.] Bush used the seat as a reward for friends. There's not really much policy creation, so I'd be fine with a Republican like Gregg in the spot. And even better, we'd get our 60th Dem Senator."

Other liberal bloggers are urging their colleagues not to rejoice too much:

• Daily Kos' brownsox: "Before you get your hopes up too high, consider that there's no indication yet of whom Lynch might appoint -- there isn't even a vacancy yet, and Lynch could very well appoint a centrist Democrat to the position even if Gregg did take the job. So we're by no means guaranteed a progressive champion in the seat if Gregg is offered, and takes, the Commerce job."
• FiveThirtyEight's Nate Silver: "I'm not sure that the Republicans are all that screwed over if Gregg leaves the Senate and a Democrat is appointed in his stead. Yes, it gets the Democrats to their magic number of 60. But 60 is an overrated, fuzzy number given that [ME Sen.] Olympia Snowe has sided with the administration on 26 of 31 roll call votes so far, and that [ME Sen.] Susan Collins, [PA Sen.] Arlen Specter, [AK Sen.] Lisa Murkowski and [OH Sen.] George Voinovich aren't far behind her. Moreover, if the Democrats actually get the 60th seat, it will be much harder for them to play the obstructionism card in 2010 -- and much easier, conversely, for the Republicans to play the divided government card."

Several bloggers are wondering why Gregg would want the job of Commerce Sec.:

• Think Progress' Matthew Yglesias: "If this scenario were to come to pass, it would sort of make me wonder why Gregg would want to make the switch. Being a United States Senator seems like a pretty good job to me. Commerce Secretary -- eh? But tastes differ."
• Balloon Juice's Tim F.: "[W]hy does Gregg want the job? Whatever the pluses (e.g., he escapes a radicalized caucus that hates and abuses moderates like him), Gregg can look forward to the kind of hate that only [ex-VT Sen.] Jim Jeffords and a sick twelve year old kid can possibly understand. Before Judd Gregg makes up his mind, I suggest that he sit down with Graeme Frost and talk about living as a magnet for hysterical rightwing hate."

TAPPED's Tim Fernholz, on the other hand, thinks there are a lot of reasons why Gregg might want the Cabinet post.

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: An Opening For A Small-Government Populism?

NRO's Rich Lowry:

"Two things helped Newt Gingrich Republicans make an anti-government case in the early 1990's: (1) Big government was associated with cultural liberalism; (2) The deficit -- popularized as an issue by Ross Perot -- associated big government with Washington irresponsibility. Over the course of the decade, Bill Clinton shrewdly worked to separate government from cultural liberalism by signing welfare reform and pushing various family-friendly initiatives, and the budget was balanced. This took a lot of the political charge out of anti-big government case. I wonder if the excesses of the bailouts and the stimulus package will make big government politically vulnerable in a way it hasn't been in more than a decade by, (1) Again associating government spending with Washington irresponsibility through the truly dramatic new numbers for the deficit and the debt; (2) Intertwining government with Wall Street/corporate America in a way that makes it possible for a Main Street conservatism to run against both. There may be point here at which a Mike Huckabee populism and a Steve Forbes free-market economics can meet. There's usually a reaction to every action in American politics, and while the Democrats and Obama have basically a free hand to expand government in the current environment, you can already feel the backlash building."

LEST WE FORGET: Country CD Put On To Impress Repair Guy

From The Onion:

"WILMETTE, IL -- In an effort to impress repairman Jason Delmar, 29, whom he called to fix a malfunctioning dishwasher, local resident Brad Osterberg played Merle Haggard's 1968 album Mama Tried for the entire time Delmar was in his home, the 38-year-old intellectual property attorney told reporters Monday. 'He didn't say much, but I think we really connected,' said Osterberg, who later added that he always makes sure he has something by A Tribe Called Quest blaring when his usual pizza delivery guy comes. 'I just wanted him to feel comfortable. After all, I have a pretty nice place.' After leaving Osterberg's home, Delmar reportedly resumed listening to the audiobook of Thomas Pynchon's Gravity's Rainbow on his repair truck's CD player in order to 'get that hillbilly shit out of [his] head.'"

Posted by Ian Faerstein at 01:00 PM

January 29, 2009

1/29: A House Divided

So the House approved Barack Obama's economic stimulus bill in the way that bloggers desired, with Dems almost unanimously voting in favor of the bill and GOPers unanimously voting against it. Conservative bloggers are heaping praise on their GOP representatives for standing up for "smaller government and fiscal responsibility." Michelle Malkin proudly described yesterday as "a good day for conservatism," while Ed Morrissey hopefully wondered, "Have the Republicans turned a corner?" Meanwhile, righty bloggers have already begun urging Senate Min. Leader Mitch McConnell and the rest of the Senate GOPers to join their House counterparts in opposing the bill. Erick Erickson is asking his readers to "send Mitch some balls" (literally) in order to encourage him to "oppose the stimulus bill."

Meanwhile, liberal bloggers aren't surprised that House GOPers unanimously voted against the stimulus bill, as they think it was politically smart of them to do so. However, they're annoyed that Dems made several compromises (such as removing a provision expanding family planning services for low-income Americans) when not a single GOPer ended up voting for the bill anyway. "Pre-compromising to attract non-existent Republican support was, in a word, insane," one blogger complained. Lefty bloggers hope that Obama learned a lesson from this experience -- namely, that compromising legislation in order to seek GOP support is a futile pursuit (and an unnecessary one, in their view, since Dems have such large congressional majorities).

STIMULUS: Thanks For Holding The Line, House GOPers

Conservative bloggers are praising House GOPers for unanimously voting against the stimulus bill:

• Right Wing News' John Hawkins: "Rarely do I say this, but I am proud of the Republican Party today."
• Power Line's John Hinderaker: "Congratulations to the House Republicans: all 177 voted against the Democrats' pork-fest bill. [...] For the Republicans, this vote is an important first step toward reclaiming the mantle of small(er) government and fiscal responsibility."
• RedState's Erickson: "The House GOP held the line. They voted unanimously to oppose the Obama Stimulus Plan. The Democrats will now own this failure. [...] I'm giving a $22.00 donation to the National Republican Congressional Committee, the group that elects House Republicans. We may not agree with them every time. But it is quite important that we say thanks to them when they hold the line on the advance of socialism."
• Townhall's Matt Lewis: "Kudos to House Republicans for sticking together and standing firm against the 'stimulus'. Is it just me, or does it seem like -- for the first time in a long time -- Republicans are starting to get their mojo back???"
• Malkin: "Today was a good day for conservatism. [...The GOP] may have lost the vote, but they sent a lasting message. They took a stand for principle and posterity. They took a stand against generational theft. They reclaimed their brand as the party of small government, low taxes, and fiscal responsibility. They restored their damaged credibility."
• RedState's Jeff Emanuel: "The Democrats passed the bill, but couldn't keep their caucus together -- and the GOP managed to keep every single member in line. Well done, Reps. [John] Boehner, [Eric] Cantor, and the rest of the House Republican caucus."
• Hot Air's Morrissey: "Politically as well as economically, Republicans made the right choice in refusing to sign onto this stimulus package. In the first place, only 12% of this bill has any actual stimulus value, and it comes too slowly to help. The rest, filled mostly with historical Democratic spending priorities for government like family planning, education spending, and poverty programs, should have been handled through normal appropriations and not emergency economic stimulus spending, which it clearly is not. If this package passes Congress and it works, the Democrats will get all the credit, as [House Speaker Nancy] Pelosi especially ensured that Republicans couldn't offer any of their ideas for improvements. If it fails (and it surely will), the blame falls squarely on Obama, Pelosi, and [Senate Maj. Leader] Harry Reid, which is exactly what Obama hoped to avoid -- and why the vote was actually more of a defeat than a victory."

AmSpec Blog's Philip Klein isn't quite ready to congratulate House GOPers: "I find myself of two minds in the wake of the House vote on the stimulus package. On the one hand, I'm thrilled that Republicans voted against this monstrosity. On the other hand, it's frustrating to consider what it took for them to actually stand in unified opposition to crappy legislation. For years, they voted for every pork-laden bill that the [George W.] Bush White House sent down the pike. Now they finally make a strong statement for fiscal restraint, but only after two straight election pummelings that handed Democrats the White House, both chambers of Congress, and a near filibuster-proof majority in the Senate. Things might have been a lot different had Republicans stood up to the Bush administration like they stood up to President Obama today."

STIMULUS II: Follow The House's Lead, Senate!

Conservative bloggers are urging Senate GOPers to oppose the stimulus bill as vigorously as House GOPers did:

• Hawkins: "Unfortunately, I have been hearing behind-the-scenes for the last few days that although the GOP leadership and most of the rank-and-file in the Senate oppose the stimulus bill, they are unlikely to filibuster it. Perhaps seeing the House Republicans stand tall will stiffen their spines a bit, however, and we may see the Senate GOP go to the mat to stop this incredible disaster for the American people."
• Malkin: "Senate Republicans, take note. Don't squander this opportunity for redemption. Make no apologies for principled obstructionism. Counter the inevitable liberal overreaching with plain facts and free-market alternatives."
• Morrissey: "The way to build credibility on principle is to start acting on it. Let's hope Senate Republicans figure that out when the bill hits the upper chamber."

Meanwhile, Erickson is urging his readers to "send Mitch some balls": "I've said [McConnell] lost his testicles and is now spreading a cancer of capitulation throughout the Senate Republican Conference. We need to send Mitch some balls. Seriously. We're teaming up with the Don't Go Movement to do just that. Go here and send Mitch some balls. The House GOP can hold the line. Mitch and the Senate GOP should do the same and oppose the stimulus bill."

The Heritage Foundation's Conn Carroll hopes that Obama "changes course": "[S]lapping together all of the far left's spending priorities into one massive deficit skyrocketing bill and then calling it 'economic stimulus' does not make it economic stimulus. [...] For the sake of the economy, we sincerely hope [Obama] changes course."

STIMULUS III: Enough With The "Bipartisan" Charade

Most liberal bloggers don't care that zero GOPers voted for the economic stimulus bill. They believe that Dems should stop making compromises in the name of bipartisanship and instead rely on their sizeable congressional majorities in order to pass the most progressive legislation possible:

• Open Left's Chris Bowers: "While we will need two Republican votes to pass the stimulus through the Senate, I'm glad no Republicans supported it in the House. Not only does it offer a clear contrast between the parties, not only does it give good reason to re-write the legislation without any concessions to Republicans when the bill is reworked in conference, but it puts a quick end to the 'bi-partisan' charade of the last few days. As demonstrated on so many occasions, most recently by the 95% drop in Republican support for TARP, almost all Republicans in Congress are bad faith actors. You can't compromise or appeal to people whose motives are simply to oppose you. [...] Let's drop futile attempts to appease those who caused our problems in the first place, and stay focused on cleaning up the mess they left."
• AMERICAblog's Joe Sudbay: "The traditional media and pundits need to remember that the primary goal here is saving the economy, not bipartisanship. It shouldn't surprise anyone that the same Republicans who played politics with the Iraq war are willing to play the same games with our teetering economy. That's what they do. Hopefully, the Obama team has learned something, too. If the other side isn't really negotiating in good faith, you're just negotiating with yourselves. [...] The goal, once again, shouldn't be getting GOP votes. The goal is putting together a package that will save the economy, which was destroyed by GOP policies."
• Atrios: "If I were advising the Republicans I would've told them to vote against the stimulus package. I would tell them to make the point clearly that if they were in charge, the bill would be a different bill. They're a competing political party and they need to, you know, highlight the fact that their vision for America is actually different. I appreciate that members of both parties don't always toe the line completely, but on a bill as big as this it makes perfect sense for it to play out as it did. Of course the flip side is that Dems should've pushed the best plan that could pass the Senate instead of pushing some pointless fantasy about bipartisanship."
• Think Progress' Matthew Yglesias: "I would imagine the [GOP's] crude calculus is something like this. In 1993-94 the GOP minority relentlessly sought to obstruct a new president's legislative agenda and were rewarded with a big electoral win in 1994. In 2001-2002 the Democratic minority relentlessly sought to compromise with a new president's legislative agenda and were rewarded with a big electoral defeat in 2002. Simplistic lesson is that there's no upside to cooperation. The lesson I would hope the administration learns here is this: He needs to spend less time seeking political cover to mitigate the downside to possible policy failure, and more time trying to implement the best policies he can."
• MyDD's Todd Beeton: "You see, this is what you get when you fetichize bipartisanship. Can we just agree that it's overrated and that we'd be a lot better off if Democrats just passed everything on a party line vote and move on?"

STIMULUS IV: You Made All Those Compromises For Nothing, Obama!

Several liberal bloggers are bemoaning the compromises Obama made when not a single GOPer ended up voting for the bill anyway:

• The New York Times' Paul Krugman: "The House has passed the stimulus bill with not a single Republican vote. Aren't you glad that Obama watered it down and added ineffective tax cuts, so as to win bipartisan support?"
• Firedoglake's Ian Welsh: "After taking out family planning money and ditching bankruptcy reform, plus including significant tax cuts, not a single Republican voted for it. It's like Democrats are negotiating with themselves. They give things up and get no votes in exchange."
• dday: "[P]re-compromising to attract non-existent Republican support was, in a word, insane. Now Obama had better hope those Republican ideas (which aren't overwhelming, but they're still there) baked into the package work. I'm not holding my breath. And let's hope that, in the future, the only people who sill listen to the ideas of Republicans are cable news talent bookers."

Several liberal bloggers are urging Dems to undo these compromises before the Senate votes on the bill:

• Bowers: "[Now there is] good reason to re-write the legislation without any concessions to Republicans when the bill is reworked in conference."
• The Reality-Based Community's Mark Kleiman: "When the House and Senate bills go to conference, some of the concessions made in the name of bipartisanship -- in particular some of the inequitable and uneconomic tax cuts -- should be taken out, and replaced by, e.g., a payroll-tax holiday for employees. And we should be sure to put the birth control funds back into the bill; Republican politicians, their corporate paymasters, and their fundamentalist voters need to be taught the lesson that obstructionism has a price. McConnell has already announced that he won't filibuster the stimulus package. So we don't need any Republican votes in the Senate, either. Having tried it the bipartisan way, let's make this a Democratic bill and pass it with Democratic votes."
• Balloon Juice's Tim F: "If Republicans plan to deliver exactly zero votes for Obama's stimulus bill, then why does the bill still have compromises in it? Screw them. Put the family planning stuff back in, take the tax cuts out. If we know for sure that passing a crappy bill won't win any more votes then just pass a better bill. They won't scream any louder. The political cost won't be any greater. Also, and pay attention because this is the important part, a better bill is more likely to succeed."

STIMULUS V: Obstructionists!

While many liberal bloggers don't seem to mind that House GOPers unanimously voted against the economic stimulus bill, others are portraying House GOPers as obstructionists:

• Mother Jones' Kevin Drum: "In case there were still any doubters, I think it's now safe to say that the GOP caucus has decided to pick up where it left off last year, in full-on obstruction mode."
• The Washington Monthly's Steve Benen: "If the House Republican caucus, en masse, isn't willing to support a stimulus package in the midst of a global economic crisis, it's hard to imagine when, exactly, GOP lawmakers are going to work with the majority party in a constructive way."
• Kleiman: "Democrats should never let the voters forget this. Republicans chose the opportunity to give an overwhelmingly popular new President the finger over the opportunity to work together to drag the economy out of the hole their policies left it in. In particular, those running in 2010 against the remaining Republicans from Blue districts should wrap this vote around the incumbents' [necks]; when push came to shove, they put party first, country last."
• Obsidian Wings' publius: "Here we are facing the most desperate economic crisis since the Depression -- with mass layoffs stories filling the newswires each week. And the Republicans are attempting -- in an extremely partisan fashion -- to block efforts to stimulate the economy (after monetary policy has completely run out of bullets). I mean, a Democratic Karl Rove would have a field day with this stuff."
• Daily Kos' Jed L: "Nobody expected overwhelming GOP support. But for every single Republican member to oppose a new economic recovery plan? After the 2008 election, that's just stunning. [...] This type of partisan obstruction by Republicans is just another example of why Americans overwhelmingly favor the Democratic Party on issues like the economy."
• dday: "I don't know how you can come away from this sideshow thinking anything but that Republicans are determined to have their Great Depression and that they openly wish failure upon the United States, or at least no economic recovery for anyone who needs it. Americans seem to have gotten that message too; it's why Democrats have a 24-point generic ballot lead at this point for the next election."

The Atlantic's Andrew Sullivan: "The GOP sure rewarded the president for coming to the Hill and talking it through with them for hours, didn't they?"

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: A Strange Time To Take A Stand

The American Conservative's Daniel Larison thinks the House GOP made a mistake by unanimously voting against Obama's stimulus bill:

"It continues to mystify me how John Boehner remains the leader of the House Republicans. The Republican stimulus vote was remarkable in how politically tone-deaf it was. The bill as presented to the House shouldn't have passed, but it is striking how unwilling the Republican leadership was to back a popular piece of legislation. When confronted with a similar situation in September over the bill authorizing the TARP -- the Democrats had a majority but wanted, indeed needed, Republican votes for provide bipartisan cover -- the Republican leadership caved and backed a bill their constituents hated and endorsed a measure of dubious merit. Of course, that was four months ago when it might have done them some good electorally. Having blown the obvious opportunity to tap into populist outrage over the bailout, which was supported by perhaps a third of the electorate at most, the leadership now decides to make their stand opposing a bill that commands support from a broad majority of the country, and they do so at a time when their stand, such as it is, will be forgotten by the time the midterms come around. Indeed, the sudden unanimous opposition of House Republicans to this bill mainly accomplishes one thing, which is to remind everyone of how gutlessly the Republican leadership acquiesced to whatever the Bush administration wanted and how they only managed to discover some interest in resisting massive expenditures when someone from the other party is in the White House."

LEST WE FORGET: Starbucks Eliminates Coffee, Cups, Stir-thingies

The Huffington Post's Andy Borowitz:

"In its latest cost-cutting moves designed to improve its bottom line, Starbucks announced today that it would no longer offer coffee, cups, or stir-thingies beginning February 1.

In an official statement, company spokesman Carol Foyler said that Starbucks 'wrestled long and hard' with the decision to eliminate the three items, 'especially coffee.'.

'We are aware that many of our customers have come to Starbucks in the past looking for a cup of coffee,' Ms. Foyler said. 'We hope, however, that they will continue to come even though we no longer offer coffee or cups, for that matter.' [...]

When asked what Starbucks hoped would attract customers to their stores in the future, Ms. Foyler said, 'We hope customers will see our stores as a place for the unemployed and/or homeless to come out of the cold and warm themselves over a scalding hot cup of water, as long as they bring the cup.'"

Posted by Ian Faerstein at 01:00 PM

January 28, 2009

1/28: Bipartisanship Is Overrated

The blogosphere consensus that we described on Monday remains true today: liberal bloggers and conservative bloggers both want Dems in Congress to pass the stimulus bill themselves, with little support from GOPers. As soon as Politico reported yesterday that House Min. Leader John Boehner was urging his caucus to vote against the stimulus bill, lefty bloggers began chastising Barack Obama for thinking that he could win GOP votes in the first place. "I am just shocked to discover that Republicans will vote against the bill which has been made shittier to please them," one liberal blogger wrote sarcastically. Another asked: "Can we stop trying to appease bad-faith Republicans now...please?"

The netroots believe that GOPers were never going to vote for Obama's stimulus bill, because (a.) the idea that gov't spending can lift the country out of a recession is antithetical to their economic philosophy, and (b.) it's not in their political interest to support the bill. Markos Moulitsas summarizes the latter argument thusly: "Worst case scenario for Republicans, the stimulus works and they're toast in 2010 anyway. Best case, the stimulus does little to help the nation's economic recovery, and they can play the 'change' card next election." In the meantime, liberal bloggers are urging Dems to stop "watering down the stimulus bill" in order to attract GOP support and instead "pass the best bill they can".

Conservative bloggers, meanwhile, are urging GOPers in Congress to oppose the bill, which they're calling a "porkapalooza" and "The Pelosi-Reid-Obama Debt Plan". Conservative bloggers are convinced that the legislation will fail to stimulate the economy, and they believe that there's no reason for GOPers to give Obama "bipartisan cover for a bad bill".

STIMULUS: Have You Learned Your Lesson Yet, Obama?

Now that GOP leaders have reportedly made up their minds to oppose Obama's stimulus bill, liberal bloggers are urging Obama to stop trying to win GOP support and instead pass "the best possible bill" (which the netroots have been preaching all along):

• Atrios: "I am just shocked to discover that Republicans will vote against the bill which has been made shittier to please them. Just shocked."
• MyDD's Josh Orton: "Can we stop trying to appease bad-faith Republicans now...please? [...] Boy, good thing we made sure to strip out the contraceptive funding that got Republicans so worked up yesterday!"
• Daily Kos' Moulitsas: "So Democrats have bent over backwards watering down the stimulus bill and even stripping out such 'objectionable' material to Republicans as family planning funds for the low-income, all in the name of 'bipartisanship'. And how do Republicans repay those efforts?"
• Sadly, No!'s Brad: "Look, Obamee, I know you made a bunch of Broderesque promises to be all nice to people in the Republican Party, but you're clearly getting rolled here. [...] It's time to tell the GOP to suck on it. Scrap all the provisions they suggested, put in whatever you think will be the best policy for economic recovery. While compromise is all well and good, you don't actually need to compromise to achieve your goals here. Plus, in order to have a genuine compromise, you need to be working with people who are debating with you in good faith. Methinks most of the GOP is actually taking the Michelle Malkin approach. [...] Dude, they want you to fail. They're not going to do anything to help you. So just put the best policy you can out there and let that be that. If it works well then you'll be rewarded for it. If not, then you'll be punished. That's politics."
• The Washington Monthly's Steve Benen: "Of course [Boehner] opposes the proposed rescue package. It's antithetical to all of his beliefs about government and the economy -- beliefs that, incidentally, helped create the crisis in the first place. That Obama was willing to engage them directly and honestly was gracious, and evidence of a leader sincere about changing the way business is done, but his efforts were bound to be in vain. Once again, the relationship between Lucy and Charlie Brown keeps coming to mind."

Benen continues: "[S]ince the House GOP isn't interested in passing the bill any more, can Democrats make it even better now? The White House has been willing to make all kinds of concessions to win over Republican support, but it's not enough. Since the GOP is going to vote 'no' anyway, why not make the bill as effective and progressive as possible? If there's no point in the majority party offering unwelcome enticements to those who'll remain obstinate anyway, then pull the enticements and let the majority party do the right thing."

TAPPED's Scott Lemieux agrees: "[S]ince at this point it's obvious that there's essentially no chance that the Republicans will vote for the bill, and it will make no difference to any future election how many Republicans vote for it (voters will give Democrats the credit or blame irrespective of the final vote), the Dems might as well pass the best bill they can."

STIMULUS II: Face It, Obama, The GOP Will Never Support This

Liberal bloggers believe that GOPers will never support Obama's stimulus bill because it's not in their political interest to support it:

• TPM's Josh Marshall: "I hear a lot of talk about whether Obama's governing approach can be 'bipartisan' if a good number of Republicans don't vote for his Stimulus Bill. But that dubious point seems to be obscuring a more obvious and telling reality: the Republican leadership in both houses has decided that it's in their political interest to oppose the Stimulus Bill no matter what. In the most cynical of evaluations, it's not clear to me that they're incorrect. If the stimulus is judged a success, their political gain from adding more votes to what will be seen as Obama's bill will not be that great. So they're figuring that only failure will work for them politically; and they judge that they want Obama to own it entirely. One can pick apart the political ethics of their stand, but the reality of it is clear. They want to criticize as many provisions of the bill as possible, push for as many non-stimulus inducing tax cuts as possible at the expense of spending on infrastructure, and then vote against the final bill en masse."
• Moulitsas: "Of course Republicans will oppose this. Anyone who doesn't have their head stuck up David Broder's ass knows that there is no margin for Republicans in supporting the stimulus package. It will bust the budget beyond the busted-up bloody pulp it already is, it will include all sorts of stupid funding decisions that will provide fantastic attack ad fodder, and it might not even work. And as I wrote earlier, if it succeeds, Republicans won't even get the credit (which will go to Obama and his Congressional allies). [...] Worst case scenario for Republicans, the stimulus works and they're toast in 2010 anyway. Best case, the stimulus does little to help the nation's economic recovery, and they can play the 'change' card next election."

Moulitsas continues: "Therefore, if Republicans won't play, why should Democrats water down the stimulus to the point of ineffectiveness and cave to ridiculous ideological demands (like the family planning stuff) when they won't get their cherished 'bipartisanship' anyway? They should craft the best solution possible to the nation's woes, and if those solutions work, people will know exactly who to credit. And if they fail, they'll know exactly who to blame. There's a reason Democrats won massively the last two cycles, and it wasn't because people were desperate for 'bipartisanship'."

Balloon Juice's DougJ agrees: "Obviously, Republicans hope that the economy is deep, deep in the shitter in 2010. That's the only way they get back into power. They can't stop the stimulus, all they can do is fuck around and try to score a few political points about contraceptives or 'Federal Performance Art grant or some such nonsense' and then hope that the thing fails. At this point, they're actively rooting for millions of Americans to be out of work. They're barely even pretending not to."

STIMULUS III: Keep Your Hands Clean, GOPers!

Conservative bloggers are strongly urging their GOP congressmen to vote against the economic stimulus bill, as they expect that it will do nothing to improve the economy:

• Townhall's Matt Lewis: "If Republicans ever hope to regain the mantle of fiscal conservatism, it is vital that this bill not be seen as a 'bi-partisan' effort -- which would make both Republicans and Democrats responsible when it predictably fails..."
• AmSpec Blog's Philip Klein: "For Republicans, there's no need to strengthen Obama's hand by giving him bipartisan cover for a bad bill that will balloon the deficit without helping the economy."
• Power Line's John Hinderaker: "Giving Democrats control over hundreds of billions of dollars in new pork spending is isn't just an invitation to corruption, it is corruption per se. Republicans should propose their own stimulus bill, based on defensible economics, and take a firm stand against the Democrats' carnival of pork."
• Hot Air's Ed Morrissey: "The Wall Street Journal calls it the '40-year Wish List'. Michelle [Malkin] calls it the 'Generational Theft Act'. Others have started calling it the Obama-Pelosi-Reid Debt Act. Whatever name one gives it, the least likely is stimulus. The WSJ calculates that no more than 12 cents on the dollar in the trillion-dollar whale goes to actual economic stimulus, and that the rest go to Democratic wish lists for electoral advantage."
• RedState's Francis Cianfrocca: "Republicans have no need to support a wasteful fiscal stimulus package that plays not only to an orthodox economic theory that's been disproved by decades of experience, but also to the worst instincts of Democratic populists. American consumers don't need a fresh coat of paint on their government buildings. They need more savings in their bank accounts. Even if the measured effects on GDP would be smaller in the near term, an extensive and radical tax holiday will do more lasting good for the economy than the stimulus, as currently proposed."
• Townhall's Hugh Hewitt: "If the bill had serious relief for the housing sector, or a serious push on energy such as a broad and sustained drive for nuclear power, I could understand some Republicans holding their noses and voting for it. But there is just not nearly enough to justify the massive expenditure that makes it porkapalooza. [...] Not a single Republican should vote for this bill."
• RedState's Jeff Emanuel: "Last I checked, the Democrats held the White House and had nearly 60 votes and over 250 in the House -- more than enough to pass and sign this $800B monstrosity of a pork-barrel giveaway they call a 'stimulus' (as well as every other pet project they want to put into law). So why don't they shut up and do it already? Why are they wasting time trying to bring some Republican votes on board...? From where I sit, the answer to that question is pretty obvious: the Democrats know exactly what a terrible bill this is, and want some GOP votes to give them 'bipartisan' cover (and someone else to point the finger of blame at when this behemoth utterly fails to fulfill its supposed purpose of stimulating the economy and creating jobs). What the GOP should do here is obvious: every single Republican in the House and Senate should vote NO on this bill. Every. Single. One."

Malkin urges her readers to call members of Congress and tell them to vote against the bill: "Dissent is patriotic. Light up the phones today."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: The Savvy One?

Philip Klein:

"Though I've given my fair share of criticism to President Obama and remain opposed to the stimulus package, I have to say that he has made a lot of smart political moves so far. His visit to the Capitol to meet with Congressional Republicans was a masterstroke, because he came off as gracious -- even though his statement that he wants to take politics out of the stimulus was a riot given that the bill is a massive collection of Democratic pet projects. But it's a win-win situation for him. If he peels off some Republicans, he can claim bipartisan support, and if he doesn't he can still pass the bill he wants and portray Republicans as being trapped in the old ways of Washington, where petty partisan games got in the way of doing the people's business. Also, he was smart to lobby to have the family planning money removed, a case where Democrats were sticking their thumbs in the eyes of Republicans. Democrats followed up by stripping the $200 million of funding to spruce up the National Mall. In both cases, Democrats are depriving Republicans of an easy line of attack and making it seem that Republicans will oppose any piece of legislation, despite their overtures."

LEST WE FORGET: Blagojevich Claims Behavior Was Just Elaborate Plan To Surprise Patrick Fitzgerald With Senate Nomination On His Birthday

From The Onion:

"SPRINGFIELD, IL -- As his impeachment trial began Monday, Illinois governor Rod Blagojevich kicked off a national media tour to explain that his alleged senatorial pay-to-play scheme was merely an elaborate plot to surprise U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald with a Senate seat on his birthday. 'You try to do something nice for someone, and look what happens,' the embattled governor told reporters at a press conference during which he unveiled a birthday cake for Fitzgerald. 'People get wind of it, so you try to cover up the big party you planned, then things get out of hand and the story ends up involving a children's hospital, threats to the Tribune, and a half-million-dollar bribe. Next thing you know, you're getting investigated by the very person you wanted to do something nice for! Pat, I'm sorry your birthday surprise was spoiled.' Before taking questions, Blagojevich changed into a plumber's outfit and attempted to sneak out of the room, saying in a thick Italian accent that the toilet was backed up and he had to fix it right away."

Posted by Ian Faerstein at 12:30 PM

January 27, 2009

1/27: A Stimulating Debate

Conservative bloggers were pleased to learn that Barack Obama reportedly urged Dem lawmakers to drop a controversial provision from the economic stimulus bill that provides family planning funds to low-income Americans. Righty bloggers strongly opposed the idea of using stimulus funds to expand contraceptive services, as they believe that such an expansion would do little to improve the economy. Michelle Malkin sarcastically wrote: "Up next: emergency funding for suicide manuals and euthanasia education."

Liberal bloggers, on the other hand, were disappointed that Dems caved in response to the GOP "hissy fit". Lefty bloggers are arguing that (a.) the American public supports gov't-funded family-planning programs; and (b.) the provision in question would provide good economic stimulus. Adam Serwer is particularly disgusted: "[A]re Republicans really arguing that unwanted pregnancies don't result in a significant financial burden for families that are already struggling in an economy that's likely to get worse?"

What else is happening in the blogosphere?

• Conservative bloggers (Malkin, McCarthy, Huston, Erickson) are blasting the ten GOP Senators who voted to confirm NY Fed Chair Timothy Geithner as Treasury Sec.
• Liberal bloggers (Kurtz, Beeton, Waldman) are buzzing about the news that House Judiciary Cmte Chair John Conyers (D-MI) subpoenaed ex-WH adviser Karl Rove to testify about the U.S. atty scandal and the George W. Bush admin.'s prosecution of ex-AL Gov. Don Siegelman.

STIMULUS: The Latest GOP Hissy Fit

Liberal bloggers spent much of yesterday criticizing conservatives for making a big deal about a provision in the stimulus bill that provides family planning funds for low-income Americans:

• Atrios: "There's nothing logical about the contraception freakout. The Republicans are betting on the idea the our media will react like 9 year old boys to anything remotely having to do with sex (they're right) and that the public will react likewise (don't think they're right anymore)."
• TAPPED's Ann Friedman: "Q: When do conservatives not like policies that remove bureaucratic hurdles and save states millions of dollars? A: When those policies have the potential to reduce the number of unplanned pregnancies."
• digby: "Boehner's cute soundbite about contraceptives is, of course, nonsense. The money he's talking about is for medicaid, which is desperately needed at a time when people are losing their jobs --- and, by the way, will help stimulate the economy by paying the doctors, pharmacies and hospitals for the (much increased) care they give, something that is a big problem at a time when states are going broke."
• TAPPED's Serwer: "Beyond the fact that this policy would save the government money in the long run (a finding from the same office that didn't produce that report on the stimulus), are Republicans really arguing that unwanted pregnancies don't result in a significant financial burden for families that are already struggling in an economy that's likely to get worse? What's the moral justification for denying them the choice of preventing pregnancies they don't want? That having sex should be predicated on yearly income?"
• Mother Jones' Kevin Drum: "Conservatives are pretty good at picking tiny pieces out of big bills and making hay with them (remember midnight basketball?), and it was in that spirit that John Boehner spent the weekend complaining that the $800 billion stimulus bill includes $200 million in spending on contraceptives. [...H]ere's the funny thing: culture war issues aside, this is probably pretty good stimulus. If you eliminate the requirement for states to get Medicaid waivers in order to fund family planning, lots of low-income women will take advantage of it, and they'll probably take advantage of it pretty quickly. That's a boon for the contraceptive industry and all the fine people who work in it. Just be sure to buy American!"

TPM's Elana Schor thinks this controversy is a "ridiculous non-issue": "What's being proposed is an expansion in the number of states that can use Medicaid money, with a federal match, to help low-income women prevent unwanted pregnancies. Of the 26 states that already have Medicaid waivers for family planning, eight are led by Republican governors (AL, FL, MS, SC, CA, LA, MN and RI -- a ninth, MO, had a GOP governor until this past November). If this policy is truly a taxpayer gift to 'the abortion industry,' as John Boehner and House Republicans claim, where are the GOP governors promising to end the program in their states?"

STIMULUS II: Stimulating Democrats, But Not The Economy

Conservative bloggers, on the other hand, are strongly opposed to the idea of using stimulus funds to expand family planning services:

• RedState's Pejman Yousefzadeh: "I am not one of these people who thinks that contraception is a sin. Far from it. I just never had it in me to suggest the positively ghoulish idea that providing contraceptives would be desirable so that the state and federal governments can reduce costs in the long term. What's next? Adoption of the Chinese 'one child' policy?"
• Malkin: "As you've all heard, [House Speaker] Nancy Pelosi defended contraception funding in the Democrats' stimulus bill over the weekend. Abortion cuts costs. [...] Up next: Emergency funding for suicide manuals and euthanasia education."
• The Heritage Foundation's Conn Carroll: "[T]he family planning issue is just one example of how the left is using the cover of the stimulus to advance their long-term goals of increasing the size of the federal government."

STIMULUS III: A Win For The Good Guys

Needless to say, conservative bloggers were pleased to learn that Obama reportedly urged Dem lawmakers to drop the family planning funds from the stimulus bill:

• Malkin: "Goody. Panicky President Obama wants the Dems to eliminate Pelosi's pet contraceptive funding from the Generational Theft Act of 2009. Only $800 billion more in needless, unstimulating stimulus spending to kill. [...] It's a start."
• Hot Air's Ed Morrissey: "Democrats thought they could sneak subsidies for Planned Parenthood into the stimulus package, and why not? After all, in a bill that will cost $825 billion, who'd notice? Unfortunately for [Senate Maj. Leader] Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi, George Stephanopolous did. After failing to explain how hundreds of millions of dollars in new contraception funding would stimulate anything except libidos and Democrats, Pelosi will reluctantly remove the provisions from the stimulus bill this morning."

STIMULUS IV: Once Again, Dems Cave

Liberal bloggers, on the other hand, are disappointed that Dems appear to be caving to GOPers' demands:

• Benen: "The right howls, the media blares, Democrats decide it's not worth the bother. As Atrios noted, it's as 'predictable as the rising sun.' [...] I can appreciate the political dynamic here. The Obama White House wants to get at least some bipartisan support for an economic stimulus package, and GOP lawmakers, Fox News, right-wing blogs and talk-radio, and even media figures like Chris Matthews and Jack Cafferty, are telling Americans the policy proposal is right out of the Little Red Book. It's become a distraction, so it's understandable that Democratic leaders prefer to just make the irritation go away. But it's nevertheless frustrating. The public actually supports family-planning programs; states have been screwed over on this for years; it's an easy and straightforward approach to preventative, cost-saving healthcare; and as it turns out, it's actually a pretty good stimulus. By scrapping a good idea, it only reinforces the notion that Republican hissy fits will continue to dictate governing decisions, even when -- especially when -- the minority party is wrong."
• dday: "The report is that Obama personally called [CA Rep.] Henry Waxman, who has jurisdiction over the provision, and told him to ditch it. So now we're listening to Republicans who have no imagination and don't understand the economy. Family planning is a demand-based service that requires staffing. That means jobs. Jobs that now won't be created or will be eliminated by the states because it makes Republicans feel icky."
• Nicholas Beaudrot: "Public opinion on this issue makes Barack Obama's decision look like a mistake. [...] 67% of Americans support giving birth control to teenagers, something that you might think would be controversial. Almost everyone who can afford it uses birth control; it's popular, effective, and people think others should have access to it."

GEITHNER: The Terrible Ten

Conservative bloggers are blasting the ten GOP Senators who voted to confirm Geithner as Treasury Sec.:

• Malkin: "[H]ere are the 10 B.O. (Barack Obama/Bend Over) Republicans who sided with Obama and the Dems."
• NRO's Andy McCarthy: "[H]ere are the ten Republican senators who think it is just fine to have a guy who violates the tax laws policing how American citizens comply with the tax laws -- an incongruity we should overlook because Geithner's done such a great job so far addressing the financial meltdown."
• RedState's Warner Todd Huston: "Keep the following names in your wallet just in case the IRS comes knocking at your door to arrest you for any possible 'mistakes' in your payment of federal taxes, won't you? For these are the names of those Republican Senators that one can rely upon to absolve us for being a tax cheat. [...] These are the Senators that don't think being a law abiding tax payer is a necessary requirement for being Secretary of the Treasury."
• RedState's Erick Erickson: "Call Senator [John] Cornyn at (202) 224-2934. Ask him how we can trust him with our money to fund Senate races if we can't trust him to vote against tax cheats for Treasury Secretary."

NRO's Marc Thiessen thinks Geithner's confirmation establishes a poor precedent: "I think the calculation that many Senate Republicans made was that whoever Obama nominated to replace Geithner would have been far worse from a policy perspective. In a time of economic crisis, when the wrong Treasury Secretary could be disastrous for our country, they decided to take the best nominee they could. The problem is that now, when the next nominee comes up with these kinds of issues, there will be a 'Geithner precedent.' And if it's a woman or a minority, they will argue that you gave the white guy from Wall Street a pass. And that will weaken their hand in opposing someone who might not only have failed to pay their taxes, or employed an illegal nanny, but also have dangerous policy ideas."

CONYERS: Trying To Finish What He Started

Liberal bloggers are buzzing about the news that Rep. Conyers subpoenaed Rove to testify about U.S. atty scandal and the Bush admin.'s prosecution of ex-AL Gov. Siegelman:

• TPM's David Kurtz: "This could get very interesting. Rep. John Conyers (D-MI) is going to put Obama's openness and transparency claims to an early test -- by re-subpoenaing Karl Rove to testify about the U.S. attorney firings. Will Obama support Rove's executive privilege claims? Will Rove even bother asserting executive privilege with his patron out of the White House?"
• MyDD's Todd Beeton: "Could it be? Accountability for Rove in the US Attorney and Don Siegelman cases? Possibly, if John Conyers has anything to say about it, which, as Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, he sort of does."
• Open Left's Chris Bowers: "So much for hypotheticals, or for looking forward rather than back. Let the investigations continue!"

Daily Kos' Kagro X looks ahead: "What comes next isn't entirely clear. Rove's obviously open to service of the subpoena, as evidenced by the notes on the cover sheet (page 2). One theory says that Bush can continue to claim executive privilege even once out of office. Another possibility: Rove's lawyers go to court to ask that the subpoena be quashed pending the outcome of the final appeals of the Judiciary Committee's lawsuit. Also possible: Rove shows up but refuses to tell the committee anything of value, or anything at all, either pleading the 5th, attempting to invoke some kind of claim of privilege, or just taking his chances and conducting a PR campaign to paint the investigation as a 'partisan witch hunt' that's out of keeping with President Obama's promise to practice a forward-looking bipartisanship."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Limbaugh At The Gray Lady?

The Next Right's Patrick Ruffini thinks Rush Limbaugh should replace William Kristol on the New York Times' op-ed page:

"[...What's] disturbing is the notion that the Times' token conservative should be someone who is acceptable to sensibility of liberal (and hence more civilized) Times readers; that only a certain type of conservative will do -- a 'smart,' 'reasonable' figure worthy of dining with President Obama. I have a great deal of respect for Bill Kristol and David Brooks (or for that matter, Charles Krauthammer and George Will), but they play a very defined role in the process -- which is to represent a safe flavor of Beltway-centric conservatism that is acceptable within the Acela corridor. I appreciate that someone has to play this role, but by engaging in this parlor game, we are playing with fire: feeding the left's desire to elevate a narrow elite of Times-worthy conservative pundits whose job it is to hold the braying Coulterite masses in check.

We shouldn't play this game. Either we engage the liberal media on our terms or on none at all. The Times needs someone who is as far to the right, in as hard-edged and partisan a way, as Paul Krugman is to the left. The fact that strident left-wing voices one step voice up from [Markos Moulitsas] appear on the op-ed page is not considered a problem, so why shouldn't the same be true on the right? Perhaps it would be better if both sides' columnists were as reasonable and fair-minded as Brooks and Kristol. But if the Times continues to select liberal columnists who are locked and loaded for bear, we should accept nothing less for the right. To wit, the Times should pick Rush Limbaugh or a comparable full spectrum heartland conservative who defended [Sarah] Palin. Someone who would shock the Upper East Side, not reinforce its worldview in subtle ways. If not Rush, then [Mark] Steyn or [James] Lileks or someone with the intestinal fortitude for a fight."

LEST WE FORGET: Foreman Whips Up Special Batch Of Concrete For Favorite Customer

From The Onion:

"OMAHA, NE -- Schultz Concrete Company foreman Al Grayson, 42, mixed up a home-made vat of his finest concrete blend Tuesday for Brenner Construction employee Charles Jacobin, after inviting his favorite customer to 'follow [him] 'round back for the good stuff.' 'Charlie's been coming to me for years, and I know exactly how he likes it,' said Grayson, adding that his special batch isn't the kind that lasts just long enough to satisfy the inspectors but then falls apart. 'This is concrete the way my grandfather made it, with just a touch of gypsum. There was only one bag left, so I tucked it away for my main man Charlie.' While Grayson refused to divulge his secret recipe, he did claim to use only organic cement, artesian well water, and 'enough quartzite to make any sidewalk sparkle.'"

Posted by Ian Faerstein at 12:45 PM

January 26, 2009

1/26: Let's Agree To Disagree

Lefty bloggers and righty bloggers rarely agree on anything, but when it comes to Barack Obama's economic stimulus package, it appears that liberals and conservatives are on the same page. That is, they both believe that Congress should pass the stimulus bill on a party-line vote, with Dems voting in favor of the legislation and GOPers opposing it.

As we've noted before, liberal bloggers strongly believe that Dems should pass "the best bill possible", even if GOPers vote against it out of a belief that it contains too much spending and not enough tax cuts. In the eyes of the netroots, the most important consideration is whether the bill actually succeeds in improving the economy, not whether the bill has bipartisan support. Ian Welsh explains:

"The best politics is always good policy. Turn the economy around and no one will care how many Republicans voted for Obama's bills. Fail to turn the economy around and, well, no one will care how many Republicans voted for Obama's bills."

Conservative bloggers agree with their liberal counterparts. Most of them believe that Obama's stimulus bill, as presently constructed, "will not work" and that voters will eventually punish Dems at the polls for failing to turn the economy around. Consequently, righty bloggers believe that it's in the GOP's interest to oppose the legislation. John Hinderaker asserts: "As long as the Republicans in Congress stick to their principles and oppose the Democrats' pork-fest, they should be well positioned for a comeback in 2010 and 2012."

What else is happening in the blogosphere?

• Liberal bloggers (Bowers, Drum, Atrios) are delighted that Obama reportedly reminded GOP cong. leaders "I won" after listening to their concerns about the stimulus package. Conservative bloggers (Faughnan, Yousefzadeh, Mirengoff) are responding to Obama's statement with a defiant message of their own.
• Most liberal bloggers (Hamsher, Moulitsas, Bowers) are willing to give Sen-designate Kirsten Gillibrand a chance to move to the left now that she'll be representing the entire state of NY instead of her conservative-leaning CD.

STIMULUS: What Counts Is Results, Not Process

Liberal bloggers are urging Obama and cong. Dems to pass the most effective stimulus bill possible, even if it doesn't receive many GOP votes:

• Firedoglake's Welsh: "The best politics is always good policy. Turn the economy around and no one will care how many Republicans voted for Obama's bills. Fail to turn the economy around and, well, no one will care how many Republicans voted for Obama's bills."
• Open Left's Chris Bowers: "[T]he only politics of the stimulus President Obama and his team should concern themselves with is making sure that the bill does all it can to actually improve the economy. Short-term bi-partisan posturing, whether for political cover or arising from actual beliefs, is utterly insignificant compared the real-world impact of the bill itself. [...] People don't care how many Democrats and how many Republicans vote for this bill. People don't care how much Obama appeared to be seeking Republican input or not. The only thing they care about is whether this helps turn the economy around."
• Think Progress' Matthew Yglesias: "[T]he first, second, third, fourth, fifth, six, seventh, eight, ninth, tenth, and only priority in terms of the stimulus [should be] to write the best bill possible and pass it with the minimum number of votes necessary. Stimulus is a great idea in theory, but in practice the results of the congressional process may well get ugly. A bill that works substantively will be good enough politically, and worrying too much about the short-term politics just opens up the door for the bill to get more screwed up. If a giant stimulus passes and the economy stays in a funk, nobody's going to care how many Republicans voted for the bill years in the past."
• Atrios: "I actually hope every Republican votes against the stimulus package, and I hope that instead of trying to please them the Obama team comes up with what they think the right package will be. The Republicans should lay out a competing vision, which won't pass because they aren't in charge. Then, 2 and 4 years from now voters can judge the results and if they aren't pretty they'll know who to blame and decide that the competing vision would have been a better one. [...] Democrats have the presidency and big majorities. Instead of hiding behind the spread-the-blame-around tactic, they should announce their vision and run with it."

STIMULUS II: Don't Vote For This Crap Sandwich, GOPers

Just as liberal bloggers believe that it is in Dems' interest to not try to win GOP support for the stimulus bill, conservative bloggers believe that it is in the GOP's interest to let Dems' pass the stimulus bill themselves:

• Power Line's Hinderaker: "Notwithstanding the media blitz in support of the Democrats' over-the-top 'stimulus' plan, most Americans are skeptical. Rasmussen finds that 59% fear that 'Congress and President Obama will increase government spending too much in the next year or two.' Conversely, only 17% worry that they will cut taxes too much. [...] This suggests that the seeds of the Republicans' resurgence have already been sown. Congress will indeed spend far too much money, increasing the federal deficit to ridiculous levels. Before long, the monetary and fiscal policies now emerging will lead to wealth-destroying and income-eroding levels of inflation. As long as the Republicans in Congress stick to their principles and oppose the Democrats' pork-fest, they should be well positioned for a comeback in 2010 and 2012."
• RedState's Brian Faughnan: "[F]or the Left, the message is don't do us any favors. You think Obama has 'disarmed' us by demonstrating that he knows he's in a position of strength. That's fine; we're disarmed. You think he needs to remember that the American public is with him? Cool. Knock yourself out. You have plenty of votes to muscle this through the House and Senate without a single Republican. Feel free to do so. We'll risk the backlash. That's because we recognize that Obama is not negotiating with us because he wants to do us a favor. He's doing it because he wants us all on the same hook together. The likelihood is that this 'stimulus' plan will not work and that the people will recognize it. And once Obama has gotten his stimulus, has nationalized banks and car companies, has 'fixed' health care, and has increased the debt by $3 or $4 trillion, the voters will be ready for change again in 2010. And as long as Obama and the Democrats dictate terms and expect us to like it, we'll be happy to bite the hand that feeds."

OBAMA: Elections Matter

Liberal bloggers are delighted that Obama reportedly reminded GOP cong. leaders "I won" after listening to their concerns about his economic stimulus package:

• Bowers: "Good. This is the sort of language that disarms Republicans, and there won't ever be a better time to adopt it. I would prefer if he talked like this in the open, but President Obama still deserves credit for this. Here's to hoping that this signals the end of watering down the stimulus in order to appease Republicans for aesthetic purposes, and the start to a new era where we just don't give a damn what Republican leaders think."
• Mother Jones' Kevin Drum: "Good. Obama's efforts to maintain good relationships across the aisle may mean that he's wiser than me in these matters, but I still don't think it's going to work and I hope he doesn't waste too much energy on it. This is the right response for something that's already been hashed out a hundred times before."
• Atrios: "'I won.' Yes, it's good to remind people of that. It's amazing how fast Republicans -- and our media -- seem to forget it."
• The American Prospect's Robert Kuttner: "[Obama] will face ideological qualms from the fiscal conservatives within his own party, as well as from most Republicans. So the bipartisan honeymoon is unlikely to last, and I'd say, good riddance. Obama's real challenge is to mobilize public opinion -- not just to win general approval ratings but to make it very hard politically for anyone in either party to oppose his recovery program or to demand crippling budget cuts down the line as the quid pro quo. That's what leadership is all about. [...] Call me out of date and ideological, but it's reassuring when President Obama reminds himself and his opponents that 'I won.'"

OBAMA II: So Much For Bipartisanship

Conservative bloggers are criticizing Obama for telling GOP cong. leaders "I won":

• Hot Air's Allahpundit: "Vintage O: Always willing to hear the other side out, never willing to actually vote with them."
• Faughnan: "Obama's 'I Won' seems likely to be a defining moment -- at least in the early part of his presidency. Elected as a bipartisan -- or post-partisan, or whatever -- he and his supporters seem to think Republicans should be happy that they even pretended to care what we think. Now that they made a show of listening to us, we should dutifully back their craptastic bill and big government agenda (because he won, you see). But that's not what they did when the roles were reversed. There's no reason for Republicans to do it now. And sticking to our guns is far more likely to help us politically than to hurt us."
• RedState's Pejman Yousefzadeh: "First of all, Obama won about 53% of the popular vote; hardly 'overwhelming' in anyone's book. Secondly, remember that when [ex-VP] Dick Cheney said this kind of stuff with regard to not paying attention to the polls, he was excoriated for being anti-democratic. Thirdly, remember as well that for eight years, we heard about how George W. Bush had the chance to unify the nation post-9/11 by reaching out to Democrats, but that instead, he chose to be 'divisive,' and 'polarizing,' and 'partisan.'"
• Power Line's Paul Mirengoff: "[Obama] noted, correctly, that elections have consequences. But passing bad legislation also has consequences, not just for the country but also for the party responsibile for the legislation. To the extent that Obama blows off their concerns, Republicans must make sure that they have no responsibility for the stimulus legislation. The politics here are not difficult to calculate. If the stimulus package is seen as a success, the Democrats will be the winners regardless of whether the Republicans 'buy in.' If the package is seen as a failure, the Democrats will be the losers regardless of the position Republicans took. But if the package is seen as a corrupt failure -- one loaded up with gifts for special interests that had little or no connection with promoting economic recovery -- then it will generate fury at anyone who supported it."

NY SEN: Giving Gillibrand A Chance

Jane Hamsher and Markos Moulitsas are standing by their criticism of Caroline Kennedy's ill-fated Senate bid in light of the Gillibrand appointment, which has proven somewhat controversial in certain quarters of the liberal blogosphere:

• Firedoglake's Hamsher: "[Gillibrand]'s a strong campaigner whose toughness is already earning her the ever-so-imaginative 'Tracy Flick' comparisons, and as Julia notes she's got good prospects to hold the seat in 2010 against a Republican onslaught (as opposed to Kennedy, whose public meltdown was all the more embarrassing due to the fact that there was no competition in sight). Still, she's hardly an ideal choice. Her position on immigration is horrible, and it needs to change. But as Markos notes, she's under pressure from the left, and her new found support for gay marriage is a sign that she's willing to move in that direction. [...] Taking part in an organized, coherent effort to urge Gillibrand in a progressive direction would probably be more politically efficient than continuing to throw one's panties at the Kennedy stage."
• Daily Kos' Moulitsas: "[W]e're now stuck with a Blue Dog in the Senate. To me, this is a win-win situation. There are two alternatives: (1.) Gillibrand was voting her districts, and will now tack hard to the left as she represents a much more liberal New York, or (2.) She gets primaried and a more progressive Democrats -- one chosen by the voters! -- gets in. Heck, it could even be Caroline Kennedy, assuming she isn't afraid to face real voters! Gillibrand is an accomplished politician who won in a brutally difficult House seat. But what made her successful in that district won't make her successful statewide. So she either adapts, or she dies. And in the end, it'll be the voters making that call. As it should be."

BooMan doesn't buy Moulitsas's argument: "I'm not particularly impressed by Kos's defense of his anti-Caroline jihad. While I acknowledge that he doesn't bear any responsibility for the selection of Kirsten Gillibrand and that he doesn't have any special influence over Governor [David] Paterson or New York state politics, the vehement opposition to the liberal Caroline Kennedy from the progressive blogosphere effectively cut off an important bloc of support for her candidacy. [...] Kos defends his decision to wage jihad by saying that there is no harm done. Either Gillibrand will lurch to the left and we'll have nothing to worry about, he says, or she'll get beaten in a competitive primary. This is disingenuous. Gillibrand just won reelection in the most expensive House race in the country. She is an incredible fundraiser and has support from the Establishment (political and financial). It will be very difficult to defeat Gillibrand in a primary. And this is true whether or not she lurches to the left as a U.S. Senator."

Meanwhile, Bowers is impressed by Gillibrand's opposition to the TARP bailout: "I am going to write something that might sound a little bit off character: I am willing to give Bush Dog, and apparently soon to be New York Senator, Kirsten Gillibrand a chance during her time in the Senate. In practice, what this means is that while I will be interested in looking at primary challenges she receives in 2010, and while I am wary of her past performance, the defeat of the working conservative majority and the newly arrived Democratic trifecta does appear to have altered the congressional playing field. It now seems likely new alliances can be formed for progressives, and no approach to passing progressive legislation, or stopping bad legislation, should be dismissed out of hand. Case in point: the Wall Street bailout, otherwise known as TARP. Gillibrand voted against it back in October, then she voted in favor of the auto bailout in December, then voted in favor of [MA Rep.] Barney Frank's oversight bill on Wednesday, and then voted against the release of the second half of the funds yesterday. This makes Gillibrand one of about only 26 House Democrats who would have voted the same way I would have voted across all four of those bills."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Thoughts On Revolutionaries

The American Conservative's Daniel Larison:

"[Abraham] Lincoln, [Woodrow] Wilson and FDR -- each of them was responsible for far more deaths and far more destruction than Che Guevara or any of a number of Arab nationalist figures ever was, but two important things separate them in the eyes of the general public: they did not personally kill anyone, and the causes for which their armies killed and destroyed are widely considered to be the just and right ones. That is to say, the exact same moralizing, or rather anti-moralizing, that the ends justify the means that Che used in rationalizing revolutionary violence is employed to praise and sanctify approved figures who authorized much larger slaughters for the 'right reasons.' Not only have sympathetic, shoulder-shrugging, anti-moralizing stories been told about these men, but we have built large physical monuments to them (or at least to two of the three mentioned above), which is rather more troubling in its way than silly people who wear T-shirts or directors who minimize the moral failings of their main characters."

LEST WE FORGET: Man Always Attempts To Intercept Tossed Things

From The Onion:

"FLAGSTAFF, AZ -- According to sources at McNamara Advertising Inc., junior account executive Matthew Burns, 28, will attempt to catch or deflect any airborne item that enters his general vicinity and has an intended destination or recipient other than himself. 'It doesn't matter what it is. I even saw him grab a used tissue out of the air before he realized what he had done,' said office manager Karen Dunham, referring to Burns' habit of either batting away, snatching, or 'alley-oop' slam-dunking pieces of garbage that have been tossed toward trash receptacles. 'And he yells "my house!" really loudly every time he does it. It's kind of getting out of hand.' Burns was not available for comment, as he is recovering from an injury sustained after attempting to intercept an in-flight dart at a local bar."

Posted by Ian Faerstein at 12:53 PM

January 23, 2009

1/23: This Wasn't What We Had In Mind...

Oh, the irony! After vigorously opposing Caroline Kennedy's Senate bid and cheering her ultimate decision to bow out, the netroots are now voicing concerns about Rep. Kirsten Gillibrand, whom NY Gov. David Paterson just appointed to NY's vacant Senate seat. Many liberal bloggers are unhappy that NY's new Senator has such a centrist voting record -- particularly on social issues such as gay rights and gun control. They're also complaining that Dems "just lost an excellent chance to expand the progressive caucus in the Senate," since Paterson (in their view) could have easily appointed someone more liberal to represent the solidly blue state of NY. Several lefty bloggers are criticizing their colleagues who attacked Kennedy, since they believe that Kennedy would have been a far more reliable vote for liberals than Gillibrand will be. Al Giordano is particularly disgusted: "Each and every 'Netroots progressive' that railed against a possible Kennedy pick owns this one."

Conservative bloggers, meanwhile, were surprised and pleased by Paterson's choice. Ed Morrissey praises Gillibrand for demonstrating "the right instincts on fiscal and gun policy" and declares: "Conservatives lucked out with this surprise appointment."

What else is happening in the blogosphere?

• Liberal bloggers are praising Barack Obama for signing executive orders "ending the [CIA]'s secret overseas prisons, banning coercive interrogation methods and closing the Guantánamo Bay detention camp within a year." Conservative bloggers, on the other hand, are criticizing the executive orders and wondering where Obama plans to move the Guantanamo detainees.
• Liberal bloggers are interpreting MN Sen. Norm Coleman's decision to accept a paid consultant gig as an indication that he knows he's lost his re-election bid and that he's simply trying to "bloody" Al Franken with legal challenges.
• Conservative bloggers are blasting the Senate Finance Cmte for voting to recommend that the full Senate confirm NY Fed Chair Timothy Geithner as Treasury Sec.

NY SEN: Come Back Caroline, We Didn't Mean It!

Several liberal bloggers are expressing concerns about Gillibrand's centrist voting record in the House:

• Scott Lemieux: "Apparently, the extra days to deliberate didn't do Paterson much good, as he has apparently made a very poor selection to fill New York's vacant Senate seat. Her Republican dynastic background doesn't bother me in itself, but being a Blue Dog really should disqualify you from consideration for statewide office. [...] And if the defense is supposed to be that you have to be this conservative to win the district -- which is not entirely unreasonable -- that makes the pick even worse. If you're going to pick a sitting member of the House, it should be from a safe seat. Now, we have a senator without progressive credentials and have handed the GOP a good pickup opportunity in the House. I don't see how this can be defended."
• AMERICAblog's John Aravosis: "Blue Dog Dem, with 100% NRA record, picked to replace Hillary. And some of you thought Hillary wasn't progressive enough. [...F]or a NY Democrat, [Gillibrand]'s pretty darn Republican."
• TAPPED's Dana Goldstein: "Gillibrand's careful centrism goes beyond mere signals of economic populism. She opposed former Gov. Eliot Spitzer's plan to offer driver's licenses to undocumented immigrants, and supports proposed federal legislation that would require proof of citizenship to obtain a license. On gay rights, Gillibrand scores 80 percent according to the Human Rights Campaign, the lowest score of any New York Democrat. Politiker New York sums her record up, and it's nothing to be proud of."
• FiveThirtyEight's Nate Silver: "Gillibrand, statistically speaking, has been one of the more conservative Democrats in the House. Moreover, she is a somewhat proud conservative, being a member of the Blue Dog caucus. In a state like New York, which is capable of electing and re-electing a very liberal senator, that's a somewhat underachieving result for the Democrats. [...] I also don't doubt that she'll be effective, compelling and popular, and may turn out to be a very good senator for New York. I just don't know that she'll be an especially good senator for Democrats."

Daily Kos' brownsox is hopeful that Gillibrand will move to the left once she becomes Senator: "First, Gillibrand's district leans Republican, and gave [George W.] Bush 54% of the vote in 2004. It's quite likely she'll be a bit more liberal representing the entire state -- a similar thing happened to Debbie Stabenow of Michigan, a moderate Democrat in the House who became significantly more liberal in the Senate. Second, it's very likely Gillibrand will run the risk of a serious, well-funded primary challenge if she doesn't position herself with the mainstream of the New York Democratic Party. She's worked very hard to become a United States Senator, and has earned the reputation of a coming political star. If she wants to ensure she keeps it -- and keeps her Senate seat -- she will need to slide somewhat to the left."

NY SEN II: You Reap What You Sow, Netroots

Several liberal bloggers are blaming Gillibrand's appointment on the prominent liberal bloggers who came out against Kennedy, such as Jane Hamsher:

• Giordano: "Each and every 'Netroots progressive' that railed against a possible Kennedy pick owns this one, and their protestations to the contrary -- I've been discussing it with some today -- come off as cowardly. They took a progressive voice, painted a villain's mustache on her image, called her 'princess' (I'm lookin' at you, Hamsher) and worse, laced it with healthy doses of misogyny, and now that they may get a 'Blue Dog' conservative Democrat instead they refuse to accept responsibility for their actions and words. [...] Nope, it don't work that way. You broke it. You own it. You argued for Paterson to pick a full-time politician from the mediocre farm team, and it appears that's exactly what you're gonna get. This adventure in unintended consequences will become bigger than life for years to come on the blogosphere. Anytime the self-proclaimed 'progressives' go off trying to eat their own (which for some, is daily), the rallying cry will be sounded: 'Remember Caroline Kennedy!'"
• BooMan: "The problem is not that Gillibrand is terrible but that we just lost an excellent chance to expand the progressive caucus in the Senate. We've been doing well lately with [VT Sen.] Bernie Sanders and [OH Sen.] Sherrod Brown two years ago and [NM Sen.] Tom Udall, [OR Sen.] Jeff Merkley, and Al Franken this time around. We could have benefited greatly from either Caroline Kennedy or [NY Rep.] Jerry Nadler. I'll never fully understand why the progressive blogosphere went apeshit about the possibility of another Senator Kennedy. Mainly I think certain people were trying to be holier than thou without thinking things through."

NY SEN III: Hey, It Coulda Been A Lot Worse

Conservative bloggers prefer Gillibrand to the more liberal Dems whom Paterson also considered appointing to the Senate:

• Hot Air's Morrissey: "How conservative is this new Blue Dog? Gillibrand has a membership in the NRA and she voted against the $700 billion bailout bill. Some conservatives would argue that alone makes her a better choice than some Republicans for the new position. Losing her voice in the House might sting just a little, but her district will likely replace her with a representative with similar views, and it represents a quantum leap forward for the Senate seat. Conservatives lucked out with this surprise appointment. Certainly Gillibrand will support much of the Democratic agenda, but she has the right instincts on fiscal and gun policy, and we assumed that we would get a carbon copy of [Chuck] Schumer all along."
• AmSpec Blog's W. James Antle, III: "If the second-term congresswoman from Hudson Valley actually ends up taking Hillary Clinton's Senate seat, she is about as conservative a choice as could realistically be hoped for. She is to the right of her Democratic Party on guns, on middle-class tax cuts, on amnesty for illegal immigrants, and on fiscal policy. [...] The downside for Republicans, obviously, is that Gillibrand would conceivably be harder to beat in an election than Caroline Kennedy (though as a Blue Dog, she could be vulnerable to a primary challenge from her left). It's also possible that not having to represent a traditionally Republican district would free her to move to the left herself. On the other hand, it raises Republican chances of winning back her House seat."
• Power Line's Paul Mirengoff: "As a state-wide office holder, Gillibrand may fall more reliably into line with her left-liberal party. Still, she seems preferable to [NY AG] Andrew Cuomo and Caroline Kennedy."
• NRO's Lisa Schiffren: "Gillibrand is a solid pick. She is one of those moderate/liberal Democrats with a few conservative policy accessories that Rahm Emmanuel and N.Y. Senator Charles Schumer famously recruited to win GOP seats in the past two elections. [...] Gillibrand is a Second Amendment supporter. Her website talks about growing up in a hunting family, and shows her rather discreetly holding a shotgun over her arm. No moose carcasses in evidence, alas, or reason to believe she still participates. But she understands the symbolic value of pushing that position hard -- she's sponsored pro-hunter recognition stuff (is that really legislation?). She's pro-middle class tax cuts, and in favor of adding to the family tax credits. She wants the southern border secured, and no amnesty for illegals -- which is her other big departure from most N.Y. Democrats."
• Glenn Reynolds: "Clinton's Senate successor is Rep. Kirsten Gillibrand. Beats Caroline Kennedy or Andrew Cuomo, if so. [...] Even better than I thought: 'Something to admire about Gillibrand. She's an NRA supporter.' [...] According to an email from Americans For Prosperity, she's good on earmarks too!"

OBAMA: Making The Constitution Cool Again

Liberal bloggers are praising Obama for signing executive orders "effectively ending the [CIA]'s secret interrogation program, directing the closing of the Guantánamo Bay detention camp within a year and setting up a sweeping, high-level review of the best way to hold and question terrorist suspects in the future":

• Daily Kos' BarbinMD: "Today America began restoring its moral standing in the world."
• Think Progress' Matthew Yglesias: "We're back on track to the rule of law."
• Ezra Klein: "It's amazing how much evil can be undone with the stroke of the executive's pen."
• Obsidian Wings' hilzoy: "It's wonderful to see...that we have an administration that will not sacrifice the ideals America always ought to stand for, and will not allow our adversaries to dictate the terms and the terrain on which we will oppose them."
• The Washington Monthly's Steve Benen: "I'll spare you the cliches about 'change you can believe in,' but I will say that this is exactly the kind of start I'd hoped to see."
• Salon's Glenn Greenwald: "Obama deserves real praise for devoting the first few days of his presidency to these vital steps -- and doing so without there being much of a political benefit and with some real political risk. That's genuinely encouraging. But ongoing vigilance is necessary, to counter-balance the Fred Hiatts, Brookings Institutions and other national security state fanatics, to ensure that these initial steps aren't undermined."
• Mother Jones' Kevin Drum: "I hope Obama's followup is as good as his initial flurry of executive orders."

While pleased about Obama's executive orders, other liberal bloggers have some nagging questions about them.

OBAMA II: Where's He Gonna Put The Prisoners?

Conservative bloggers are criticizing Obama's decision to close the Guantanamo Bay detention center. Most righty bloggers are focusing on the complicated logistics of moving the Guantanamo detainees elsewhere:

• Power Line's John Hinderaker: "Gitmo, of course, was created in answer to the question, What are we going to do with captured terrorists? Now, with that facility slated for closure, the question arises once more."
• NRO's Jim Geraghty: "[T]he close-Gitmo crowd doesn't want to bother thinking about the thorny issues of what do you do with the captured terrorists once you've closed that detention center; they just want to feel good about themselves."
• Townhall's Carol Platt Liebau: "Where, exactly, does the new President propose that the collection of terrorists -- an increasing number of whom, the Pentagon disclosed a week ago, are returning to the battlefield -- go? Do we really want jihadists in prisons, mixing with and radicalizing the general prison population, in Kansas and other maximum security jails? And wouldn't the ACLU have a great lawsuit on behalf of armed robbers, for example, if such prisons became a target for terrorists determined to martyr their brothers inside, while taking a few Americans at the same time? Does the Obama administration really think that radical jihadist terrorists are the functional equivalent, say, of the typical maximum security inmate population?"
• AmSpec Blog's Philip Klein: "Will these prisoners be accepted by their home countries? What if a prisoner's home country is one that engages in torture, does sending him back violate the Obama administration's principles on rendition? What third countries would accept these men? Will Americans be comfortable with terrorists being held in their neighborhoods? How do we try prisoners if releasing the evidence we have against them could compromise our intelligence? And what do we risk by simply releasing prisoners? If the new administration can resolve these issues, close Gitmo within a year, and do so without putting Americans in greater danger, then I'd be happy to give Obama credit. But now that he's in power, we no longer have to have a theoretical debate about this."

TORTURE: Apparently Most Americans Don't Watch 24

Liberal bloggers are buzzing about a recent Washington Post/ABC News poll which found that 58% of Americans agree with Obama that torture should not be used under any circumstances:

• Daily Kos' mcjoan: "Take heart, the worst of the Bush administration's policies are soundly rejected by all of us 'center right' Americans, the mass of people in this nation who the pundits and the pols insist are more concerned with being kept safe than the rule of law. As those of us in the mainstream have known all along, that conventional wisdom was bull-hockey. Now we've got some proof."
• Greenwald: "Apparently, it is the case -- yet again -- that majorities of Americans are hard-left, score-settling, vengeance-driven liberals, who embrace views that are claimed by the Beltway to be nothing but 'fringe leftist ideological rantings' (a synonym for: 'those who do not believe in prevailing Beltway pieties')."
• TalkLeft's Big Tent Democrat: "'Center Right' America has spoken, Newsweek and WaPo -- time to end your Extreme Right Wing campaign to continue the despicable Bush/Cheney torture policies."
• TAPPED's Adam Serwer: "[This] puts the lie to the idea that Americans, rather than a beltway coalition of Very Serious People, believe the United States should pursue a policy of outright disregard for human rights. Jim Geraghty seems to think that Republicans have an issue here where they can win some points, but I think he underestimates the degree to which the torture debate was skewed by President Bush arguing in favor of torture. The bully pulpit of the president will now be mobilized in the other direction, something which, taking into account the relative communication skills of the current and former officeholders, is sure to affect public opinion."
• Atrios: "With a little leadership, often the people get it right."

MN SEN: What's Coleman's Endgame?

Now that Coleman has taken a job as a consultant to the Republican Jewish Coalition, liberal bloggers are arguing that Coleman knows he has lost and that he's simply trying to damage Franken:

• Silver: "Norm Coleman, rather oddly, has decided to take a day job. [...] This makes little sense if you (i) are at all concerned about public sentiment, or (ii) think you have any chance whatsoever of actually prevailing in the recount. [...W]hat is Coleman's angle here? Increasingly, I think this is being driven by [TX Sen.] John Cornyn and the RSCC, and that they've given up on beating Franken but merely want to bloody him, casting doubt over the legitimacy of his election in order to make him a focal point for Republican angst. If this were a generic Democrat instead of Franken, in other words, I think the Republicans might already have given up. But because Franken has the potential to be a polarizing figure, there is more incentive for them to fan the flames a little bit; the recount merely provides the pretense for them to do so."
• brownsox: "[This is] further evidence that despite his flurry of legal challenges and various last-ditch efforts to swing the result of the Senate election in Minnesota, former U.S. Senator Norm Coleman sees the writing on the wall as clearly as anyone. [...] At this point, the only end of all his legal challenges is to deprive the good people of Minnesota of adequate representation in the United States Senate for as long as he can -- and for no other reason than to cause a little extra inconvenience to Al Franken and the Democratic Party. It's so sweet that Norm Coleman is treating the state of Minnesota as collateral damage in pursuing his political vendettas."
• MyDD's Josh Orton: "First, Coleman knows he's lost; but he's bitter, he hates Franken, and he wants to make Al's transition to the Senate painful. In the process, Coleman's punishing the people of Minnesota -- but maybe that's just collateral damage to Norm. Second, a little speculation. Norm's facing a rather nagging lawsuit related to shady campaign funding. He'll likely need a rather expensive defense. So by holding out his lawsuit against Franken, could Coleman try to fundraise for a legal fund?"

Daily Kos' Markos Moulitsas agrees with Silver: "[Franken]'s got a history of hyper-partisan rhetoric that can be mined for direct mail pieces. He's also fairly recognizable as Bill O'Reilly's top nemesis. But he's definitely no Hillary Clinton. So how can Republicans amp up the 'villain' quotient just a bit more? Claiming he stole the election helps, which helps explain why Coleman is persisting in a quixotic legal bid that no one gives any serious chance of succeeding. The facts of the matter are irrelevant. When all of this is said and done, conservatives will be convinced through and through that this Senate seat was stolen. And that makes for pretty good villainy."

GEITHNER: Secretary Tax Cheat

Conservative bloggers are upset that the Senate Finance Cmte voted to recommend Geithner for confirmation:

• RedState's Mark Kilmer: "The tally was 18-5, and the tax cheat has received the endorsement of the Senate Finance Committee. The full Senate will accept him today, like a line of comatose old men who can manage only a thrill up their legs. The United States is a nation of Men, not Laws."
• NRO's Larry Kudlow: "Team Obama has gotten its way on the Tim Geithner nomination for Treasury secretary, as all the Democrats on the Senate Finance Committee voted for Geithner despite his embarrassing non-payment of payroll taxes while at the IMF. But the Democrats may rue the day, since Geithner's lack of character and truth-telling will surely take its toll and sully President Obama's new era of responsibility."
• Hinderaker: "I find it remarkable that the Senate is willing to overlook the fact that Geithner failed to pay his self-employment taxes for four years, even though 1) he was specifically told by the IMF that he needed to pay these taxes, 2) the IMF gave him additional compensation specifically earmarked for paying his self-employment taxes, 3) Geithner signed a form stating that he would use this additional compensation to pay his self-employment taxes, and 4) when he was audited by the IRS and his failure to pay self-employment taxes was discovered, he belatedly paid those taxes for 2003 and 2004, but not for 2001 and 2002 because the statute of limitations had run on those years and he couldn't be prosecuted for his failure to pay the taxes he owed."
• Michelle Malkin: "The Geithner Senate Finance Committee vote is over. He sailed through despite his 'tax goofs' and legal 'trivialities.' I joked the other day about the capitulationists I'm now calling the 'B.O. (Barack Obama/Bend Over) Republicans.' Here they are."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Fallows On Geithner

The Atlantic's James Fallows:

"I recognize that dealing with the world financial/economic crisis is the most important next thing the Obama Administration has to do. Without detailed knowledge, I am willing to accept that Geithner is a crucially well-prepared member of the team that will help in this effort -- and that getting the right team is a first-order national priority. [...] I also think that it is sensible to move past the Zoe Baird / Kimba Woods era (look it up) when any tax irregularity of any sort could be taken as an absolute bar, in itself, to service in any position subject to confirmation. Some standard of reasonable judgment has to be applied here. So by the standard of what the country needs right now, I would probably vote for Geithner's confirmation as Treasury Secretary, if I were in a position to do so.

But I do not believe, and will never believe, that his failure to pay his own self-employment tax while at the IMF was an 'oversight' or a 'mistake.' I have many many friends who have worked for this and similar organizations. I have myself over the years juggled the complexities of what is self-employment income and what is W-2 income and how to handle income from non-US sources -- and I have a lot less financial acumen than any Treasury Secretary aspirant should and must have. (Though I also use Turbo Tax!) Not a single person I have known from the IMF or similar bodies, not a one, believes that Geithner could have 'overlooked' his need to pay US self-employment tax. When I have received similar income from international sources, the need was obvious even to me -- and I wasn't receiving and signing all the forms to the same effect Geithner would have gotten from the IMF. I could go on with details but I'll just say: if this were a situation more average Americans had experienced personally, he would not dare make his 'mistake' excuse because everyone would say, 'Are you kidding me???'"

LEST WE FORGET: Ways To Prevent Identity Theft

McSweeney's contributor Joel Gunz compiles a list of "Secure Website Authentification Questions":

• What is your mother's maiden name?
• Who did your paternal grandfather vote for in the 1956 presidential election?
• Why did you choose a liberal-arts degree when your entire family urged you to go into finance?
• How many weeks away was graduation when you dropped out of college?
• Where were you sitting when your girlfriend told you she was pregnant?
• Where did you never end up going for your honeymoon?
• In what year did you begin working for the post office?
• What is the name of the hedge-fund manager your ex-wife married?
• How many hours did it take you to drink that bottle of Jack Daniel's yesterday?
• What time was it when, in a drunken rage, you threw your novel into the fire?
• If you could do it all over again, what would you do differently?

Posted by Ian Faerstein at 01:30 PM

January 22, 2009

1/22: Caroline Bows Out

The netroots welcomed Caroline Kennedy's decision to withdraw her name from consideration for Sec/State Hillary Clinton's old Senate seat. Their reaction was not surprising, since leading liberal bloggers have vigorously opposed Kennedy's Senate bid ever since she first announced her interest in the seat. Markos Moulitsas hopes that NY Gov. David Paterson appoints someone other than the remaining heavyweight candidate in the race (NY AG Andrew Cuomo), since doing so would mean "we might actually see a competitive primary for the 2010 special."

Meanwhile, conservative bloggers are criticizing NY Fed Chair Timothy Geithner for claiming that he was using TurboTax when he (incorrectly) filed his taxes. "Tim Geithner wants us to believe that his errors are TurboTax's fault and wants to be Treasury Secretary anyway," Pejman Yousefzadeh wrote derisively. However, it appears that righty bloggers are losing hope that GOP senators will launch a vigorous effort to oppose Geithner's nomination.

Finally, if you're interested in reading our summary of yesterday's Internet Advocacy Roundtable sponsored by Netroots Nation, please scroll down the page...

NY SEN: So Long, Caroline!

The netroots are pleased that Kennedy has withdrawn her name from consideration for the vacant NY Senate seat:

• Firedoglake's Jane Hamsher: "I didn't know how David Paterson was going to justify appointing Kennedy when virtually every poll showed an ever-widening gap between her and Andrew Cuomo as to whom New Yorkers would prefer. The main argument for Kennedy, despite her inexperience and her pathetic roll out (courtesy of [Joe] Lieberman/[Benjamin] Netanyahu handler Josh Isay) was her name recognition and ability to hold the seat in 2010. If Cuomo is beating her handily in the polls, that argument disappears. Good for David Paterson. He was getting steamrolled by the Kennedy machine over this from day one, but he never relented. [...] Kennedy was a weak candidate from the start, and both New York and the Democrats stood to lose a lot of she choked in the Senate. Teddy's health crisis yesterday offers her a graceful way to exit the stage. If she truly does feel called to public service in politics, now is her chance to prove that she's got what it takes by running for office."
• Daily Kos' SusanG: "Pssssst...did you hear the latest? Caroline said that she was all like ... David, I'm SO not down with how you dissed me. All the wishy-washy playing hard to get. First you like me, then you don't. First you're bragging about taking me, then you're pretending you never asked me. Forget the prom! Just forget it! I wouldn't be an appointed senator if you were the last governor on earth! (Head toss. Foot stomp. Exit stage left.)"

Daily Kos' Moulitsas hopes that Paterson doesn't appoint Cuomo: "If Cuomo gets passed over for any of the other contenders, we might actually see a competitive primary for the 2010 special. And ultimately, that would be the most (small 'd') democratic solution of all. So fingers crossed for 'anyone but Cuomo'. But regardless who it might be, I wish Paterson would just pick someone already!"

NY SEN II: Good Riddance

Conservative bloggers also welcomed Kennedy's decision to drop her Senate bid:

• Michelle Malkin: "The commentariat will say it was the 'uhs' and 'you knows' that killed Caroline Kennedy's bid for Hillary's Senate seat. The halting media appearances certainly didn't help. But ultimately, it was the regal sense of entitlement that done her in. Dynastic expectations coupled with lack of public disclosure and questionable work ethics do not sit well with the American public. Fare thee well, Queen Caroline."
• Townhall's Carol Platt Liebau: "It's one thing if people want to elect someone whose primary distinction is her heritage to elected office, or if voters choose someone who could be considered weak on the 'experience' side. That's what democracy is about, and it's voters' right. It's quite another if someone with those attributes simply manages to secure a Senate seat by appointment. In my view, it's repugnant to the idea that all of us, as Americans, cherish: That we are a country where merit and performance counts more than bloodlines."
• NRO's Jim Geraghty: "There is a place in this world for Caroline Kennedy to do good work; it just isn't the U.S. Senate. The Republic is better off for her withdrawal from consideration for Hillary Clinton's seat."
• Power Line's John Hinderaker: "That ends one major source of embarrassment for the Democratic Party. Now if we could just do something about [Al] Franken..."

Glenn Reynolds: "In a blow against nepotism and political dynasties, Caroline Kennedy withdraws her name for Senate. Opening the way for Andrew Cuomo!"

GEITHNER: Oh, So Now It's TurboTax's Fault?

Conservative bloggers are criticizing Geithner for claiming that he was using TurboTax when he (incorrectly) filed his taxes:

• RedState's Yousefzadeh: "Tim Geithner wants us to believe that his errors are TurboTax's fault and wants to be Treasury Secretary anyway. [...J]ust how does he expect to gain trust with the mealy-mouthed 'TurboTax ate my return' excuse he is now offering -- under oath, one might add -- to the United States Senate?"
• Geraghty: "[I]f the software that he used to prepare his taxes reminded him of this provision of the tax code, and he still didn't pay, it looks worse, and tougher and tougher to believe that they were 'completely unintentional' as he said in his opening statement. [...] I suspect Geithner did not help himself with that answer."
• RedState's Erick Erickson: "Let's review. Geithner signed a form acknowledging his responsibility to pay his taxes. He accepted money from the International Monetary Fund to offset payment of his taxes. He did not pay his taxes. Upon getting an audit by the IRS, he paid back taxes for 2003 and 2004, but still did not pay his 2001 and 2002 taxes. He first said he did not realize he had the obligation. Today he said Turbo Tax screwed him up. [...] Tim Geithner was either lying then or lying now. The odds are, in blaming Turbo Tax today before the Senate in sworn testimony, Tim Geithner committed perjury."

NRO's Ramesh Ponnuru thinks GOP Senators should take Newt Gingrich's advice and oppose Geithner: "Republicans do not have the power to derail the nomination by themselves and probably cannot derail it, period. Given that fact, why shouldn't they stand up against the idea that paying taxes is for unimportant people? That, in a crisis of authority, confidence, and responsibility, the Treasury job should go to someone who has the first, inspires the second, and has demonstrated the third?"

Michelle Malkin thinks GOP senators are going to "capitulate": "It looks increasingly like the GOP is going to ignore the bad signs and capitulate on Obama's Treasury Secretary nominee. [...] Do not say, 6 months or a year from now, that you were not warned, GOP."

HOLDER: A Tortuous Confirmation Process

Liberal bloggers are blasting Senate GOPers for forcing a one-week delay in a vote on the nomination of ex-Deputy AG Eric Holder as AG. Lefty bloggers are directing most of their fire at TX Sen. John Cornyn, who said that he's concerned about Holder's definition of waterboarding as torture, since it could potentially "open intelligence officials to prosecution":

• Daily Kos' BarbinMD: "Flailing about to show their relevance, Republican Senators blocked a confirmation vote on Attorney General-designate Eric Holder until next week. This politics-as-usual garbage was led [by PA Sen.] Arlen Specter, in an effort to take President Obama 'down a peg', and today John Cornyn jumped in, objecting to Holder's assertion that waterboarding is torture. [...] My suggestion to Cornyn? Have himself strapped down and subjected to the process, and then he can explain why it isn't torture."
• The Washington Monthly's Steve Benen: "To hear Republicans tell it, they want to block Holder from serving as the nation's chief law-enforcement officer because he hasn't ruled out prosecuting those who broke the law. It's quite a worldview."
• The Reality-Based Community's Mark Kleiman: "Can demanding that someone nominated for a prosecutorial post promise not to prosecute a particular group of lawbreakers, as a condition of agreeing to his appointment, charged as an obstruction of justice? Reading the statute, I don't see why not. As to the idea that this is all Holder's fault for saying that waterboarding is torture, was he supposed to lie under oath? Of course waterboarding is torture, and we have a treaty obligation to prosecute those who engaged in it or ordered it. The new AG faces a complicated policy-political-legal set of problems in dealing with that mess, but the blame rests squarely on the torturers and their accessories after the fact, such as Sen. John Cornyn."

GUANTANAMO: Close It? Never!

Conservative bloggers are criticizing Obama for signing an executive order calling for the closing of Guantanamo detention center within the next year:

• RedState's Josh Painter: "[O]n the first day of his watch Obama has begun the process of making our nation less safe, something his predecessor worked so hard for so many years to prevent. This is just one of the reasons why so many of us feared the elevation of Obama to the presidency. He doesn't understand national security, nor does he realize the potential consequences of his words and deeds."
• Right Wing News' John Hawkins: "One of the reasons so many foreigners wanted Barack Obama to become President is that they think he's a small, weak pansy who cares more about making bureaucrats in Europe like him than he does about looking out for his own country. Incidentally, they have Obama's number. [...] Even if Obama was staying up at night, crying into his pillow about how those poor Al-Qaeda terrorists were stuck in prison for years just because they wanted to kill Americans, he should have at least waited a while before making a move. It would have still been a bad idea any time he did it, but doing it right off the bat sends the worst possible message to people who want to do us harm at the worst possible time."
• Geraghty: "If Obama moves forward, his administration will have to answer a basic question: If not Gitmo, then where? And if the answer is Fort Leavenworth, he'll have to explain why he's ignoring the objections of Democratic Gov. Kathleen Sebelius, once a potential running mate. If it's Camp Pendleton in California, then Obama is overruling the objections of local congressmen, and we're left wondering where Sens. Dianne Feinstein and Barbara Boxer will stand. The U.S. Naval Consolidated Brig in Charleston, South Carolina? Again, local lawmakers staunchly oppose the idea [...] Republicans don't have a ton of issues in which public opinion is on their side; they should press the argument that American policy on detainees in the War on Terror ought to consider the objections of Americans in places like Kansas, California, and South Carolina as much as it considers the objections of the editorial boards of Le Monde, Der Spiegel and the Guardian."

DNC: R.I.P. 50-State Strategy?

Open Left's Chris Bowers recently spoke to "a source close to the transition at the DNC" who told him that the DNC is "moving away" from the 50-state strategy pioneered by ex-DNC Chair Howard Dean:

"In short, the DNC will be moving away from the long-term, decentralized, fifty-state strategy of Howard Dean's tenure, and toward serving as a short-term, centralized re-election effort for President Obama in 2012. It will continue the move away from paid media ushered in by Howard Dean, maintain or increase the amount of resource expenditures in most states, and the number of states it targets will be a broader effort than the narrow focus we saw in 2001-2004 (but more narrow than 2005-2008). However, it will return to the traditional role of the DNC as a supplement for the sitting President's re-election campaign, rather than as the long-term, localized institution building operation that is was from 2005-2008."

Moulitsas is not happy about this report: "Assuming Bowers' source is correct, the DC Democratic establishment will like this. They hated losing control of that cash and letting the states decide for themselves how to best spend it. This is a return to how the party has traditionally operated. [...] The reason that there's an inherent conflict with turning the DNC into Obama's 2012 reelection effort is that there's no reason for the Obama operation to have staffers in Utah. But there's a reason for the Democratic Party to have staffers in Utah -- helping Democrats get elected to important local- and state-level offices and building a bench for federal offices. If Obama's DNC wants to staff up in battleground states, then great. But the rest of the states shouldn't be discarded. We've been down that road before, and it wasn't pretty."

FiveThirtyEight's Nate Silver offers his thoughts: "One can imagine a lot of scenarios in which there is a potential trade-off between enhancing Barack Obama's election chances (and/or his political capital) and those of a downballot candidate for Congress or some other office. In the special election in Georgia, for instance, Barack Obama did not want to visit the state because he evidently felt that stumping for Jim Martin would be a poor use of his political capital. That might or might not have been the 'correct' decision (in retrospect, since Martin got beaten badly, it looks wise). But the point is, there is a trade-off there: Obama's interests versus those of a congressional Democrat. And with Obama largely taking over the DNC, such trade-offs are liable to be resolved more often than not in Obama's favor."

SENATE DEM PROGRESSIVE MEDIA SUMMIT: Senators Courting Bloggers

Several prominent liberal bloggers attended the "Senate Democratic Progressive Media Summit" yesterday, where they met with a number of Dem Senators. Jerome Armstrong writes:

"I was at the progressive media summit yesterday, learning about the agenda of the Democratic Senators. About 20 of them showed up to take questions over the 5 hours. If I had to sum it up in one word: ambitious. I recall last year, attending, that the atmosphere was much different. Then, all about stopping [George W.] Bush; now, a huge agenda of things to do. And promises galore.

[OR Sen.] Ron Wyden, Universal healthcare -- [MA Sen. Ted] Kennedy's bill. [NV Sen.] Harry Reid, Immigration Reform this year; EFCA 'still a few more votes for cloture' but this summer. [OH Sen.] Sherrod Brown, Universal healthcare, local green electricity. [ND Sen.] Byron Dorgan, a national 'smart grid' for electricity. [NM Sen.] Jeff Bingaman, Cap and Trade this cycle. [NY Sen.] Chuck Schumer, local water/sewer upgrades nationally. [NM Sen.] Tom Udall, serious start to getting off oil. [MT Sen.] Jon Tester, all the stimulus to infrastructure jobs (including green). Hey, lets dream."

Liberal bloggers were particularly excited about [MI Sen.] Carl Levin's declaration that "there needs to be an accounting on torture in this country."

INTERNET ADVOCACY ROUNDTABLE: What Should The Netroots Do In The Obama Era?

Yesterday we attended the Internet Advocacy Roundtable, a Netroots Nation-sponsored panel discussion held at the Center for American Progress. The five panelists were:

• Amanda Terkel, Managing Editor for The Progress Report and ThinkProgress.org
• Ari Melber, Net movement correspondent for The Nation
• Cheryl Contee, who blogs at Jack & Jill Politics
• Mike Lux, who blogs at OpenLeft.com and who served as a "progressive liaison" for the Obama transition team
• Sam Graham-Felsen, who served as Obama's campaign blogger

The discussion focused on how online progressive activists can exert influence on the Obama admin. In his opening remarks, Lux noted that Obama's rhetoric about bridging the partisan divide has ruffled some progressives' feathers, but he doesn't necessarily see this as a bad thing. Lux argued that Obama's post-partisan approach "will create tension at times," but that this can be "a healthy tension" as long as there is open and constructive dialogue between the Obama admin. and progressives. Lux observed that there has often been friction between progressive-leaning Presidents and activists (such as Abraham Lincoln and abolitionists; and Franklin Delano Roosevelt and labor leaders), but that "together they achieved great things."

Eventually the conversation turned to the Obama team's Internet outreach. Terkel thinks the Obama admin. has been cautious in embracing user-generated content: "There is a White House blog, which is great, but there are no comments." Terkel also noted that the Obama communications team was reluctant to answer the top-rated question on Change.gov (about appointing a special prosecutor to investigate Bush crimes) because it didn't mesh with their broader political strategy of appealing to conservatives (Melber recently wrote about this incident).

Contee observed that Obama -- unlike John McCain -- never participated in a conference call with bloggers during his campaign, and she wondered whether he would do so as President. Similarly, Lux expressed his hope that the Obama admin. would "engage a bit more -- not just with the blogs, but with progressive media more generally." He recommended that the Obama team do interviews with The Nation and liberal talk radio shows in addition to reaching out to more visible progressives such as MSNBC's Rachel Maddow. Melber agreed with Lux and described Obama's recent meeting with centrist and liberal pundits as "a missed opportunity to engage bloggers." While Melber was pleased that Maddow was invited to the meeting, he wondered why Obama didn't invite any progressive bloggers: "The only quote-unquote blogger was Andrew Sullivan, who voted for Bush, and who probably should have been at the right-wing meeting instead."

Graham-Felsen, understandably, defended the Obama campaign's outreach to progressive bloggers, as well as the campaign's outreach to Internet users more generally. He pointed out that the Obama camp held weekly conference calls with selected bloggers during the general election (even though Obama himself did not participate in these calls) and that "we basically exerted zero censorship" on my.barackobama.com. Graham-Felsen also spoke positively about the new DNC-housed Organizing For America. He noted that many of the leaders in Obama For America (such as Mitch Stewart, who led Obama's caucus effort in IA and his general election effort in VA) will have prominent roles in the new organization. He emphasized that the new OFA will have a strong grassroots message: "We are not going to just tell people what to do. We want to have a conversation."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: What Kinds Of Speech Should Be Protected?

Think Progress' Matthew Yglesias isn't comfortable with the fact that "a Dutch court has ordered prosecutors to put a right-wing politician on trial for making anti-Islamic statements":

"I think as a matter of principle that people should be permitted to make offensive analogies about the Koran or anything else they care to. That said, I do think that principled belief in free speech is ultimately tied to practicalities. If I was genuinely convinced that for people of diverse faiths to coexist peacefully required an elaborate set of legal restrictions on offensive speech -- with the only alternative being bloodshed and many deaths -- then I'm not going to pretend that I might not flinch away from principle. But the principle of freedom of expression as a good solution for life in a diverse society has, I think, stood the test of time in the United States of America. And it does work, in part, precisely because it's understood as a principle, as a civic commitment to a shared value. Which is perhaps a more complicated answer than some people are hoping for, but I think that in the real word questions of principle and questions of pragmatism are more intertwined than people sometimes care to admit."

LEST WE FORGET: Inauguration Crowd Moves To White House Gates To Watch Presidency Happen

From The Onion:

"WASHINGTON -- Moments after witnessing the historic inauguration of President Barack Obama Tuesday, the massive, euphoric crowd shifted to the White House gates to watch the rest of his four-year term unfold. 'This is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to see the new president administrate as it happens,' said Hawaii resident Matt Rogers, who paid a scalper $100 to secure his portion of sidewalk until January 2013. 'These first 100 days will really set the tone for his presidency, and I'm going to see it all from 50 yards away.' This is reportedly the largest crowd of presidential spectators to assemble since 1974, when 20 million Americans stood for six months outside disgraced former president Nixon's home in San Clemente, CA just to rub it in."

Posted by Ian Faerstein at 01:33 PM

January 21, 2009

1/21: The Obama Era Begins

Needless to say, liberal bloggers were pretty excited about Barack Obama's inauguration. Even Obama's critics on the left were moved by yesterday's events. It also cannot be emphasized enough how much joy lefty bloggers felt at finally being able to say goodbye to George W. Bush. Indeed, the netroots' happiness yesterday was as much a product of Bush's departure as it was a product of Obama's victory. It was, after all, Bush's disputed victory in the 2000 election that gave rise to the netroots.

Conservative bloggers, naturally, had a far different reaction to yesterday's events. Righty bloggers are criticizing Obama's "pedestrian" speech, blasting Rev. Joseph Lowery's "race-based" benediction, and paying tribute to Bush. Several conservative bloggers are expressing their desire to see Obama fail, either because he is "morally depraved" or because he is "a Trojan Horse for communism to push its nose under and into the tent".

INAUGURATION: Things Done Changed

Liberal bloggers were thrilled about Obama's inauguration:

• Open Left's David Sirota: "I've got policy differences with Obama, I think he's still way too afraid to confront moneyed power, and I've got hopes he'll be more progressive, but let me just reiterate a fundamentally awesome truism worthy of euphoric celebration, because it's only now really sinking in: An African American named Barack Hussein Obama is the President of the United States. That's pretty amazing -- and pretty awesome."
• Firedoglake's Jane Hamsher: "If America is truly an exceptional nation, there is no clearer manifestation of that than the fact that we had the courage to elect Barack Obama."
• TPM's Josh Marshall: "It is hard not to feel as though I'm under an assault from history, knocking down well-built walls of skepticism, perhaps cynicism, ingrained knowledge that no real and lasting moments of change are possible."

INAUGURATION II: Say Goodnight To The Bad Guy

Liberal bloggers were ecstatic about the end of the Bush Presidency:

• AMERICAblog's John Aravosis: "Let the joyous news be spread, the wicked old witch at last is dead."
• Mother Jones' Kevin Drum: "I know this isn't quite in keeping with our shiny new postpartisan spirit, but watching Executive One take off almost brought tears to my eyes."
• Obsidian Wings' hilzoy: "I've been trying to figure out what to say about the inauguration, with no success at all. I will only say: it feels like waking up from a horrible dream."
• Daily Kos' Markos Moulitsas: "Bye bye Bush. I hope the door hits you on the way out."

INAUGURATION III: Thank You, Mr. Bush

Conservative bloggers, in contrast, are paying tribute to Bush:

• RedState's Directors: "George W. Bush and Richard B. Cheney leave Washington today. For eight years they have ably served the nation, keeping us safe. [...] Through it all, George W. Bush remained an affable, likable, profoundly decent man whose political opponents could not understand him because in a Washington, D.C. where people rarely do as they say, George W. Bush governed as he said he would and tried his best to keep his word."
• Townhall's Carol Platt Liebau: "[I]n my judgment, most of [Bush']s decisions -- and especially the big ones -- will be vindicated by history. He did what he thought best for the country, and he kept us safe. God bless him and his family, and thank you."
• Power Line's John Hinderaker: "As we noted here, President Bush's strong anti-terrorist policies stopped a long string of successful terrorist attacks that stretched back to the late 1970s. His record in this respect is truly extraordinary, and he deserves an enormous amount of credit for it. [...A]t present it looks like a good bet that history will record Iraq as a successful foreign policy initiative, and possibly one that started the long process of reforming the Arab world, to everyone's great benefit."
• Hot Air's Ed Morrissey: "On foreign policy, Bush mostly triumphed. [...] On domestic policy, Bush governed from the center. [...] A great president? Likely, no. But George Bush did a good job in a very difficult time, and I think history will eventually treat him with considerably more kindness than present-day media did, or at least fairness, which present-day media never bothered to use. He kept America safe, and whatever his flaws are, Bush had the interests of America in mind foremost. Thank you, Mr. Bush."

INAUGURATION IV: Praying For Failure

Like Rush Limbaugh, several conservative bloggers are expressing their desire to see Obama fail:

• RedState's Leon H. Wolf: "I hope that Barack Obama is a failure as a President. Before you recoil in horror that I could express such a sentiment, allow me to remind you what the pleasant face and smooth rhetoric hide in the case of Barack Obama: they hide a morally depraved and crooked man. [...] A man who has gotten to his position of power by climbing the greasiest and dirtiest ladder in all of politics. [...B]ecause I know who Barack Obama is and what he really stands for, I will oppose everything he does, and I will do so from day one. Who among you will join me?"
• RedState's Warner Todd Huston: "I did not vote for the man. I do not support his socialist ideas. I stand four-square against his votes for infanticide, his votes to gut the Constitutional right to self-protection, his vague ideas of nationalizing various industries, his intention to enlarge government to unheard of proportions and his softening on terror producing countries. And since these are the things his entire life's career point to as probable goals to 'succeed' upon during his presidency...well, I want him to fail. And I want him to do so spectacularly. If Barack Obama is but a Trojan Horse for communism to push its nose under and into the tent, I want him to fail in the attempt."

Morrissey disagrees: "I'm not going to be rooting for his failure, because I'm rooting for America. I believe most people feel the same way; Obama won the election and for better or worse, he's our president. But that doesn't mean that any of us will sit quietly for the next four years or the next four days. [...] When Obama does something right, I'll praise it, but I'll speak up when policies go bad and mistakes are made. That's part of being an American."

INAUGURAL ADDRESS: Hitting The Right Notes

While liberal bloggers weren't blown away by Obama's inaugural address, they felt that its somber tone was appropriate to the times:

• Firedoglake's Spencer Ackerman: "The speech itself wasn't one of Obama's best, but it accomplished its principal goal of establishing Obama as a historical figure who's prepared to take up monumental challenges."
• Sirota: "Obama's speech was, [in my humble opinion], excellent to quite excellent. It sounded the appropriate alarms about the economy and foreign policy, it saluted the historic nature of his election, and it hinted at radical change in policy."
• The Atlantic's James Fallows: "I think that the speech was in fact very well-pitched to this moment in history and the messages Obama wants and needs to send."
• The Reality-Based Community's Mark Kleiman: "Overall, it wasn't Obama's most exciting speech. But it may well have been the right speech for him to give at this moment."
• Arianna Huffington: "It was clear from the beginning that the speech was a warning bell. For me, the most compelling moment of the speech came when he quoted the Bible. While we remain a young nation, he said, 'the time has come to set aside childish things.' There was something very powerful about watching this relatively young man, one of the youngest to ever hold the highest office in the land, telling the American people to grow up."

Several liberal bloggers interpreted the speech as a surprisingly forceful rejection of the Bush Presidency:

• The Washington Monthly's Steve Benen: "[M]y initial reaction is that this was a dense and powerful speech, and a more forceful rejection of the status quo than I'd expected. [...] I didn't see George W. Bush's face at the time, but the new president's remarks were a rather specific rejection of the most recent president's entire worldview."
• Firedoglake's Blue Texan: "What surprised me about Obama's inaugural speech was what a stinging rebuke of Republicanism it was, in particular, Bush era Republicanism. For all the talk lately about how Obama is a 'post-partisan' Democrat, its partisanship was marked, especially in its stark rejection of the notions that the 'free market' cures all and that the rule of law must be subjugated to security."

INAUGURAL ADDRESS II: Underwhelming

Conservative bloggers were not impressed by Obama's inaugural address:

• NRO's Ramesh Ponnuru: "I thought it was pedestrian, and at times petty in its many shots at Bush."
• RedState's Pejman Yousefzadeh: "Given Barack Obama's speechmaking fame, I expected big things. But I have to say, I was disappointed."
• Townhall's Jonathan Garthwaite: "Perhaps I'm not an impartial judge but President Obama's speech seemed very off-key to me. [...] Perhaps the cold got to him but the speech sounded like they were trying to thread the needle of the sobering reality we face and lofty hope and change from the campaign -- and missed the mark."
• AmSpec Blog's Philip Klein: "I thought the speech was a bit flat. To be sure, it wasn't terrible. But it was solid and workmanlike whereas the gravity of the moment and all the buildup suggested he'd offer something more. The idea that we're facing tremendous challenges and can overcome them if we work together is nothing new, and it wasn't a theme that was presented with particular creativity this time around."

ROBERTS: Wasn't He Supposed To Be Unflappable?

Several liberal bloggers chastised Chief Justice John Roberts for making a mistake while administering the Inaugural Oath to Obama:

• Atrios: "Awesome Job, Roberts. Idiot."
• Benen: "The presidential oath of office is quite straightforward, and only 35 words long. [...] Somehow, Chief Justice John Roberts, with the whole world watching, managed to flub it."
• Moulitsas: "It was Roberts' f'up. Reading from a script is hard. [...] The liberal justice didn't flub the vice-presidential oath..."

Firedoglake's looseheadprop downplays the significance of the incident: "Evidently, FOX news twerps are jumping all over the way Justice Roberts fouled up the administration of the oath of office to President Obama. I've been told they are even speculating about whether or not President Obama actually IS legally the president. Give it a break fellas! There have been deviations from the language in the Constitution before -- and not just because someone got tongue tied. On religious grounds, Franklin Pierce chose to 'affirm' rather than 'swear'. Sorry to ruin your daydream Fox Boys, but Obama is truly and legally our president."

LOWERY: Outrage On The Right

Conservative bloggers are blasting Rev. Lowery for including the following sentence in his benediction at yesterday's inaugural ceremony:

"Lord, in the memory of all the saints who from their labors rest, and in the joy of a new beginning, we ask you to help us work for that day when black will not be asked to get in back, when brown can stick around, when yellow will be mellow, when the red man can get ahead, man; and when white will embrace what is right."

• Hawkins: "[D]id he write that 40 or 50 years ago and promise to read it when the first black President is elected? As far as I'm concerned Joseph Lowery and Barack Obama can both kiss my white ass and shove their pathetic, crybaby grievance mongering where the sun doesn't shine."
• Michelle Malkin: "The 'white would embrace the right?' Who wrote that line? Jeremiah Wright? And what would Obama's grandparents and mother have to say? Like I said last night: Feel the post-racialism!"
• RedState's Jeff Emanuel: "It was likely inevitable that at least one of the many aging leaders of the civil rights movement would use his time in the limelight today to make an effort to keep the embers of the race-based flame wars from being extinguished once and for all. In this case, it was Rev. Joseph Lowery, who used his opportunity to pray before the masses to rehash the long-past ills of a bygone age of racism and inexcusable ethnic discrimination."

GUANTANAMO: An Encouraging First Step...

Lefty bloggers reacted with cautious optimism to the news that Obama is seeking a 120-day suspension of legal proceedings involving Guantanamo detainees:

• TAPPED's Adam Serwer: "The move is an important first step to closing the Guantanamo Bay prison. Still up in the air is how the Obama administration will handle cases in which the evidence against detainees is tainted by the use of torture."
• Drum: "This only gets two cheers until we see what the current procedure gets replaced with, but it's a good start."
• MyDD's Todd Beeton: "The next (big) question is when will he actually shut Gitmo down? The President has pledged to do so and I hope this will end up being merely step 1 toward fulfilling that promise."
• Daily Kos' mcjoan: "This maneuver will hopefully buy the new administration 120 days to determine how to proceed with the detainees. The best possible course of action, from a rule of law and human rights standpoint, would be what the ACLU is calling for -- the withdrawal of charges and an end to the military commissions process, with cases that warrant prosecution proceeding in regular federal criminal courts. Should the military commissions judges refuse this request, unlikely as it seems, the administration should take more definitive action, such as ordering that the charges be withdrawn."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Obama As The End Of Hip-Hop Culture

The Atlantic's Ta-Nehisi Coates critiques Mark Hemingway's claim that Obama's ascension "suggests the era of hip-hop might be ending":

"I've dealt with this silly, silly argument before. The only thing new I have to add is this: It seems foolish to listen and read pundits in a way that suggests they're talking about actual human beings. I know they claim they are, but they're lying -- to themselves, mostly. In reality, the pundit is arguing about two-dimensional caricatures that exist in his head. Only a two-dimensional caricature listens to Tupac [Shakur], and then decides to be a bad father. Only a two-dimensional caricature sees the election of Obama and then says, 'Hmmm, guess this means I can't listen to Jeezy anymore.' Only two-dimensional caricatures say, 'Hmm, got a black president, better pull my pants up.'

In the real world, where real people live, and breath real air, a multitude of forces -- cultural, social, economic, etc. -- weigh on people. Barack Obama will certainly change something about black culture. But anyone who's spent any time around actual people should know better then to act like they know what that is, or how it will play out. These guys are Skip Bayless, telling you who's going to the Super Bowl next year."

LEST WE FORGET: Hillary Clinton Mouthing Along To Presidential Oath

From The Onion:

"WASHINGTON -- Network news cameras covering Barack Obama's inauguration ceremony Tuesday captured Hillary Clinton silently moving her lips along with each word of the minute-long presidential oath of office. As she stood watching several yards from Chief Justice John Roberts, the former Democratic presidential candidate could be observed placing her left hand on a leather appointment book and raising her right hand slightly from her hip. Clinton, who carefully followed the swearing-in procedure with her eyes shut tightly, only varied from the president's words once, when she soundlessly mouthed her name instead of Barack Obama's. Clinton was later seen at an inaugural ball pretending she was dancing with first lady Michelle Obama."

Posted by Ian Faerstein at 01:10 PM

January 19, 2009

1/19: Pelosi Makes Waves

Liberal bloggers are buzzing about House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's appearance on Fox News Sunday, in which she said that she is open to pursuing investigations of abuses by George W. Bush's DoJ. The netroots see Pelosi's remarks as further evidence that "progressives are more likely to see the House leadership take up our causes than the White House." As we've noted before, lefty bloggers have been putting a lot of pressure on the incoming Barack Obama admin. to investigate and prosecute crimes committed by Bush officials.

Conservative bloggers, meanwhile, are blasting Pelosi's comments, calling them "exactly the sort of partisan hyperventilation that candidate Obama denounced." Some righty bloggers are even warning that investigations of Bush officials "could legitimately begin the breakdown of the American republic."

What else is happening in the blogosphere?

• Liberal bloggers (Sirota, Drum, Yglesias) were pleased to learn that Obama plans to meet with the Joint Chiefs of Staff on Wed. in order "to discuss the Iraq war, a conflict he has vowed to end after six years of fighting."
• Conservative bloggers (Mirengoff, Liebau, Erickson) are criticizing the "pornographic" media coverage of Obama's inauguration, whereas liberal bloggers (MissLaura, digby) are excited about the events in DC.

PELOSI: Bravo, Nancy!

Liberal bloggers were pleased to learn that Pelosi is open to investigating possible abuses by the Bush DoJ:

"'I think that we have to learn from the past and we cannot let the politicizing, for example, of the Justice Department, to go unreviewed,' Pelosi said on 'Fox News Sunday.' 'Past is prologue. We learn from it.'"

• AMERICAblog's Joe Sudbay: "Letting high ranking officials get away with crimes is what happens in dictatorships. It cannot and should not happen in the United States. That is un-American at its core. [...] Pelosi's words today are a step in the right direction."
• Think Progress' Matthew Yglesias: "Presidential leadership is obviously a very important part of getting things done in the United States, but on a variety of issues progressives are more likely to see the House leadership take up our causes than the White House."
• Open Left's Chris Bowers: "The pre-season prediction of the House being more progressive than the Senate appears to be holding true to form."

PELOSI II: Them's Fightin' Words

Conservative bloggers are slamming Pelosi for her remarks:

• RedState's Erick Erickson: "Nancy Pelosi's political threat could legitimately begin the breakdown of the American republic. And that's no exaggeration. The true reason that the American Republic has endured...is because of a very simple rule: political defeats do not end the game. Nancy Pelosi could end the game."
• Townhall's Hugh Hewitt: "This is exactly the sort of partisan hyperventilation that candidate Obama denounced, and if he doesn't separate himself from it, it undermines all of his appeals to the country to support a period of bipartisan legislation. The Speaker wants payback to satisfy her hard left base, but the president-elect must know that there is zero political advantage to pressing an attack on the already left-town Bush officials."
• Michelle Malkin: "The nutroots roasted Nancy Pelosi for refusing the join the Bush impeachment bandwagon last summer. She argued it would be 'divisive' and a 'distraction' from the liberal Democrat legislative agenda -- incensing the Joy Behar wing of the party. Remember? [...] Well, now that we're in dire economic straights and Obama is about to ascend the throne, Pelosi has apparently decided that the timing is right for the division and distraction she condemned six months ago."
• Ace of Spades: "They will not be satisfied until they completely trash Bush, and the war. And conservatism. Honestly, I don't think even that will satisfy them. It'll keep them sedated for a bit. That's all."

Power Line's Paul Mirengoff doesn't think the Obama admin. will pursue investigations: "It seems unlikely...that the Obama Justice Department will want to devote its resources to litigating over its own employment practices, where employees affected by the decisions in question (both favorably and unfavorably) are still among its workforce. Obama is probably even less inclined to prosecute Bush administration officials over actions taken in connection with conducting the war on terror. Such prosecutions would likely demoralize govenment employees still engaged in fighting terrorism, produce division where Obama seeks unity, and create a precedent that might later be used against Obama's people."

BUSH: We Want The Truth!

Several liberal bloggers are suggesting that Obama is legally obligated to investigate possible crimes committed by the Bush admin.:

• Salon's Glenn Greenwald: "The Bush administration authorized, ordered and practiced torture. The U.S., under Ronald Reagan, legally obligated itself to investigate and prosecute any acts of torture committed by Americans [...] Once Eric Holder stated unequivocally that waterboarding is torture, and once a top Bush official used the word 'torture' to describe what the U.S. did at Guantanamo using authorized techniques other than waterboarding, the 'discretion' to investigate and prosecute disappeared -- at least for people who believe in the most basic precepts of the rule of law and equality under it, Western principles of justice established at Nuremberg, and the notion that the U.S. is bound by the treaties it signs. There simply is no way to argue against investigations and prosecutions (and no way to argue that we should use torture-obtained evidence against Guantanamo detainees) without fully rejecting all of those principles."
• The Nation's Christopher Hayes: "It's a been a while since I was a practicing logician in college, but let me see if I can lay this out. (1) Yesterday, AG designee Eric Holder said, without hesitation that water-boarding is torture. (2) Dick Cheney has admitted authorizing water-boarding. (3) Dick Cheney has admitted authorizing torture. (4) Torture is a felony under US law punishable by up to 20 years of prison. (5) Dick Cheney authorized a felony. QED, right? Is there any other way to reason through these premises and deductions?"
• Yglesias: "[Hayes] raises the question of how, exactly, the Obama administration can possibly move forward with a 'let bygones by bygones' approach to Bush-era violations of the laws of war. Prosecutors have a lot of discretion, so I believe AG Holder would be within his rights to simply decline to investigate [Cheney's] public admission that he's committed what Holder claims to believe are serious crimes. But surely Holder should be asked about this and expected to give some kind of reasons for turning a blind eye."

OBAMA: See? We Told You He's Gonna End The War!

Liberal bloggers are pleased that Obama plans to "meet with high-ranking military officers [on Wed.] to discuss the Iraq war, a conflict he has vowed to end after six years of fighting." While many political analysts have suggested that Obama will keep troops in Iraq for longer than promised, lefty bloggers are pointing to this report as evidence that Obama will indeed follow through on his campaign vow to end the war:

• Yglesias: "This should hardly come as a surprise since if you ask me Barack Obama has always been pretty clear about it, but for the record he's still planning to end the war in Iraq."
• Open Left's David Sirota: "Despite Establishment pressure from the media and Pentagon for him to change his withdrawal plans, Obama has long been almost completely consistent in pledging to withdraw troops on a 16-month timetable (I say 'almost' because there was a one-day controversy on the campaign in which Obama said he might have to 'refine' his timetable -- but he then reiterated that he was committed to it). And now, according to the New York Times, one of his first orders as president will be to tell military commanders to start planning for withdrawal."
• Mother Jones' Kevin Drum: "[S]o far Obama has given every sign -- both for good and ill -- of taking campaign trail promises unusually seriously. I know it's premature to say that with any authority, but on taxes and stimulus and DADT and Iraq and a slew of other issues, I've been impressed with how seldom he's given any indication of either backing down from promises or adding in lots of stuff he once said he was against. Obviously Congress will force plenty of changes on him in the future, and so will events on the ground. But so far, despite the endless rounds of ungrounded rumors and speculation from the punditocracy, the betting man's line on Obama ought to be pretty simple: just take a look at what he said he was going to do during the campaign. More than likely, that's what he's going to do when the rubber meets the road in the Oval Office."

INAUGURATION: Too Much? Or Just Right?

Conservative bloggers are decrying what they perceive to be the adulatory media coverage of Obama's inauguration:

• Mirengoff: "One expects the mainstream media to wax poetic when a Democrat is about to become president. But the praise it is heaping on Barack Obama is surely unprecedented."
• Townhall's Carol Platt Liebau: "[O]ne would think that we are witnessing not just a presidential inauguration, but the canonization of a secular saint. The joyous faces of the anchors, the repeated invocation of the word 'historic' -- coupled, of course, with the images referenced above -- reflect a quasi-religious ecstasy, and do nothing if not suggest that a magnificent event of unrivaled proportion is about to unfold before us."
• Erickson: "Look, I get that it is historic, but it has become pornographic. All the reporters come back from breaks flushed and breathing heavy. Good grief."

Liberal bloggers, on the other hand, are excited about the inauguration:

• Daily Kos' MissLaura: "I feel cheeseball saying it, but holy shit. We are living history here, and it is beautiful."
• digby: "[A]t the risk of being sentimental again (I know how some of you hate that) I have to say once more just how much affection I feel for the Obama family and how verklempt I get at the thought of them being in the White House. I've been embarrassed and ashamed of a lot of things this country's done, especially in recent years. But the fact that in my lifetime we have gone from the horrors on the Edmund Pettus Bridge to inaugurating a black president gives me...well...hope."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: MLK And Nonviolence

Yglesias:

"...By the standards of today's discourse, [Martin Luther] King would be considered deeply unserious. Serious people understand that if you think something is important, the serious way to go about expressing that is by voicing support for having other people go kill other people. Doubts about the ethics of such action are loathesome moral equivalence and doubts about their wisdom demonstrate naïveté. King wouldn't qualify as a 'civil rights Democrat' -- not enough bloodshed.

The irony is that adherence to nonviolence is one of the main reasons King is such an admired and mainstream figure today. If he'd decided à la Tom Friedman that the white south needed a 'suck on this' moment, or followed the lead of Hamas or Shimon Peres in deciding the best way to teach the population a lesson was to terrorize them, he'd be a jailed or executed despised criminal. And the ethic of nonviolence that King appealed to has deep roots in the Christian tradition that unites the majority of black and white Americans. And yet even though this Christian nonviolence is in many ways the most mainstream aspect of this radical figure who's become a mainstream icon, it's something that none dare take seriously today."

LEST WE FORGET: Facebook Friend Apparently Dead Now

From The Onion:

"KANSAS CITY, MO -- While checking his news feed for updates on the 438 people in his extended network Monday night, Tom Allessandro, 24, noticed that Facebook friend David Bluvband has apparently died. 'Huh, I guess he's dead now,' said Allessandro, adding that it seemed like only yesterday when Bluvband, a former coworker of his ex-girlfriend, posted a link to the YouTube clip of 'Chocolate Rain.' 'Boy. That's a shame. Just goes to show you that you really have to enjoy every SuperPoke like it's your last.' After an appropriate two-minute mourning period spent reviewing Bluvband's tagged photos, Allessandro clicked 'Attending' for an event entitled 'Lost My Cell Phone! I Need Your Numbers!!@!.'"

Posted by Ian Faerstein at 12:35 PM

January 16, 2009

1/16: A Post-Partisan Era? Yeah, Right.

Barack Obama's economic stimulus package is generating a lot of commentary in the blogosphere. Last week, liberal bloggers were worried that Obama was making the stimulus package "too small and too tilted toward tax cuts" in an effort to win GOP support. Following considerable push-back from congressional Dems, a new, larger bill emerged that included more direct spending and fewer tax cuts. Consequently, Obama's hopes of gaining significant bipartisan support for his bill appear to be fading, but lefty bloggers aren't the least bit upset. Markos Moulitsas argues that "it's best to pass the best bill, rather than water shit down to the point it's useless in order to try and get mass Republican support..." Joe Sudbay agrees, noting that Obama "has huge Democratic margins in the House and Senate" and that "a lot of people worked very hard to secure that margin."

Meanwhile, conservative bloggers are blasting the new stimulus package. Hugh Hewitt calls it "a joke, an expression of eight years of pent-up liberal frustrations at fiscal discipline." Righty bloggers dispute the notion that government spending is necessary to help the economy, and they're instead pushing for "long term tax cuts coupled with long term spending cuts."

Interestingly, the debate over the stimulus package has led to a renewed debate over the effectiveness of Franklin Delano Roosevelt's New Deal, with conservatives calling FDR's programs a failure and liberals calling them a success. As George Orwell once wrote, "He who controls the past, controls the future."

STIMULUS: See, Obama? Bipartisanship Doesn't Work!

Liberal bloggers aren't the least bit upset that Obama's hopes of gaining an 80-vote Senate majority for his stimulus package appear to be fading. Lefty bloggers strongly prefer a stimulus package that contains more direct spending and fewer tax cuts, even if it passes on a party-line vote:

• Daily Kos' Moulitsas: "Remember that hilarity about Obama passing a 'bipartisan' stimulus plan? We snickered at the implausibility of Republicans voting for any such package, and once again, we're right. That's why it's best to pass the best bill, rather than water shit down to the point it's useless in order to try and get mass Republican support on anything. It'll always be a fools errand anyway."
• AMERICAblog's Joe Sudbay: "The majority of the GOP Senators were never ever going to support Obama's stimulus package -- no matter what he gave them in it. They are obstructionists and desperately want Obama's presidency to fail, even if that means the nation fails. Let's just hope the Obama team learned something from this experience. He has huge Democratic margins in the House and Senate. Work with them for the American people."
• dday: "I hope Obama's people learn something from this, and I trust they have. Republicans are committed to opposing a popular plan (extremely popular -- 80-85% support job creation on various initiatives like energy and infrastructure) for nakedly ideological reasons. At this point, their support is going to be meager at best. Ultimately, this could be a very good lesson. Obama extended the hand of friendship and it was rebuffed. He can now take the high road and move the bill even further in the direction of job creation. After all, he tried. And he can take that message right to the people."

STIMULUS II: Government Spending Is Not The Answer

Conservative bloggers are blasting the House version of the stimulus package, as they believe that it contains too much spending and not enough tax cuts:

• Townhall's Amanda Carpenter: "I just got a copy of the $825 billion spending plan outlined by the Democratic-controlled House Appropriations Committee. It is frightening. [...T]his bill [was] allegedly crafted to save us from the Wall Street crisis but is obviously being used to fund every hail Mary liberal, entitlement cause under the sun..."
• The Heritage Foundation's Conn Carroll: "The economy sank because people over-borrowed for houses they couldn't afford, and financial institutions over-borrowed for investments they badly misjudged. Washington's solution is to borrow $800 billion that it cannot afford. How will adding $800 billion to the national debt solve a recession created by imprudent borrowing? There is an alternative. Long term tax cuts coupled with long term spending cuts. The borrowing bailout parade is what got us into this mess. It is time for a new direction."
• Townhall's Hewitt: "[T]he massive spending splurge unveiled by House Democrats is just a joke, an expression of eight years of pent-up liberal frustrations at fiscal discipline -- the teenagers given a fifth and the car keys, out on a destructive joyride. Absent some serious reconstruction towards purposeful spending and more tax cuts on the Republican side, the GOP should seek to garner every vote against this absurd carnival of spending in both houses. This stuff just doesn't work to stimulate the economy anymore than a binge stimulates a drunk."

Meanwhile, RedState's Robert Bluey argues that "government spending didn't work in 1930s, and won't work now": "President-elect Barack Obama believes government spending is the best way to bailout America from its economic woes, and liberals in Congress are having no trouble finding ways to spend your hard-earned money. The price tag of the so-called stimulus plan has steadily increased from $775 billion last week to $850 billion today. Liberals like to say the New Deal programs of their hero Franklin Delano Roosevelt saved America from the Great Depression. All of that government spending, they argue, gave Americans jobs and boosted the economy. The numbers don't tell the same story. As I explained last week, unemployment data from the 1930s -- during FDR's first two terms -- remained above 20% despite New Deal spending."

RedState's Erick Erickson agrees: "Polls show the stimulus bill is popular with the public, but do they realize what's in it and that the original New Deal did not solve the problems it purported solved?"

HOLDER: Taking A Strong Stand Against Waterboarding

Liberal bloggers are praising Obama's AG choice, ex-Deputy AG Eric Holder, for declaring that waterboarding is torture:

• MyDD's Todd Beeton: "[T]he more I read, the more clear it becomes just what a clean break from the [Alberto] Gonzales style DOJ we're in for under Holder. [...] Holder exhibited zero nuance on whether waterboarding is torture."
• The Washington Monthly's Steve Benen: "When Alberto Gonzales was the nominee for Attorney General, he went to great lengths to avoid describing waterboarding as torture, or even addressing whether the practice is legal. Michael Mukasey's A.G. nomination was nearly derailed by his unwillingness to address similar questions. It wasn't a trick question. Today, Eric Holder answered it. Holder's response was both unequivocal and encouraging."
• Mark Kleiman: "Eric Holder did a good job of deflecting Sen. John Cornyn's attempt to use the 'ticking bomb' scenario to get him to endorse torture. Holder politely but firmly rejected the hypothesis that only waterboarding could get information quickly."

HOLDER II: The Rightroots Don't Want Him Confirmed

Conservative bloggers continue to speak out against Holder's Senate confirmation:

• AmSpec Blog's Philip Klein: "Given his intellegence and reputation for competence, it is very difficult to believe Eric Holder's contention that he thought Marc Rich was just another tax crook and that he had no idea that he was also an arms dealer. Also, his contention that Bill Clinton's pardons of FALN terrorists were 'reasonable' because they served time, hadn't harmed anybody (tell that to Joseph Connor), and the pardons were supported by an impressive list of luminaries, is disturbing. The pattern here seems to be one of deference to authority, and it's questionable whether Holder would be willing to stand up to Obama if necessary."
• Michelle Malkin: "Holder: My Marc Rich screw-up makes me a better AG nominee! [...A]nd I suppose his ties to Blago also make him a better AG."
• Power Line's Paul Mirengoff: "[W]hen Holder faced his moment of truth in the waning days of the Clinton presidency, he failed to live up to these principles. Holder put President Clinton's interest in pardoning a fugitive criminal ahead of the people's interest in bringing that criminal to justice. [...] Holder's failure to adhere to his own first principles during his moment of truth would permit, though standing alone probably not compel, a vote against his confirmation. All of this assumes that Holder is telling the truth. But it may be that Holder knew more than what he acknowledges."

GEITHNER: The Rightroots Don't Want Him Confirmed, Either

Conservative bloggers are also speaking out against Geithner's Senate confirmation:

• RedState's Directors: "Average Americans do not get to cheat the tax system and become Treasury Secretary. If we are a nation wherein all men are created equal, either no American should be prosecuted for cheating on their taxes or Mr. Geithner should be rejected as Treasury Secretary."
• AmSpec Blog's Doug Bandow: "It's odd. The nominee for Treasury Secretary, who has ultimate authority over the IRS, 'forgets' to pay substantial taxes for which he was reimbursed by his employer (the International Monetary Fund). And the liberal chattering classes stay largely silent. [...T]his issue certainly deserves more than a wave and 'oh well' by the Senate."
• Klein: "The reason why Geithner is getting a relatively free pass on the Capitol so far is that he's a Democratic nominee who is viewed by Republicans as a solid, business-friendly Treasury Secretary who is the best they can expect to do under Obama. But if Republicans let the nomination sail through without a fight, they wouldn't be performing their duty as an opposition party, and would be setting a bad precedent that could potentially come back to haunt them when trying to oppose future nominees. Though I suppose if Republicans ever return to power and nominate a tax cheat, they'll be able to say too Democrats, 'Hey, we confirmed your tax cheat without much fuss.'"

OBAMA: Sometimes It's Necessary To Look Backwards, Barack

Like Paul Krugman, liberal bloggers are urging Obama to investigate possible crimes committed by the George W. Bush admin., even though Obama said he wants "to look forward as opposed to looking backwards":

• Think Progress' Matthew Yglesias: "Look, the idea of enforcing the laws inherently involves the idea of looking backwards. If [ex-WH lawyer] John Yoo walked down Pennsylvania Avenue and shot a guy in the head, we wouldn't say 'we need to look forward as opposed to looking backwards' even though it would be as true as ever that it's important to look forward. And more than one person has died as a result of Bush-era torture policies. The idea of an accountability-free executive is bound to have some appeal to a new administration. On the one hand, embracing it earns you plaudits for bipartisanship. On the other hand, you're the executive now, so why not embrace it? But for the rest of us it's not such a great deal. [...] And recall Brian Beutler's point here that the illegality of, say, waterboarding was an established principle of American law for decades before Bush came around. We tried Japanese soldiers as war criminals for doing it during World War II. And it's not like we took 'well you have to understand, the Americans were a serious security threat' to be a viable defense."
• Salon's Glenn Greendwald: "Throughout the 20th Century, the U.S. has criminally prosecuted people for waterboarding -- both foreigners who did it and then were prosecuted as war criminals, and American law enforcement officers who did it and were prosecuted as ordinary criminals. [...] Holder stated emphatically that he believes waterboarding is 'torture,' which -- when combined with the confessions by both Bush and [Dick] Cheney that they authorized it -- amounts to a statement from the likely new Attorney General that the President and Vice President committed both domestic crimes and war crimes."
• Obsidian Wings' hilzoy: "[I]f Barack Obama, or his administration, believe that there are reasonable grounds to believe that members of the Bush administration have committed torture, then they are legally obligated to investigate; and that if that investigation shows that acts of torture were committed, to submit those cases for prosecution, if the officials who committed or sanctioned those acts are found on US territory. [...] Under the Convention, as I read it, this is not discretionary. And under the Constitution, obeying the laws, which include treaties, is not discretionary either."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Marriage, Democracy And California

Although he vociferously opposed Proposition 8 (the CA initiative that banned same-sex marriage), The Atlantic's Andrew Sullivan also opposes CA AG Jerry Brown's efforts to mount a legal challenge to the measure:

"We lost the Prop 8 battle because we ran a dreadful campaign run by the usual craven Human Rights Campaign cowards and incompetents. We deserved to lose. We do not deserve to get a do-over via court power. There are some interesting legal and constitutional arguments here that are not as easily dismissed as George [Will] might like. But as a political matter -- and this is a political struggle -- I hope the court decides to allow Prop 8 to stand. I do not want civil equality imposed by judicial fiat in the most populous state in America -- in the face of a close initiative vote. It would be a horribly pyrrhic victory. It would taint this movement's power and message and moral standing.

I don't think George fully grasps what the denial of marriage equality does to the souls of gay folk, and does not appreciate how we are in fact deeply wounded by the heterosexual majority in denying us core equality. But he's right that California already provides substantive state protections for gay couples. He's right too that recent history suggests we can easily win this in the democratic sphere and have been making amazing gains in persuading people of the justice of the cause. To impose a victory by fiat when in a few years, if we do the work we should, we can gain a victory with deep democratic legitimacy, would be to snatch pseudo-victory from the jaws of real victory. The [CA Supreme] Court did its duty and its 2008 ruling is part of civil rights history. It need not force this now, and shouldn't. Let's put this to a referendum again. And let's do the hard work to win."

LEST WE FORGET: Blagojevich Just Getting Started

From The Onion:

"SPRINGFIELD, IL -- Hoo, boy, if you thought Illinois governor Rod Blagojevich had finished soliciting bribes from state officials, shamelessly defying federal investigators, and generally acting like a megalomaniacal lunatic, you'd better think again. The crazy bastard, sources confirmed Monday, is just getting warmed up. 'I will not relinquish my position as governor, and I will continue to fight these outrageous allegations,' Blagojevich said Tuesday, referring to the multiple counts of fraud and extortion being leveled against him, and hinting at a range of other insanely illegal activities you wouldn't believe if he told you. 'I know the good people of the state of Illinois support my complete and total exoneration, and look forward to my possible 2016 presidential bid.' As of press time, no one could believe the stones on this guy."

Posted by Ian Faerstein at 01:26 PM

January 15, 2009

1/15: Fair And Balanced?

Barack Obama's two off-the-record meetings -- the first with a group of conservative pundits and the second with a mixture of Beltway columnists and liberal commentators -- are generating a lot of discussion in the lefty blogosphere. As we reported yesterday, the netroots don't mind that Obama spent Tuesday evening with hardcore GOPers like William Kristol. Some of them think it was a smart attempt to lower the intensity of the inevitable conservative criticism of Obama's agenda. Others don't particularly like Obama's strategy of reaching out to conservatives, but they've resigned themselves to the fact that Obama sees himself as a bridge-builder.

What does annoy liberal bloggers about these two off-the-record meetings is the idea that the second meeting, with its mixture of Beltway columnists and liberal pundits (not to mention Andrew Sullivan), was an effective ideological counter-weight to his first. Lefty bloggers are complaining that "nobody on the Wednesday list is nearly as far to the left as those on Tuesday's list is to the right," and they're wondering why Obama didn't invite people like Arianna Huffington and Katrina vanden Heuvel.

Meanwhile, conservative opposition to the Senate confirmation of Timothy Geithner is growing. Several righty bloggers are predicting that Obama will soon withdraw Geithner's nomination; Michelle Malkin thinks it will happen as soon as tomorrow.

OBAMA: You Call This Balance?

Yesterday, Obama followed up Tuesday night's dinner with conservative pundits by meeting with several Beltway columnists and liberal commentators:

"The group included the Washington Post's E.J. Dionne and Eugene Robinson, the Wall Street Journal's Gerry Seib, National Journal's Ron Brownstein, the New York Times' Frank Rich and Maureen Dowd, The Atlantic's Andrew Sullivan, and MSNBC's Rachel Maddow, among others. Some of the writers there today are clearly on the liberal side, while others more moderate. Regardless, it's still quite a contrast from yesterday's dinner companions: George Will, Bill Kristol, David Brooks, Charles Krauthammer, Peggy Noonan, and Paul Gigot."

While some journalists are describing yesterday's group as "liberal journalists" or "liberal commentators", lefty bloggers dispute that characterization. In their view, yesterday's "liberal" group was not the ideological equivalent of Tuesday night's "conservative" group:

• The Washington Monthly's Steve Benen: "The conservative group is genuinely conservative, and includes some voices that offer some pretty right-wing ideas. Gigot's Wall Street Journal editorial page is truly ridiculous. Barone recently told a roomful of journalists that the media was aggressive towards Sarah Palin because 'she did not abort her Down syndrome baby.' Kristol and [Larry] Kudlow are stark raving mad. This is not a mainstream bunch. This morning's group includes some excellent writers and sharp political observers. For that matter, I make no effort to hide my tremendous respect and affection for Rachel Maddow. But look at the two lists again -- are Seib, Brownstein, and Dowd, their talents notwithstanding, progressive equivalents of [Rich] Lowry, Barone, and Krauthammer? [...] I admire Obama's willingness to engage, intellectually, competing ideas and perspectives...But to consider last night's group and this morning's group as relative parallels is a mistake."
• Daily Kos' Meteor Blades: "I have zero problem with Barack Obama sitting down for a dinner-time tête-à-tête with right wingers such as Bill (bomb Iran) Kristol, Charles (torture 'is a moral duty') Krauthammer, Paul (global warming denier) Gigot, David (praise the oligarchy) Brooks, and George (Debategate) Will, among others. [...] Then, on Wednesday, Obama met with some moderates and liberals, including Rachel Maddow, Frank Rich, E.J. Dionne and Maureen Dowd. Good. But not exactly balance. Because, much as I often love Maddow's and Rich's take on events and ideas, nobody on the Wednesday list is nearly as far to the left as those on Tuesday's list is to the right. So who was missing Tuesday and Wednesday? Readers can make their own lists, but I think Obama would benefit from hearing the ideas of these six folks: Bob Borosage...Amy Goodman...Katrina vanden Heuvel...Tom Engelhardt...Bill McKibben...Bill Moyers..."
• dday: "While I'm glad Rachel [Maddow] was in the room, these aren't [liberal] CRITICS, by and large, nor are most of them even liberals. This is the typical thinking in Washington, where the range of policy ideas ranges from the Weekly Standard to The New Republic. Put the President-elect in a room with Arianna Huffington, Robert Scheer, Katha Pollitt, Katrina vanden Heuvel, maybe a few liberal bloggers. That would say something."

Think Progress' Matthew Yglesias: "This highlights one of our enduring asymmetries in American political media, namely that everyone who's not a card-carrying member of the conservative movement is counted, essentially, as a liberal. Or, rather, that the essential dichotomy is held to be between conservatives and not-conservatives rather than between conservatives and liberals. But this group isn't at all the mirror image of the conservative roster we heard about last night. Some people on it are, but others really aren't. It's like the common description of Brookings (rather than, say, CAP/AF) as a 'liberal' think tank simply because it's not a conservative one."

OBAMA II: Upset? We're Not Upset

Obama's Tuesday night dinner with conservative pundits continues to generate a lot of commentary in the liberal blogosphere. Many lefty bloggers are praising Obama's decision to reach out to his ideological foes:

• Mother Jones' Kevin Drum: "I don't know if Obama thinks he can actually persuade Kristol & Co. to support his ideas, but he's self-aware enough to know that a face-to-face meeting can change the tone of criticism even if it doesn't stop it. Once you've met someone in person, it's just a little bit harder to be really nasty toward them in print. It's the same dynamic that makes it hard to unload both barrels against a debate opponent: things are different in person than they are when they happen second or third hand. Obama's demonstrating yet again that he's a smart cookie."
• Yglesias: "I'm not enthusiastic about doing things like larding down a stimulus package with ineffective business tax cuts in a misguided effort to attract massive Republican support for the bill. But sitting down and being nice? Hard to see what's wrong with that. Obama appears to be very effective at convincing people he speaks to in small group settings that he's a good guy (I got to witness this firsthand in the summer of 2007 and you can see it indirectly as well) so it seems worth trying. Kristol's probably a lost cause, but neither [George] Will nor [David] Brooks is a dogmatically on-message partisan."
• Ezra Klein: "There was nothing threatening in Obama's dinner. Go back to the guest list [...] You don't break bread with Larry Kudlow because you want a rich intellectual exchange. You break bread with Kudlow because he's a buffoon, and can be flattered. If news came out that Obama was having a weekly powwow with Brooks, Will, and [David] Frum, you might see some concern in liberal quarters. But so long as Barone and Gigot are at the table, it's a fairly safe bet that you're just dealing with garden variety outreach to conservative influencers."

Firedoglake's Jane Hamsher is indifferent: "I don't know why Barack Obama decided to dine with radical extremists like Charles Krauthammer, William Kristol, Rich Lowry and David Brooks last night nor do I particularly mind that he did -- it was ultimately an exercise in pacifying the DC chattering class who have shown they are willing to rip into a new President like a pack of wild hyenas if obeisance is not paid to them. No doubt Sally Quinn can't decide whether to sharpen her daggers or polish the good silverware now."

OBAMA III: That's Just Barack Being Barack

Other lefty bloggers aren't exactly enamored of Obama's strategy of reaching out to conservatives, but they're resigned to the fact that this is how he conducts himself:

• TAPPED's Mori Dinauer: "[M]y advice to anyone who finds it offensive that Obama would meet with the opposition: get used to it. Throughout his presidential campaign, he made a point of reaching out to the opposition, and continues to do so (see Warren, Rick) out of a belief that he can bridge the political divide. There's plenty of good reasons to be skeptical but it's not as if he's going to stop trying -- it's how he wants to conduct his presidency."
• Open Left's Chris Bowers: "[I]t is hard for me to envision bloggers getting angry about something that is now such a regular pattern, and such an obvious example of a broader Obama strategy. [...] From pledging to talk with all foreign governments, to a constant harping on the need for bi-partisanship, to appearing on Bill O'Reilly's show during the campaign, from palling around with Rick Warren and putting together a 'team of rivals' in his cabinet, Obama has made it plainly obvious that he intends to talk with anyone and everyone. Hell, I have even met Obama in a small, private meeting with bloggers. He sincerely seeks to be a bridge-builder, consensus maker, and uniter. At this point, you would have to be pretty blind to miss that."

Bowers continues: "Now, this does conflict with the progressive movement strategy, exemplified by organizations like Media Matters, to discredit conservative media and pundits. Our goal of reshaping the national political media along more progressive lines is not compatible with Obama's strategy of appearing to be a bi-partisan consensus builder reaching out across dividing lines. [...] You can't discredit Bill O'Reilly and appear on his show at the same time. However, Obama isn't interested in discrediting Bill O'Reilly. He wants to appear willing to talk to anyone, and to try and curry favor even with conservative audiences. [...] I wish Obama had a different strategy, and I hope that in the future we are able to convince more Democratic leaders to buy into the movement's strategy on this matter, as their failure to do so hurts both them and us. For now, I am not going to get angry about old news."

Meanwhile, Klein offers Obama a suggestion: "[T]he important thing Obama could do for the 'liberal' media is not have dinner with them. That's good for egos but meaningless for influence. It is, however, well within Obama's power to increase the influence of progressive outlets. Covering the presidency is the central concern of political reportage. And an outlet's ability to cover the presidency can be affected by the favor of the President. If The American Prospect and TPM Cafe and Huffington Post and others of our ilk were given the occasional interview with Obama, and fed useful scoops, that would rapidly increase our readership, our importance in the broader media ecosystem, and the likelihood that members of our outlets would go on to hold key positions in more mainstream institutions. [...] In the long-run, that would be good for both Obama and for progressivism."

OBAMA IV: Lowering Expectations?

Conservative bloggers are accusing Obama of flip-flopping after he said that Osama Bin Laden needs to be isolated from his operatives, but not necessarily killed or captured:

• Glenn Reynolds: "There's been a lot of backtracking lately, hasn't there?"
• RedState's Moe Lane: "Oh, so *what* if Obama's backtracking on having bin Laden killed be our highest priority? [...Y]ou can't really hold it against him, right? After all, he's a Democratic politician, and everybody knows that their most lofty goal when doing national security issues is to sound almost as tough as the Republican; actually trying to sound tougher is a self-evident absurdity. So everybody that mattered knew all along that Obama was just lying, like any other politician: the ploy was of the sort that can be easily seen through by anyone with an IQ above room temperature."
• Hot Air's Allahpundit: "Remember at the debate when he vowed, 'We will kill Bin Laden, we will crush al-Qaeda'? [...] Anyway, change of plans. [...] Lest there be ambiguity, let me add that Obama's totally right here. None of these turds will be safely neutralized until they're dead or locked up, but if that's impossible, he's done his job by making sure they can't operate. Oddly, though, the left never saw it that way vis-a-vis [George W.] Bush. I wonder if they'll see it now."
• NRO's Jim Geraghty: "I know I'm supposed to be outraged that Obama is downplaying the importance of capturing or killing Osama bin Laden. And yes, this represents another statement expiration date [...] But this doesn't mean we shouldn't acknowledge the war on terror victory that our country has effectively achieved these past seven years or so: Osama bin Laden isn't gloating over victories, he's not ruling Pakistan, he's not even doing much video appearances; only one in the past four years. He's reduced to sending audio messages calling on other people to fight in his name, with quite meager results. Isn't the world's most wanted terrorist now, essentially...a podcaster?"

GEITHNER: Stick A Fork In Him!

Conservative bloggers are stepping up their opposition to the confirmation of Obama's Treasury nominee, NY Fed Chair Timothy Geithner, due to reports that Geithner failed to pay $34,000 in taxes from 2001 to 2004:

• Townhall's Amanda Carpenter: "We're supposed to believe the Wall Street's Golden Boy Tim Geithner, who wants to run the IRS, just forgot to pay his Social Security and Medicare taxes. That is was just an honest mistake. [...] Well, so what if it was an honest mistake? Do we really want someone running the IRS that can't properly oversee his OWN finances? Who HIRES people who give him terrible advice?"
• Right Wing News' John Hawkins: "There's no way Eric Holder or Tim Geithner deserve to be confirmed. Republicans should vote against both of them."
• RedState's Pejman Yousefzadeh: "[Geithner's] mistake itself...was quite a doozy. Quite a doozy. Have I mentioned how much of a doozy this mistake was? Because Geithner is so smart, so humble, so entirely in tune with the wonderfulness of the President-elect and because he is 'too big to fail,' (there's some tough-minded journalism for you), I doubt that this will amount to anything at the end of the day. But...perhaps it ought to."

Meanwhile, several righty bloggers think Geithner is toast:

• Malkin: "Time for the Geithner withdrawal betting pool. My guess? Friday 6:45pm Eastern."
• Power Line's John Hinderaker: "[This] represents a level of carelessness that is not going to be tolerated in a Treasury Secretary at this moment in history. I expect Obama to withdraw Geithner's nomination."

Unlike most of his fellow conservative bloggers, Townhall's Hugh Hewitt thinks Geithner should be confirmed: "Timothy Geithner's mistakes are not small things, but neither are they remotely the sort of character or judgment flaw that should prevent his quick confirmation. [...T]he Senate has before it a very bright and experienced nominee for a critical post at a time of pressing issues. Get on with it, senators, and mark the maturity of the Republicans against the excesses of the past (John Bolton.)"

SCHIP: Change Has Come To America

Liberal bloggers are pleased that the House voted to expand the Children's Health Insurance Program:

• Daily Kos' DemFromCT: "SCHIP passe[d] the House. And not a moment too soon. People are hurting all over. [...] Now, what was that saying? It's on the tip of my tongue...oh, yeah! I remember! Elections matter."
• MyDD's Jonathan Singer: "[T]his is a very good start."

Bowers: "[S]o far today children's health insurance expansion (in the U.D. House) and an omnibus land management bill (in the U.S. Senate) have both been passed with veto-proof margins. That a veto-proof margin is not even necessary with Barack Obama as President demonstrates just how easily these bills will pass into law. [...] It would appear that 'gridlock' or 'partisan polarization' is over in Washington, D.C. It turns out, however, that the problem was not politicians refusing to talk to each other out of spite, or an unwillingness to find common ground. Rather, the problem was a large presence of Republicans in Washington, D.C. With Republicans largely swept aside, gridlock is gone."

NY SEN: Caroline's Not Wearing Well

Several liberal bloggers are discussing the new Quinnipiac Univ. poll showing that NY voters prefer AG Andrew Cuomo over Caroline Kennedy for Hillary Clinton's Senate seat by a margin of 31-24%:

• Daily Kos' Markos Moulitsas: "Cuomo is wildly popular, and has weathered this process well, with marginal improvements in his numbers. Kennedy, on the other hand, has suffered a 19-point drop in her favorability numbers. [...] The more people see of Kennedy, the less impressed they become. It's a startling collapse, but ultimately, the Kennedy attraction was based on her pedigree and little else. As people got a look beyond the powerful last name, there was little else to commend her."
• FiveThirtyEight's Nate Silver: "[W]hile I was skeptical about some of the original netroots skepticism about Kennedy, she simply hasn't worn well."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Journalists, Bloggers, & Status Anxiety

Yglesias reacts to a segment on yesterday's Morning Joe in which the hosts claimed that "blogging is not journalism" and that "99% of blogging is basically therapy for the blogger":

"Here's the thing. I've never actually heard a crack investigative reporter tell me that the essence of good journalism consists of your work appearing in a non-blog venue. Similarly, I've never heard that from an intrepid war reporter. I think those people understand that if you uncover a major secret and write about it in a blog, or in a magazine, or on a newspaper that it's all the same. Similarly, if you risk your life to get a first-hand account of events in a confusing war zone nobody will care if it's a blog from the battlefield or a TV report. That's because those people are doing journalism at its best and they know that their work stands or falls with the information contained therein.

But what Mike Barnicle and Mika Brzezinski and Pat Buchanan do isn't like that. I say this as someone who likes their show and watches it almost every day, just like I hope people like my blog and read it every day. The three of them, and Joe Scarborough, are all in the same boat with me -- we're providing what we hope is an informative, entertaining product that's fundamentally derivative of work being done by other people. But a passel of TV chatters and newspaper columnists and guys are accustomed to basking in the glow offered by people doing real reporting. There's a lot of status anxiety. And this gets to be its worst, in my view, among the kind of people who do the sort of pseudo-reporting associated with following the President of the United States around. Convention dictates that if I sit at a desk and read a transcript of what the press secretary said and then write about the transcript, I'm a lowly cheeto-eater. But if I sit in the White House press room and transcribe what the press secretary said, and then write about the transcript then that's journalism. Similarly, if I travel around with the president and then read the pool reports that my colleagues write and then write about that: Journalism. But if I read the newspaper account of where the president went and then write about that: Cheetos. It's a little silly."

LEST WE FORGET: Vice Presidential Handlers Lure Cheney Into Traveling Crate

From The Onion:

"WASHINGTON -- A team of nine specially trained handlers have successfully lured outgoing vice president Dick Cheney into a reinforced steel traveling crate in order to transport him back to his permanent enclosure in Casper, WY, official sources reported Monday. 'He's a smart one. Once he sees the crate, he gets pretty nippy, but we've learned a few tricks over the years,' chief VP wrangler Ted Irving breathlessly said while applying pressure to a deep gash on his forearm. 'If we break a rabbit's legs and throw it in there, he will eventually go in to finish it off. Doesn't work with dead rabbits, though. Cheney only eats what he kills.' Irving said that the latest vice presidential relocation went much more smoothly than September's diplomatic trip to Georgia, which was delayed for several hours after Cheney mauled three secret service agents and escaped inside the White House walls."

Posted by Ian Faerstein at 01:00 PM

January 14, 2009

1/14: Is Tim In Trouble?

Conservative bloggers are buzzing about the news that NY Fed Chair Timothy Geithner, whom Barack Obama nominated as Treasury Sec., failed to pay $34,000 in taxes from 2001 to 2004. While previously there was little opposition to Geithner's confirmation in the conservative blogosphere (particularly when compared to Eric Holder), righty bloggers have begun discussing the possibility of blocking Geithner. Michelle Malkin, for example, is criticizing Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT) for telling reporters that he still supports Geithner in spite of the latter's checkered tax history.

Meanwhile, righty bloggers are giving Obama credit for dining with some prominent conservative pundits last night. While they still expect Obama to advocate policies they disagree with, the rightroots appreciate his effort to reach out to his ideological opponents. Lefty bloggers, for their part, don't mind that Obama spent an evening with hardcore GOPers like William Kristol. Marcy Wheeler writes: "If, for the sake of one night of indigestion, he can neutralize propagandists that the Noise Machine has invested a lot of money in, all the better."

GEITHNER: Apparently The U.S. Tax Code Was Too Complicated For Him

Conservative bloggers are criticizing Geithner after it was revealed that he failed to pay $34,000 in taxes from 2001 to 2004:

• Malkin: "Obama's Treasury Secretary: Tax rules for thee, but not for me."
• Ace of Spades: "On one hand we're assured he's brilliant and possesses a steel-trap mind for finance. On the other hand, he 'forgot' that he had to pay taxes in America. I am having some difficulty comprehending how both of these statements can be true simultaneously."
• NRO's Jim Geraghty: "If I happen to forget to pay some of my taxes, will the IRS say, 'hey, no big deal, no penalties'? Because they said that to Treasury Secretary nominee Tim Geithner."

Glenn Reynolds: "I don't think this is that big a deal, but I can't help but feel that if he were a Republican nominee it would be treated as a bigger one....But, as I've noted before, isn't this -- together with [NY Rep.] Charlie Rangel's problems -- an argument for tax simplification? I mean, if the Chairman of Ways and Means, and the Treasury Secretary nominee -- who's head of a Federal Reserve Bank -- can't keep their taxes straight, how can the government expect the rest of us to?"

Hot Air's Allahpundit: "Frankly, I like the idea of a tax cheat as Treasury Secretary in this environment; it makes the thought of him spending trillions of taxpayer dollars on new stimulus bills and bailouts that much sweeter."

GEITHNER II: You Call This Vetting?

Several conservative bloggers are portraying the revelation about Geithner as further evidence that the Obama transition team did a poor job of vetting Obama's nominees:

• Commentary's Jennifer Rubin: "What the heck is wrong with the Obama vetting process? One strike on Bill Richardson. Two strikes on this -- the transition team found the housekeeper problem and the 'error' for additional years of nonpayment and arranged for the tax repayment back on December 5. But they seemed not to have appreciated the impact tax nonpayment would have on the confirmation prospects of a Treasury Secretary. [...W]hether or not Geithner survives, the air of competence surrounding the new administration is a precious thing and shouldn't be frittered away like this. Certainly this was one more unforced error the new team did not need. One wonders if this is indicative of a regrettable pattern or simply the final bobble as the Obama administration gets its sea legs. But, wait. The Eric Holder hearing -- which may be the bloodiest of them all -- is still ahead. So much for the honeymoon."
• AmSpec Blog's Philip Klein: "In the wake of the news that Treasury Secretary nominee Tim Geithner failed to pay $34,000 in federal taxes for a housekeeper, President-elect Obama's allies in the media are starting to see a pattern of blunders, given that it is coming off [NM Gov.] Bill Richardson's decision to withdraw his nomination as Commerce Secretary."

Liberal blogger Steve Benen is downplaying the incident: "This seems...like small potatoes, especially given the seriousness of Geithner's responsibilities at the Treasury Department in the middle of an economic crisis. [...] We're talking about infractions that a) are minor; b) Geithner addressed and corrected; and c) he made no effort to conceal. It'll take considerable effort for Republicans and Fox News to gain traction with this."

OBAMA: Breaking Bread With The Enemy

Liberal bloggers don't mind the fact that Obama dined last night with a group of conservative pundits that included Kristol, Charles Krauthammer, George Will, and David Brooks:

• Daily Kos' Markos Moulitsas: "Why wouldn't he talk to conservative writers? It's not as if he shied away from the other side during the campaign, even going on Bill O'Reilly to get yelled at by that old gasbag. Let him try to work his charm with that crowd. There's little downside."
• Firedoglake's emptywheel: "If, for the sake of one night of indigestion, he can neutralize propagandists that the Noise Machine has invested a lot of money in, all the better. I wouldn't want to do it. But if Obama's got the intestinal fortitude to dine with these three, more power to him."
• AMERICAblog's John Aravosis: "I don't necessarily have a problem with this. I suspect Brooks is the only one even possibly movable, and [Rush] Limbaugh and Kristol are simply treacherous. Still, it's an interesting move."
• The Huffington Post's Sam Stein: "Obama has pledged to be a uniter once in office. He's also said he is willing to take policy suggestions from any source, regardless of ideological affiliation, as long as they work. So far, he's living up to his word."

Benen: "Obama really has nothing to lose by trying to engage these four. Each seems rather susceptible to flattery, and they were no doubt thrilled not only with the access, but with the chance to tell the president-elect how right they are. I'm sure Obama listened politely, hoping that the outreach might pay dividends over time, in the form of a more civil discourse, and possibly even the benefit of the doubt. [...] And if it doesn't, Obama wasted a pre-inaugural night, maybe picking up some new credibility from the David Broders of the world for making an effort to engage prominent critics on the other side."

OBAMA II: Credit Where Credit's Due

Several conservative bloggers are giving Obama credit for reaching out to his ideological opponents -- especially Kristol, who is a favorite of the rightroots:

• Power Line's Paul Mirengoff: "Obama deserves credit for this 'outreach,' which is consistent with reports about how he handled himself as head of the Harvard Law Review and, to some extent, as a powerhouse in the Illinois legislature. Brooks arguably is no longer a conservative, and may well have voted for Obama, while Will has bashed President Bush and John McCain for years. But the diversity of the three (counting Kristol) should count further in Obama's favor. He has sought out three of the very best, most distinctive minds in non-liberal journalism. [...] UPDATE: It gets better. Charles Krauthammer apparently was at the dinner too."
• Hot Air's Ed Morrissey: "I like David Brooks, and he's about as conservative as anyone with a regular column in the New York Times could be, but I'd classify him as center-right at best. George Will and Bill Kristol are certainly conservative, but Will doesn't dig into the partisan warfare, preferring to remain on policy more than politics. Kristol, though, is a man for the trenches, a stalwart on both policy and politics. Kristol's presence impresses me the most. Had Obama just wanted a conservative 'beard', he could have stuck with Brooks and invited Doug Kmiec. The entire meeting is somewhat of a surprise, but Kristol's presence indicates that Obama wanted it to be taken seriously."

Morrissey continues: "Will it change Obama's direction? Of course not. Obama will do what Obama wants to do. I'd guess that he's hoping at best to take some of the nastiness out of the punditry to come over the next few months. It's not as easy to rip your friends as it is your opponents, and Obama wants a base of goodwill for his first 100 days to give him some breathing space. It makes some sense, but knowing Kristol as I do (slightly personally, but I've read him for years), I don't think it will work if Obama runs to the left on economics and foreign policy -- nor should it."

Right Wing News' John Hawkins is less charitable: "What does it mean? Well, note that Obama certainly isn't proposing any conservative policies. Instead, he's making a P.R. move by making meaningless nods to the right so that when he supports policies that [Vladimir] Lenin would blanch at, he can come back and say, 'Sure, I ran a trillion dollar deficit, got rid of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," and stopped the building of the border fence -- but I ate dinner with George Will! See? It all balances out! I'm a moderate!' Obama is a corrupt, hopelessly dishonest, far left-wing weasel right down to his core and chowing down with a few columnists isn't going to change his nature."

GUANTANAMO: A Bit Of A Predicament

Liberal bloggers continue to urge Obama not to create an alternate legal system to deal with the Guantanamo prisoners:

• digby: "We have a civilian legal system and a military legal system under our constitution, both of which have been developed over centuries and tested from a myriad different directions. And as sophisticated as they are, they are still imperfect and often produce unjust results. It's impossible to develop yet another legal system from scratch that will even function much less have any credibility. We've seen that with the military commissions that are nothing more than staged Kangaroo courts where even the judges don't have a fundamental understanding of how the thing works. It's just not possible."
• Salon's Glenn Greenwald: "When Obama does things that warrant praise -- when he appoints someone like Dawn Johnsen as OLC Chief, or defies Beltway demands by going outside of the intelligence community to find his CIA Director -- he should be praised. When he does things that warrant criticism -- such as going on national television to talk about the need for a special process to allow the use of 'tainted' evidence against Guantanamo detainees, or when he openly contemplates naming someone as CIA Director who supports rendition and torture, or when he votes in favor of warrantless eavesdropping and telecom amnesty -- he should be vigorously criticized."

BooMan is furious at the Bush admin. for creating this situation in the first place: "We are going to have to release almost everyone at Guantanamo because we can't successfully prosecute them. But many of them could have and should have been prosecuted. A few of them are seriously dangerous criminals, and some of them were directly involved in the 9/11 plot. Some people on the right will kick and scream about releasing even the innocent, let alone the guilty. But what are we supposed to do? The people to be angry with are the Republicans that created this situation. Imagine if I told you on 9/11 that the people that did it would be released because the government screwed up their cases!"

Like most righty bloggers, Malkin is opposed to releasing prisoners from Guantanamo: "61. That's the number of jihadi recidivists who returned to their terror-waging ways after being released from Gitmo. Go ahead and leave your bets on what the number will be a year after Barack Obama takes office."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Democracy And Responsibility

The American Conservative's Daniel Larison:

"One of the claims that I have seen made quite often over the last two weeks is that Palestinians in Gaza voted for Hamas and so ought to be 'held responsible' for that decision. In other words, the idea is that they brought whatever they are suffering upon themselves. [...] The vital distinction between people and government will usually be blurred or erased for one of two reasons: the state needs to use the people as a shield against criticism, or a foreign state needs to reduce the population to an extension of the state in order to make war on it more completely. Realizing this should make us even more wary of rhetoric that invests democracy and elections with some moral significance. It should also warn us that the natural complement to valorizing popular sovereignty and democratic government is the demonization of entire peoples by identifying them with their political leadership in an indistinguishable mass."

LEST WE FORGET: Bush Spends Day Feverishly Booby-Trapping Desk

From The Onion:

"WASHINGTON -- In preparation for the traditional task of welcoming his successor to the Oval Office, outgoing president George W. Bush canceled all his appointments and press conferences Monday so he could spend the day outfitting his desk with a series of traps, gags, and hair-trigger switches. 'Oh, man, is he gonna get it,' the president said after rearranging the letters on his computer keyboard and supergluing the direct-line-to-the-Pentagon telephone to its base. 'If the 44th president is anything like me, he'll grab this can of peanuts to snack on when he's talking to the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and when he does -- bam! Right in his face!'

As one of his last official acts in office, Bush reportedly rigged the presidential drawers, chair, and ceiling fan with a number of inconveniencing though harmless devices, including Vaseline-covered pens, fishing-line trip wires, a saltshaker with the top unscrewed, a fake set of nuclear launch codes, an inflated whoopee cushion, and a drawerful of pickles. After backing slowly away from his desk, the president informed his top aides that, if he can get back from the inauguration quickly enough, he also plans to place a bag of canine excrement near the Rose Garden door and set it aflame."

Posted by Ian Faerstein at 12:30 PM

January 13, 2009

1/13: Oh, Guantanamo

Liberal bloggers were pleased to learn that Barack Obama is preparing to issue an immediate executive order to close the detention center at Guantanamo Bay. However, they're concerned that Obama is reportedly considering trying some of the Guantanamo detainees in a "to-be-developed legal system" that would exist outside of our federal court system. Most (but not all) lefty bloggers believe that if some of the Guantanamo detainees cannot be tried in our federal court system (e.g., because some of the evidence against them was obtained through torture), then they should be released. David Dayden writes: "Evidence obtained by torture is inadmissable in every civilized court in the world, and it would simply be unconstitutional to create a system that allowed it, not to mention distasteful."

Needless to say, conservative bloggers strongly oppose Obama's decision to shut down Guantanamo, and they're accusing the Pres.-elect of wanting to "step back from many of the policies that have kept us safe."

GUANTANAMO: Right On, Obama

Liberal bloggers are pleased that Obama is preparing to issue an immediate executive order to close the detention center at Guantanamo Bay:

• Daily Kos' mcjoan: "This is encouraging."
• Firedoglake's looseheadprop: "[Obama]'s going to issue an order to close the detention center at Gitmo during his first week in office, maybe even his first day in office. How cool is that? Really, Mr. President Elect? Good way to start."
• Mother Jones' Kevin Drum: "[I]t doesn't surprise me that Obama plans to issue the order immediately, and it also doesn't surprise me that he thinks it will take upwards of a year to actually complete the shutdown. It will. So far, Obama has been as good as his word on a wide variety of subjects, which means he deserves the benefit of the doubt here. Figuring out what to do with detainees at Guantanamo really is a tough problem, and suggesting that it will take several months to resolve is just a recognition of reality."

GUANTANAMO II: But What About The Prisoners?

Liberal bloggers strongly oppose the idea of trying some of the Guantanamo detainees in a "to-be-developed legal system" that would combine certain aspects of our current military tribunal system with certain aspects of our federal court system. Lefty bloggers believe that if these detainees cannot be tried in our federal court system (e.g., because some of the evidence against them was obtained through torture), then they should be released:

• dday: "There is simply no need to invent anything new. To the extent that 'evidence' against detainees has been tainted because it was extracted through torture, that probably should have been considered before the torturing. Evidence obtained by torture is inadmissable in every civilized court in the world, and it would simply be unconstitutional to create a system that allowed it, not to mention distasteful."
• Obsidian Wings' hilzoy: "I think that designing a new 'hybrid' legal system would be a big, big mistake. [...] Whatever form a novel legal system takes, if it is designed to deal with Guantanamo detainees, it will almost certainly be designed to make it easier to convict people. Before constructing such a system, we need to ask ourselves whether we want prosecutors to have, in a range of cases that is certainly broader than what we normally think of as terrorism, the option of using an alternate system designed to make it easier to convict, and to do so when the government has not been playing by what used to be the rules. I think it's a terrible idea. We have an accepted way of dealing with people whom we do not have enough untainted evidence to convict: we release them. Some of the people we release are guilty, and some are very dangerous: mafia bosses, murderers, rapists, people who beat up their spouses or molest their children. We have always thought that maintaining our commitment to the rule of law meant that despite these dangers, we should not lock people up if we don't have evidence against them that's admissible in court. That's what decent societies do. It would be a tragedy if we abandoned that commitment."
• mcjoan: "We have a robust legal system in this country that is more than capable of making these determinations and of trying any of the detainees whose cases merit it."
• TalkLeft's Jeralyn Merritt: "As I wrote earlier, this isn't rocket science. It's as easy as 1-2-3: (1.) Send home those who can go home (2.) Secure safe haven for those who cannot, and (3.) Charge those who can be charged and try them in ordinary federal criminal court."

Other liberal bloggers are more ambivalent:

• BooMan: "[A] small number [of Guantanamo prisoners] are probably unsafe to release and impossible to convict due to their treatment by American officials. This last group is the one that the Obama Team is refusing to detain indefinitely (under a new law) or to prosecute through the Military Commissions Act. But it's not clear just what they will do with them. I don't support releasing them, but I am also glad they will not be put through the flawed Military Commissions process and that they will not be detained without process. I hope the Obama Team can come up with a solution we can be proud of, or at least live with. There are no good options that I can think of."
• The Washington Monthly's Steve Benen: "It's an untenable dynamic -- Obama doesn't want to release potentially dangerous detainees who are national security threats, and he doesn't want to charge them based on inadmissible evidence that was abused of the suspects. It's quite a legacy [George W.] Bush is leaving behind for Obama to clean up."

OH SEN: Portmania!

Conservative bloggers are not big fans of retiring OH Sen. George Voinovich, and they're excited that ex-Rep./ex-WH OMB dir. Rob Portman is "leaning" toward running:

• Townhall's Hugh Hewitt: "This is an easy call for GOP supporters across the country. Rob Portman is smart, experienced, a skilled communicator and an exceptional candidate. It wil be a tough race, but one that can be won if the Ohio GOP avoids a knock-down primary. When Portman announces, I hope his team has a web site up and running, the early response to which will say a great deal about the energy level of Republicans across the country."
• AmSpec Blog's Quin Hillyer: "Sen. Voinovich's retirement announcement opens up the chance for a great conservative trifecta in the Buckeye State that could do wonders to revive the conservative movement nationwide. A host of big-name conservatives have endorsed Ohio former Secretary of State Ken Blackwell for chairman of the Republican National Committee. Imagine if he wins, and then Ohio follows up in 2010 by electing solidly conservative Rob Portman (former Congressman and Bush official) as Voinovich's replacement in the Senate while electing solidly conservative former House Budget Chairman John Kasich as governor? [...] Conservatives ought to be thrilled at the prospect."

Townhall's Matt Lewis, on the other hand, is not yet ready to "anoint" Portman: "Before we anoint Rob Portman, I make the case for Ohio Auditor Mary Taylor -- the only Republican to win statewide in Ohio in the very tough year of 2006...No doubt, Portman is still the man to beat. But I still wonder about the wisdom of nominating a former Bush Administration official ... and a trade official, no less -- to replace retiring Sen. Voinovich. It is unclear whether or not she would be interested in running, but Ohio conservatives should, at least, give Taylor a second look before rallying around Portman..."

OH SEN II: You Really Want To Nominate Bush's Trade Guy In Ohio?

Liberal bloggers, meanwhile, think OH GOPers would be foolish to nominate an ex-Bush official:

• Daily Kos' Markos Moulitsas: "Sure, the Bush era is thankfully almost over, but his cronies are still sticking around. [...] Bush dead-enders in Ohio will be ecstatic -- who better to carry forth Bush-style governance than his chief trade and budget guy? Democrats won't be able to run on change so much in 2010, but in Ohio, thanks to Portman, the message will still be appropriate."
• MyDD's Jonathan Singer: "What's the only thing better for the Republicans than running a Bush-appointee in the stead of a retiring GOP Senator who would have more likely than not won reelection in his swing state had he sought another term? Running a two-time Bush-appointee. [...] Making the 2010 Ohio Senate election about George W. Bush won't be enough to put the Democrats over the top -- but it's not a bad start."
• Benen: "I sometimes get the sense that the Republican establishment may not fully appreciate how unpopular George W. Bush is, and why being closely associated with him is not a recipe for career advancement. Portman spent a year as Bush's U.S. Trade Representative, helping shape the administration's trade policy. How popular do you suppose Bush's trade policies are in Ohio? Portman then spent another year as Bush's Budget Director, and I'm hard pressed to think of anyone, anywhere, who's prepared to defend this president's budgets."
• FiveThirtyEight's Nate Silver: "Even if the political climate has turned slightly more toward the Republicans in 2010, being a member of the Bush cabinet is not likely to be one of those things that sells all that well to voters -- nor is 'wonk' likely to play as well in a state like Ohio as 'populist'. [...] Ultimately, this election will be a litmus test for how much voters blame Bush versus Obama if the economy is still tepid in 2010."

HOLDER: Hatch Angers The Rightroots

Conservative bloggers are criticizing UT Sen. Orrin Hatch for coming out in favor of ex-Dep. AG Eric Holder's nomination for AG:

• Michelle Malkin: "Hatch explains GOP leadership at work: 'I like Barack Obama and I want to help him if I can.' [...] Never mind what the victims of Eric Holder's lack of judgement have to say, eh, Sen. Hatch?"
• RedState's Mark Kilmer: "Senator Hatch, your duty to your State of Utah and to the country is not to accept Holder on the basis of your fondness for Obama and desire to help him succeed. You ought instead to examine Holder's fitness for office as you learn from the information presented at his Judiciary Committee hearing. Nice guy that he may be, Obama is fundamentally wrong on many things; on these things, we should push back."

HOLDER II: Where's The Artillery?

RedState's Erick Erickson is blasting the NRA for "succumb[ing] to pressure from Democrats to not actively oppose Eric Holder": "Holder has strident, well known anti-second amendment positions. Nonetheless, because the NRA likes to play nice with Democrats, they are going to roll over for Barack Obama on the Holder nomination instead of fighting for, well, the second amendment -- their reason for being. [...] Pitiful sellouts."

Other conservative bloggers are defending the NRA's decision not to go all out in fighting Holder's confirmation:

• Hot Air's Ed Morrissey: "[I] suspect the NRA is thinking in more general terms. Orrin Hatch announced yesterday that he would support Holder's nomination, and with Democrats holding 59 more seats, Holder's anti-gun positions won't stop his nomination. The NRA has to hope that Holder's involvement in the FALN and [Marc] Rich pardons and his connections to [IL Gov. Rod] Blagojevich will derail his nomination, and a high-profile attack from the NRA could distract attention away from those points."
• NRO's Jim Geraghty: "I think before dismissing one of the most effective groups in the conservative coalition as a bunch of 'pitiful sellouts,' we ought to look at the choice through their eyes. There's a case to do it -- when you've got a bad nominee on the ropes, hold nothing back -- and a case not to do it -- with Orrin Hatch indicating approval, Holder is still probably going to be confirmed, and so you're going all-in for a fight you know you'll probably lose. Perhaps it's better to use your ammunition (again, no pun intended) in a fight when the odds are more in your favor — i.e, when Obama, Holder, [House Speaker Nancy] Pelosi and [Senate Maj. Leader Harry] Reid try to move actual anti-gun legislation. It's not like the NRA is giving Holder the thumbs-up, and it's not like if the Holder nomination were to go down, Obama's replacement nominee is likely to be any better on gun rights. The risk of defeat is high, and the rewards for victory are pretty small. And when you pick your hill to die on, you have to recognize that the consequence of failure is that you die."

Later, Erickson responded to Geraghty's criticism of of his initial post: "I wouldn't characterize it as a 'hill to die on'. In fact, much of the angst from Judiciary Committee members is that Holder is defeatable, but the NRA won't aggressively oppose him. [...] When [ex-AG John] Ashcroft limped into the Department of Justice, wounded, due to blistering hearings and a bad roll call vote, the Democrat attack machine clearly served its purpose. A wounded Holder who has to disprove the attacks against his antigun views will be less able to harm the 2nd amendment. A Holder confirmed overwhelmingly because we should expect an antigun nominee will be aggressive in promoting the Brady Agenda."

BLACKWELL: So Much For A More Inclusive GOP

Liberal bloggers are criticizing RNC Chair candidate (and ex-OH Sec/State) Ken Blackwell for describing homosexuality as "a compulsion" that can be "restrained":

• Atrios: "Your Modern GOP: Pretty much the same as last week's version."
• AMERICAblog's John Aravosis: "Blackwell [says] 'homosexuality is a compulsion that can be contained, repressed or changed.' So is bigotry."
• TPM's Josh Marshall: "RNC Chair candidate Ken Blackwell says that if he had homosexual urges he could and would restrain them. If he did, that is. And he doesn't."

The Atlantic's Andrew Sullivan: "The likely incoming RNC head sets the mood. His views are orthodox Christianism. Which means that unashamed gay people have no place in the Republican party. They are increasingly defined by their loathing of gay people. It's one of very few non-negotiable principles they have left. Meanwhile, unsurprisingly, Log Cabin is in the red by $100,000. A couple of decades ago, the possibility of reforming the GOP to be inclusive of gays was real. It is now dead. The bigots won."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: The Price Of Bipartisanship

Brendan Nyhan:

"Like many observers, I'm baffled by Barack Obama's efforts to obtain 80 votes for his economic stimulus proposal in the Senate. Despite concerns from economists such as Paul Krugman that more than $1 trillion in stimulus is needed, Obama has proposed a $775 billion package under the assumption that the cost of the legislation will increase in Congress. He has also reportedly included a large proportion of tax cuts that Krugman and other economists think will be ineffective stimulus measures in order to try to attract additional GOP support. [...]

As I have repeatedly pointed out, the economy and other political fundamentals drive presidential elections. If the US gets caught in a Japan-style deflationary trap, it is extremely difficult to imagine Obama being re-elected. No amount of post-inauguration bipartisan goodwill will change that fact. [...] This worldview is consistent with the approach to the economy taken by Bill Clinton, who passed a deficit reduction plan on a difficult party-line vote during his first year in office. It hurt his party in the 1994 midterm elections but the booming economy helped him defeat Bob Dole by a substantial margin in 1996. (Of course, whether Clinton's plan helped drive the expansion is a matter for debate, but the administration certainly seemed to believe that it did.) In this case, the downside risk of inaction is far greater than 1993 and the consensus that government action could have a stimulative effect on the economy is far stronger."

LEST WE FORGET: Tim Gunn Takes Wizards Shopping For Less Hideous Uniforms

From The Onion:

"WASHINGTON -- Fashion consultant and Project Runway host Tim Gunn surprised the Washington Wizards Monday by unexpectedly arriving at the Verizon Center locker room and offering to help Wizards players shop for less repulsive uniforms.

'I happened to see the Wizards on television, and I couldn't believe the players were out in public wearing such garish jerseys and shorts,' said Tim Gunn [...]. 'That antique-gold color is just appalling, and frankly, the unbalanced black and white bands above the names look frumpy.' [...]

While the majority of the Wizards were initially reluctant when asked to discard their old uniforms, 6-foot-9 power forward Antawn Jamison admitted that with Gunn's guidance he felt confident enough to wear bolder colors. Jamison also said he learned that the silhouette of his former uniform did not highlight his wide shoulders.

'Tim let us know that thinner shoulder straps would give us a sophisticated yet powerful look,' Jamison said. 'Sometimes the process of finding the perfect uniform was difficult, but I'm glad we didn't settle. Now I feel like I can throw an elbow at anyone when I'm down in the paint.'"

Posted by Ian Faerstein at 12:50 PM

January 12, 2009

1/12: Pressure From The Left

With one week remaining before Barack Obama enters the White House, liberal bloggers are stepping up their pressure on the Pres.-elect. First of all, they're urging Obama not to be overly cautious and/or bipartisan in designing his economic stimulus plan. Lefty bloggers are convinced that the current economic downturn calls for bold government action, and they're worried that Obama is making his stimulus package "too small and too tilted toward tax cuts" in a short-sighted attempt to win GOP support. Conservative bloggers, for their part, remain convinced that it's not in the GOP's interest to support Obama's stimulus plan, and liberal bloggers see no reason to try to bring them on board.

The netroots are also urging Obama to appoint a special prosecutor to investigate the Bush admin.'s controversial intelligence-gathering policies. While Obama appears unwilling to make such a promise, lefty bloggers believe that "failure to do anything will just be read as a concession that 'serious' people of both parties actually favor torture, arbitrary detention, and illegal surveillance but the 'serious' Democrats are too hypocritical to admit it."

STIMULUS: Think Bigger, Obama!

The majority of liberal bloggers share Paul Krugman's conviction that Obama's stimulus package, as currently proposed, isn't large enough to rejuvenate the economy:

• TPM's Josh Marshall: "There's a lot of empirical evidence and a lot of very knowledgeable people who believe the Obama Stimulus Plan (the general outlines of which are coming into focus) is simply not big enough -- not only in overall dollar size but also in the kinds of spending included in it. [...] The debate about spending priorities essentially comes down to how much bang for your buck you get in economic stimulus terms for tax cuts or rebates (even for middle or low income people most inclined to spend it) versus government spending, especially in the context of a dramatic economic downturn. And from what I can tell there's a lot of empirical evidence that the latter wins out by a substantial margin. And yet the desire to get a substantial number of Republicans to vote for the bill appears to be having a big impact on the proposal's size and shape. Quite likely, leaving it too small and too tilted toward tax cuts to get the job done."
• The American Prospect's Robert Kuttner: "The reality is that we need additional spending of at least a trillion dollars a year for at least two years. The only encouraging sign is that more and more mainstream economists and Democratic politicians are starting to say that the greater risk is that we will aim too low rather than too high. Even Martin Feldstein, who chaired Ronald Reagan's Council of Economic Advisers, is a born-again Keynesian. My educated guess is that the first stimulus package will be too small, and that as the economy-wide collapse deepens, we will be back for a second one by April or May. That would be a shame. It would be far better to have adequate stimulus now."
• AMERICAblog's John Aravosis: "[W]e may need to get a lot more creative than $19 handouts and $300bn Bush-era tax cuts. We need the economic equivalent of war, the economic equivalent of putting a man on the moon. Spending 40% of the stimulus plan on tax-pork to woo Republicans because someone arbitrarily decided that 80 votes was better than 50 or 60 is not change."
• dday: "[D]espite Obama's frequent calls for post-partisanship and his focus on 'what works,' the problem with his outlook, at this point, is really ideological. He prefers incrementalism and cautiousness over real solutions because he cannot comprehend using the instruments of depression economics at this time. I do think Obama has shown the capacity to listen and alter his thinking based on the facts. But until he bridges this ideological divide, when he can accept a real Keynesian solution, or nationalization of the banks, we are going to be struggling with insufficient, incremental responses."

Daily Kos' Jed L encourages his readers to make their voices heard: "If, like Krugman, you support a larger, bolder economic recovery package, then now is the time to make sure your voice gets heard. This isn't just a test of Obama and Congress -- it's also a test of how well we can continue the push for change from the outside, and the conditions are ripe. Obama has already signaled his willingness to go larger, and Congress has already begun to push him. We're in the middle of a national debate right now, but it's not about whether or not we need a stimulus. It's about whether or not this stimulus plan is large enough enough, and at this point, the only thing that really matters is that the best economic argument wins -- because while this is a political issue, there's far more at stake than politics."

STIMULUS II: Just Say No, GOPers

Conservative bloggers continue to urge congressional GOPers to oppose Obama's stimulus package:

• AmSpec Blog's Philip Klein: "[I]'m not sure what Republicans gain by strengthening Obama. When the midterm elections roll around, if the Obama stimulus package is viewed as a failure, it will only benefit Republicans if they opposed it and reestablished themselves as the party that fights wasteful spending and massive government intervention in the economy. If the legislation is perceived a success, then it will benefit Democrats even if many Republicans also supported the bill. So it seems pretty clear to me that from an ideological, branding, and political perspective, Republicans would be best off united in opposition to Obama's plan."
• RedState's Francis Cianfrocca: "This stimulus is going to have very disappointing effects. Republicans would be well advised not to block the plan, which is politically unstoppable, but in no way to support it. It should pass in Congress with no Republican votes."

OBAMA: Justice Must Be Served

Liberal bloggers were dismayed by Obama's unwillingness to promise to appoint a special prosecutor to investigate the Bush admin.'s controversial intelligence-gathering policies:

• Salon's Glenn Greenwald: "In the U.S., high political officials aren't investigated, let alone held accountable, for lawbreaking, and that is rather clearly something Obama has no intention of changing."
• Daily Kos' mcjoan: "[T]he lasting damage that's been done to our national psyche, our international standing, our Constitution, our democracy by the lawless Bush administration won't be ameliorated by just forgetting it all happened. As a seductive a thought as that is, it's just too big and too dangerous to try to shove under the rug."
• Obsidian Wings' hilzoy: "If we want to make torture by government officials legal, we should just go ahead and change the law. We should not pretend that it is illegal while excusing any torture performed for motives that any government officials who licenses torture will probably share."
• Open Left's Paul Rosenberg: "[E]xposing the crimes of the Bush administration is not just a moral imperative, but will shock the consciences of the populace and put Obama into the realm of great Presidents who did the hard thing because it was right. Avoiding this is simply cowardice and will be remembered as such. [Bill] Clinton's failure to investigate Iran/Contra is a serious blight on his record, and those crimes do not rise nearly to this level. [...] Obama needs to clear the air on the crimes of the Bush administration. I hope what he is doing is posturing so that he (or [Eric] Holder) can 'reluctantly' appoint a special prosecutor due to the cloud that hangs over these events and hopefully the pressure put on him by us and Congress."

Think Progress' Matthew Yglesias: "I don't think the solution is just to let everyone get away without accountability. There wasn't enough accountability after Watergate and that helped lead to the lack of accountability around Iran-Contra. Which, in turn, helped get us where we are today. You could set up a commission or an investigator with specific authorization to offer immunity to anyone below the highest tiers of government in exchange for cooperation. Failure to do anything will just be read as a concession that 'serious' people of both parties actually favor torture, arbitrary detention, and illegal surveillance but the 'serious' Democrats are too hypocritical to admit it."

Meanwhile, conservative blogger Erick Erickson thinks Bush should pardon all intelligence officials so that Obama can't investigate them: "By his unwillingness to use definitive language against prosecution of Bush administration officials, Barack Obama puts in jeopardy the future successes of this country against terrorism. We sleep safe in our beds because rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence on those who would do us harm. Those rough men might hesitate knowing their commander-in-chief just might not stand behind them if their actions become known. Their hesitation will lead to American deaths. President George Bush should immediately issue a blanket pardon to all members of his administration who have engaged in the war on terror, both formulating policies and implementing those policies. We must not allow the left, working on behalf of our enemies, to lead Barack Obama down this most dangerous road. The best way to stop that is for the current President to deny any ability to prosecute American heros who have kept us safe for eight years."

OBAMA II: But He Promised!

Liberal bloggers were also disappointed that Obama walked back his campaign promise to close the Guantanamo Bay detention center in the first 100 days of his presidency:

• Greenwald: "[Obama] recited the standard Jack Goldsmith/Brookings Institution condescending excuse that closing Guantanamo is 'more difficult than people realize.' Specifically, Obama argued, we cannot release detainees whom we're unable to convict in a court of law because the evidence against them is 'tainted' as a result of our having tortured them, and therefore need some new system -- most likely a so-called new 'national security court' -- that 'relaxes' due process safeguards so that we can continue to imprison people indefinitely even though we're unable to obtain an actual conviction in an actual court of law."
• digby: "[Obama] said that closing Guanatanamo was a difficult matter that would probably have to be dealt with by creating some new hybrid justice system. Of course, the Bush administration did that too with the military commissions, and they haven't exactly worked out too well. But hey, the people languishing in Gitmo for years can wait a few more for the next shiny new justice system to be proven useless too. No hurry there. [...] Obama is doing what all Democrats in my adult lifetime have always done --- he is working as hard as he can to prove that he isn't captive to his left."
• Balloon Juice's John Cole: "I don't doubt that things are more difficult than expected, because there is no telling what sort of hash the Bush administration has made of things. [...] But that doesn't excuse breaking a promise as critical and as fundamental as closing Gitmo. Gitmo has been a disaster for us, and it needs to be closed. In the grand scheme of things it won't matter to me if that is done in 75 days or 100 or 150 days, so long as it is handled rather quickly, but this does seem to suggest that Team Obama is looking for wiggle room or attempting to lower expectations. As such, I think it would be appropriate for folks to generate the appropriate outrage to force Obama to keep his word on this. We didn't set the 100 day mark for this -- he did."

Other bloggers were willing to cut Obama more slack:

• Aravosis: "Obama raises a good point -- we need to develop a real system of law in which we can try these people, we can't just shut down Gitmo and then say 'oops, what we do with the guys being housed there?' [...] The real measure will be what progress we've made towards establishing this new legal framework in, say, a year from now."
• BooMan: "[I]t doesn't surprise or bother me that the Obama administration is going to take a little time to work through the issues. I do not take it as a centrist move. I do not understand why Glenn [Greenwald] thinks it is somehow a thumb in the eye to liberals. [Obama] promised to close Guantanamo, and he will. It will just take a little time."

HOLDER: He's No Alberto Gonzales...

Conservative bloggers are blasting ex-Deputy AG Eric Holder, Obama's choice for AG. They're portraying Holder as a "yes man" and "rubber stamp" who will politicize the Justice Dep't in order to aid his fellow Dems:

• RedState's Pejman Yousefzadeh: "Between the Marc Rich pardon and that of FALN terrorists, the question isn't whether Eric Holder ought to be denied confirmation as the next Attorney-General. The question is why this nomination should be allowed to last even one more day and why the President-elect has not yet pulled the plug on it."
• RedState's Streiff: "Eric Holder should be rejected by the Senate because he has demonstrated repeatedly that he is the epitome of the 'yes man' and has no problem in using the full weight of the federal government to push whatever agenda he is told to push."
• RedState's Brian Darling: "How, in good conscience, can any member of the Senate allow this nomination to go through if the allegations prove true that Holder forced through pardons, against the wishes of so many at the Justice Department and why did he do it? Was this at the direction of President Bill Clinton? Is he a partisan who would do anything for the President? If so, why would we expect that he would be nothing more than a rubber stamp for President Obama?"
• Hot Air's Ed Morrissey: "Democrats screeched about politicization of Justice during [Alberto] Gonzales' tenure because of the termination of at-will political appointments, but Holder pressured careerists at Justice in 1999 to change their opinions on granting pardons to FALN terrorists. He twisted arms to get Bill Clinton some political cover for clemency, which Clinton thought he needed to get Latino support for Hillary [Clinton] in the 2000 Senate race in New York. That's real politicization, and it shows Holder as nothing more than a hatchet man. [...] Will [Obama] stick with Holder? Or will he wisely decide to find someone less connected to scandals and more interested in Justice than politics? I'd bet the wheels of the bus go thump, thump, thump by Wednesday."
• Commentary's Jennifer Rubin: "It seems remarkable that the Democrats are on the verge of turning a blind eye to Holder's serious shortcomings. But perhaps the confirmation hearing will be a clarifying event for everyone as we learn just how serious the Holder mistakes are and just how tolerant the Democrats are of business as usual in Washington."

OH SEN: So Long, George

Consevative bloggers aren't too upset about the news that OH Sen. George Voinovich plans to retire in 2010:

• Michelle Malkin: "I can't say I'll miss Crybaby George Voinovich. [...] When I think of George Voinovich, I think of his inane blubbering about the shamnesty debacle. Blubber, blubber. I think of his crusading for the massive auto bailout. And I think of his mortifying meltdown in opposition to John Bolton's UN ambassador nomination in 2005, which prompted embarrassed conservatives to start a 'Console George' campaign to send him tissues. [...] DLTDHYOTWO, Crybaby George. You represent some of the worst aspects of the Republican Party. Won't be missed."
• Townhall's Hugh Hewitt: "The expected retirement of Ohio Senator George Voinovch combines with the retirements of Missouri's Kit Bond, Florida's Mel Martinez and Kansas' Sam Brownback to offer National Republican Senatorial Committee Chairman John Cornyn an opportunity to recharge the NRSC's volunteer/donor base. The chance to recruit young conservatives for four key seats with rhetorical skills and a deep commitment to Reagan conservatism is a chance to energize the base quickly."

NRO's Kathryn Jean Lopez already has a replacement in mind: "An alternative to the RNC chairmanship for [ex-OH SoS] Ken Blackwell? Senator Blackwell?"

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: The Importance Of Incentives

Ezra Klein analyzes the news that gay bishop Gene Robinson will deliver a prayer for Obama in an inauguration event on Sunday:

"This is, incidentally, why it's useful for progressives to criticize the president. Politicians respond to incentives. To noise. To anger. [Rick] Warren, on some level, was a response to the loud protestations of evangelicals who believed the Democratic Party had no place for them. It's hard to see Robinson is anything but a response to progressive activists who sense that Obama was more willing to risk cross those who supported him than those who opposed him. Erase the anger from either side and it's not worth Obama -- or any president -- taking the risk to placate them. But this is a step in the right direction. This is genuinely inclusive. If it was the plan all along, the Obama administration sure did a good job keeping the secret. And if it wasn't, then equality activists have something to be proud of this morning. They changed the incentives."

LEST WE FORGET: When It Comes To Stimulus, Size Matters

Andy Borowitz (h/t Dana Goldstein):

"At a press conference in Washington today, President-elect Barack Obama repeatedly refused to answer questions about the size of his package, calling the subject 'a personal matter.'

Again and again, reporters attempted to get Mr. Obama to tell them exactly how big his package was, but the president-elect was steadfast in his refusal to quantify it.

'If I tell you the size of my package, some of you will think that it sounds too small,' he said. 'And others will be uncomfortable with how big it is.'

The president-elect seemed to indicate, however, that the size of his package may vary according to the circumstances.

'Depending on what is going on, my package could grow significantly larger,' he said. 'It all comes down to the amount of stimulus.'"

Posted by Ian Faerstein at 01:00 PM

January 09, 2009

1/9: Selling The Stimulus

Liberal bloggers gave positive reviews to Barack Obama's economic speech. They were particularly impressed by his rhetoric about the need for swift government action to address the economic crisis, which they're describing as "an inescapably liberal message". Conservative bloggers, on the other hand, were not convinced by Obama's argument. They're calling his proposed stimulus bill "the Obama Generational Theft Act of 2009" and are urging congressional GOPers to oppose it.

OBAMA: Making Government Cool Again?

Liberal bloggers gave positive reviews to Obama's economic speech:

• Daily Kos' SusanG: "[Obama's] speech sounds an unabashedly liberal note in its insistence on the role of government in coordinating programs to lift the country out of the economic crisis, and in the call to recognize the 'promise and paradox' of this historical moment. Echoes of FDR can be heard in some of its passages. [...] After a couple of decades of hearing government bashed at every turn as evil incarnate, it's more than refreshing to hear an unapologetic argument made that a vigorous and active role for government is not only a legitimate option, but absolutely necessary for recovery."
• dday: "I watched Obama's speech on the economy this morning, and I thought he laid out the scope of the problem and the consequences of inaction pretty well. He also cited the source of the crisis -- 'profound irresponsibility' and the final judgment on failed laissez-faire policies. And he's signaled that he's perfectly willing to let the package's total grow as it makes its way through Congress."
• The Washington Monthly's Steve Benen: "[Ronald] Reagan told us that government 'is the problem.' [Bill] Clinton told us the 'era of big government is over.' And Obama wants America to know that government is the 'only' institution that's capable of addressing an economic crisis of this severity. For all of the talk in recent weeks about the president-elect's ideology and partisan fealty, this speech was a reminder of the importance of government activism in a time of overwhelming challenges. And that, at its core, is an inescapably liberal message."

The New Republic's John Judis worries that Obama's proposals don't go far enough: "Does Barack Obama understand the seriousness of the economic crisis? Yesterday, he laid out his economic agenda, and it was filled with all sorts of important exhortations and proscriptions. He appropriately condemned the 'anything goes' policies of the last administration. He declared that government is now the solution to our woes, not the problem. Still, I worry that the president elect is underestimating the problem he and the country faces. [...] Over the past six decades, policymakers have used some tactics from the Great Depression to quell recessions -- such as spending on roads and bridges to create jobs, transferring payments to raise consumer demand, and infusing money into the credit system. But these stopgap measures, which are at the heart of Obama's recovery program, may prove inadequate."

OBAMA II: The Rightroots Revolt

Conservative bloggers are urging GOPers in Congress to oppose Obama's economic stimulus bill:

• RedState's Directors: "There seems to be a lot of happy talk surrounding Barack Obama's recent trip to Capitol Hill, and his attempt to sell his stimulus bill to Republicans by adding a few 'tax cuts.' But bipartisan bonhomie notwithstanding, there's no more reason to embrace Barack Obama's stimulus plan today than there was a week ago. It is still a tremendous waste of taxpayer dollars, will do nothing to help the economy, and will blow an even bigger hole in a deficit that has risen from $162 billion to $1.2 trillion annually since Democrats took control of Congress. What Obama is selling and what he's offering are two different things. While the economy needs a genuine stimulus, Obama is offering to 'spread the wealth.' [...] If the Democrats will not make the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts permanent, the GOP should not even hint at supporting the Democrats' plan."
• Hot Air's Allahpundit: "[I]t's his own pessimism that explains why [Obama]'s been so conciliatory towards the Blue Dogs and the GOP: It's not about 'changing the tone,' it's about knowing that the ship's going down and wanting Republicans on deck with him so that they don't capitalize in the midterms. For reasons that escape me, the GOP's evidently going to play along even though they're powerless to stop the stimulus anyway. Maybe [Senate Min. Leader Mitch] McConnell realized that opposing it is now semi-officially unpatriotic."
• Michelle Malkin: "I need to wear a safety helmet to cover the Republican incompetents trying to muster up a response to the Obama Generational Theft Act of 2009. Mitch McConnell, if you are not going to be able to stop this disaster, please just shut up."

Meanwhile, RedState's Erick Erickson unloads on McConnell in a post entitled, "Mitch McConnell Lost His Testicles and Now Infects the Senate GOP With a Cancer": "The idea that Mitch McConnell is protecting us from the Democrats is bullcrap. We should collectively rip off his jaw and shovel the crap back down his throat that he's been serving us. [...] Mitch McConnell is privately screwing us just like Obama is doing to the left, but because he makes [Senate Maj. Leader] Harry Reid cry on queue, people love him. It's almost like Reid and [IL Sen. Dick] Durbin know it and are happy to cry on cue if it means conservatives stay rallied to McConnell."

OBAMA III: Facing Pressure From The Left

Although liberal bloggers want Congress to pass an economic stimulus bill as quickly as possible, they don't mind that Dem Sens Tom Harkin (D-IA), Kent Conrad (D-ND), and John Kerry (D-MA) are voicing concerns about Obama's proposal:

• Balloon Juice's John Cole: "I think this is a good thing. This is healthy. They are debating actual ideas, and there are disagreements, and hopefully they will work them out and come to a healthy endpoint. [...] At any rate, I don't think of this as the Democratic circular firing squad. When I think of that, I think of the kind of idiocy we have experienced the last few weeks, when DiFi gets butthurt about [Leon] Panetta because her ring was not kissed enough and says things that she will have to walk back from in the future."
• Benen: "It's important for policy makers to act as quickly and effectively as possible, but there's nothing wrong with a collaborative process in which an administration and leading lawmakers engage in some back-and-forth. If senators hoped to alter the Obama rescue plan out of pettiness or spite, with some ideological axe to grind, or out of a desire to protect their personal, parochial concerns, this might start to look like a circular firing squad. But as far as I can tell, yesterday's concerns were not only sincere, they were also legitimate. It's called 'governing.'"
• digby: "[T]his actually may be good news. It seems very unlikely to me that Kerry is acting out of school, but is rather playing the role of the liberal stimulus spending obsessive who will (hopefully) balance out the tax cut fetishists in the senate negotiations, giving Obama some space to compromise at least somewhere to the left of The Club For Growth. [...] It's all just a guess, of course, but I simply don't believe that Kerry and Conrad are out there running at Obama from the left on their own. They just don't have it in them. They are staking out this position for negotiating purposes on his behalf. Obviously, we don't know how far any of them will go to fight for it, but at least the liberal economic argument looks like it will be made."

Open Left's Chris Bowers is upset about reports that the Obama team is ignoring the concerns being expressed by Harkin, Conrad, and Kerry: "Tom Harkin doesn't feel as though widespread Democrats concerns over business tax cuts in the stimulus package are even being addressed in meetings with the Obama economic team. This worrying suggests that progressives aren't even invited to the conservation over the stimulus [...] And here is the kicker: it is highly likely that while progressives are being snubbed, the business tax cuts were added to the stimulus in order to attract unnecessary, and entirely symbolic, support from a significant number Republicans. Symbolic bipartisanship for the sake of symbolic bipartisanship is valued more than even listening to progressives. [...] If Harkin, Conrad and Kerry are the people expressing progressive concerns over the business cuts in the stimulus package, then it is probably time that we get their backs."

Like digby, conservative blogger Pejman Yousefzadeh suspects that this is just a negotiating ploy: "I don't mean to get unnecessarily conspiratorial, but I find it more than a little interesting that Barack Obama's stimulus package is getting fire from Democrats for not being sufficiently New Dealish. [...W]hat if all of this outrage is just a clever trap, a feint that is meant to make the Obama stimulus package seem moderate in comparison to the wishlist of Capitol Hill Democrats? I have no proof that this is the plan but it seems a reasonable possibility and it wouldn't be the first time such a feint was carried out. In my view, Republicans would be best off if they assumed that this was indeed the plan and reacted accordingly by ensuring that the stimulus plan is defined on Republican terms, and not on Obama vs. Capitol Hill Democrat terms."

OBAMA IV: Negotiating With Terrorists?

Conservative bloggers are blasting Obama after the Guardian reported that his incoming admin. "is prepared to abandon George Bush's doctrine of isolating Hamas by establishing a channel to the Islamist organisation":

• Right Wing News' John Hawkins: "Why not go ahead and have Obama directly chat up Hamas? He did promise unconditional negotiations with the world's bad actors, didn't he? In any case, Hamas is a terrorist group, not significantly different than Al-Qaeda. So, what exactly is there to talk about with them? Maybe Obama can negotiate how many Jews they're allowed to murder before we have to start cutting back on their aid."
• Townhall's Hugh Hewitt: "Only a genuine dunce would endorse an outreach to Hamas, at any level. If there is any truth to the Guardian report, those dunces should be escorted from the transition offices and sent back to their university and think tank posts asap."
• NRO's James S. Robbins: "Whether one agrees with the notion of the U.S. opening a direct diplomatic channel to Hamas or not, talking about it right now is very poor timing. If nothing else it makes it appear that Hamas is being rewarded for its behavior in the past month. [...] What are these Obama leakers thinking? Amateur hour continues, as John Roche used to say."

DEAN: Where's The Respect?

Several liberals are upset that Obama reportedly snubbed outgoing DNC Chair Howard Dean by not inviting him to yesterday's press conference announcing VA Gov. Tim Kaine's appointment as the next DNC Chair:

• Bowers: "Howard Dean, an important figure for the progressive grassroots, appears to have been intentionally snubbed at Tim Kaine's press event."
• AMERICAblog's John Aravosis: "There is a real problem when [CT Sen.] Joe Lieberman is treated better than Howard Dean."
• Benen: "Someone's going to have to explain to me why Howard Dean isn't treated better. [...] Look, Dean has earned some genuine respect. He was a successful five-term governor, the chairman of the National Governors Association, and a ground-breaking presidential candidate. He then became chairman of the Democratic National Committee, faced massive institutional resistance, but instituted a wildly-successful national strategy, which helped bring the party to its strongest position in decades. Even his critics, even some Republicans, are giving him his due. With that in mind, if you're going to have an event to introduce a new DNC chair, the least you can do is have Dean around and sing his praises."

TAPPED's Tim Fernholz doesn't believe that Obama deliberately snubbed Dean: "Dean's absence at the press conference has been taken by some as an intentional snub -- dare I say, a slap in the face -- as people close to him say he would have been there had he been asked. I find the snub angle a little hard to believe, since Obama hasn't even snubbed his former enemies, much less an uncomfortable ally, and spent a good deal of the press conference lauding Dean and his ideas."

MyDD's Jerome Amstrong thinks the snub was committed by Obama's staff members, not by Obama himself: "I doubt that Obama himself knew that Howard Dean was not invited to attend the introduction of incoming DNC Chair Tim Kaine. Obama shows up, someone else does the scheduling. But between Robert Gibbs and Rahm Emanuel, there is enough hostility toward Dean for that person to get the cue for this type of childish act. And yes, the blow-off was intentional."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Dear Class Of 2009: Go To Graduate School!

Think Progress' Matthew Yglesias:

"I got an email yesterday from a reader concerned about the impact of the recession on people who graduated from college in 2008, and possibly in 2009 as well. He was mostly interested in the short-term effects, but it's in some ways the long run effects that are more interesting. The short-term effects are bad -- few places are hiring anyone and you're competing in the job market with older, better-qualified, recently-laid-off people. But the long-run effects are surprisingly bad. [...] Research from Paul Oyer and Philip Oreopoulos, Till Von Wachter & Andrew Heisz suggests that the negative impact on earnings of first entering the labor force amidst a recession lasts anywhere from ten years to forever. And that's research based on relatively mild recessions. [...]

So for my part, I think members of the class of 2009 ought to be looking seriously at applying to graduate programs. But even here there's trouble. When I was a colllege freshman in 1999-2000, there were nutty dot-com firms handing out huge salaries to people for no reason. Consequently, it [was] relatively easy to get into a prestigious law school's class of 2003 and guarantee yourself a nice salary when you finished. But by my junior year, those kind of offers had vanished so more people wanted to apply to law school. And those applicants were competing with various 23, 24, and 25 year-olds who'd had a year or three of experience working in the bubble sector, so a lot of members of the class of 2002 wound up getting into less prestigious schools than comparable candidates scored in 2000. And, again, that kind of thing can have a life-long impact on your earnings.

Long story short, life is cruel and unfair, which is one of many reasons why we need economic and social justice and why talk about the infinite justice of market outcomes shouldn't be taken too seriously."

LEST WE FORGET: People In Commercial Having More Fun With Camera Than Humanly Possible

From The Onion:

"NEW YORK -- According to sources, the people in a commercial for the Canon PowerShot S1100 IS digital camera have expressed a degree of pleasure that far exceeds the enjoyment that any known consumer electronic device could possibly provide. 'Despite what we're seeing in this commercial, no existing camera is capable of producing the increased release of serotonin and dopamine that these people appear to be experiencing,' said Dr. Otto Hauser, a brain and cognitive sciences professor at New York University. 'Features such as red-eye reduction and night display would perhaps trigger a very brief elevation of mood, but...oh, come on! They just high-fived, for Christ's sake.' At press time, Hauser said the level of fun that the camera is providing has outstripped what would be even remotely attainable with a Jet Ski–brand watercraft and a 12-pack of Samuel Adams premium ale."

Posted by Ian Faerstein at 12:51 PM

January 08, 2009

1/8: The Trouble With Harry

Senate Maj. Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) is not a popular guy among the netroots. Two months ago, Markos Moulitsas blasted Reid after Senate Dems voted to allow CT Sen. Joe Lieberman to keep his chairmanship of the Homeland Security Cmte. Moulitsas called Reid a weak leader and declared that "he doesn't deserve to run the caucus, or, frankly, to hold his seat." Now, bloggers in almost every corner of the Leftosphere are slamming Reid for his awkward handling of the Roland Burris affair. They're accusing him of "political malpractice" and are describing him as "a hazard to [Barack] Obama's agenda" who must be replaced if Dems are to accomplish their goals. Moulitsas writes: "So Reid was outbluffed by Lieberman, then he was outbluffed by [Senate Min. Leader Mitch] McConnell on seating [Al] Franken, and now he'll be outbluffed by the guy appointed by the crooked governor."

Reid, for his part, did not help himself when he told The Politico that AK Sen/convicted felon Ted Stevens shouldn't face jail time. Jane Hamsher was disgusted by Reid's remarks:

"[A]fter having thrown a huge public hissy fit about not being able to seat Roland Burris because Blago is such a crook the taint would be unbearable (words he will at any moment have to eat), this is the moment he chooses to come to the defense of a guy who actually has been convicted? Worst. Political. Instincts. Ever."

REID: The Netroots Pile On

Reid is taking a lot of criticism from liberal bloggers for his awkward handling of the Burris affair:

• Daily Kos' Kagro X: "The joke's on Harry Reid. Again."
• Moulitsas: "Reid was outbluffed by Lieberman, then he was outbluffed by McConnell on seating Franken, and now he'll be outbluffed by the guy appointed by the crooked governor. [...] If Republicans were truly smart, they'd give Reid an electoral pass. He's the best thing Republicans have going for them in the entire Congress."
• MyDD's Charles Lemos: "For heaven's sake, Harry pick your fights better. This fight over Roland Burris is over. Behind on points and cut about the eye, it's a TKO in the second round."
• The Washington Monthly's Steve Benen: "I think it's fair to say Reid's handling of this has been, for lack of a better word, clumsy."
• Hamsher: "A seventy-one year old dude who hasn't held office for 14 years, appointed by a crook, takes the Senate Majority Leader to the cleaners. Reid is a red state senator, up for re-election in 2010 and under pressure from the right, who is already making noise about appeasing Republicans who aren't going to be appeased. He's a hazard to Obama's agenda, which is why leading Senate Democrats tried to ease him out as Majority Leader last year. See: Daschle, Tom."
• Balloon Juice's John Cole: "Harry Reid has now, according to this poll, through his obstinance and idiocy, helped create popular support for Burris to not be seated. Since Burris will be seated anyway, these people will be pissed, Reid will look like a clown for being rolled over and put in his place by [IL Gov. Rod] Blagojevich, and Republicans, with an assist from the Democrats who ran around calling Burris tainted for several weeks, will now claim Democrats are just as corrupt as Republicans. It really is impressive how Reid and company got themselves into this mess. Their ability to inflict maximum pain on themselves for no gain is really unparalleled. [...] If you could be sued for political malpractice, I would be leading a class action suit against the Democratic leadership right now."
• digby: "It's not like it wasn't patently obvious from the moment Blago announced the appointment that fighting it would be a complete waste of time and not useful in any way to the furtherance of the agenda or the needs of the American people. And it's not like it wasn't obvious from the beginning that the Democrats were running around like shrieking five year olds on the playground with absolutely no idea what they were doing. Now, we've got Reid on record saying that [AK Sen.] Ted Stevens shouldn't go to jail, which is very collegial, I'm sure, but doesn't look very consistent with his noble stand against the 'taint' of Blagojevich [...] This has been about the most inauspicious beginning of any congress I've seen, a total embarrassment to the Senate Democrats, who've managed to make the House look like the more restrained, deliberative body."

FiveThirtyEight's Nate Silver offers a qualified defense of Reid: "Sure, Harry Reid has managed to trap himself now on the subject of Roland Burris, and is getting a lot of criticism for it. But how many of you saw his dilemma coming? At the time the Blagojevich scandal broke, did Reid and the Democrats really have any choice but to distance themselves as much as possible, and assert flatly that they wouldn't seat anyone that he nominated? Did they really have any reason to expect that a quasi-credible candidate like Roland Burris would actually accept Blagojevich's nomination (as opposed to someone like, say, Patti Blagojevich?) I think Reid can be criticized for one thing -- for failing to advocate for a special election. But even if the Democrats had made a more earnest push to hold a special election, that would still have provided for the possibility that Blagojevich would attempt to nominate someone in the meantime. What were they supposed to have said? 'You know Rod, we really have no legal grounds to block your nominee, so please pretty please with a cherry on top don't do it?'"

Conservative blogger Pejman Yousefzadeh chimes in: "Republicans could not have possibly invented a better Senate Democratic leader."

HOLDER: Obstruction For The Sake Of Obstruction?

Liberal bloggers are criticizing GOP Sen. Arlen Specter, and the GOP more generally, for attacking Obama's choice for AG, Eric Holder:

• Benen: "Sen. Arlen Specter's (R-Pa.) angry crusade against Eric Holder's A.G. nomination seems petty, pointless, and counter-productive. [...] Specter wants to punish Holder because Obama didn't seek his 'advice'? Please."
• Think Progress' Matthew Yglesias: "Holder's last government appointment was as Deputy Attorney General where he served for four years. Try as conservatives might to huff and puff over him, that's the very model of a banal choice of a well-qualified candidate. The idea of having lengthy discussions with people about whether or not a guy who was unanimously confirmed as Deputy Attorney General could be qualified to serve as Attorney General is a little silly. The Transition has a lot on its plate what with the two wars and the economic crisis."
• dday: "The efforts by the right-wing to derail the nomination of Eric Holder is an object lesson in how they will press every advantage, use every trick, and enlist every argument to deliver defeats to their adversary, simply because they treat politics like the sports section, charting wins and losses. They are very effective in the minority, and with a dreadfully bumbling majority as their opponent, that effectiveness will be magnified."

HOLDER II: Ready To Rumble

Meanwhile, conservative bloggers want GOP senators to challenge Holder at his confirmation hearing:

• Yousefzadeh: "Attorneys-General who have a past of seeking to undermine the Sixth Amendment right to counsel are no friends of civil liberties. I had thought that the Marc Rich pardon was the biggest strike against Eric Holder. Turns out that something potentially even bigger is out there. I want lots and lots and lots of Judiciary Committee hearing questions on these issues. The phrase 'What were you thinking?' ought to be employed a great deal. And in the event that no reasonable answers are offered, the Senate should not even think twice about rejecting this nomination."
• AmSpec Blog's Doug Bandow: "With the Democrats possessing 58 (after the imminent seating of Roland Burris) or 59 (if Al Franken wins the court fight) votes in the Senate, it won't be easy (make that well nigh impossible!) to stop an Obama Cabinet nominee. But there's more reason to believe that the Eric Holder fight could be interesting. And even if he wins, he will face some embarrassing questions. [...] This increasingly looks like a target of opportunity for conservative groups. Heck, if Sen. Arlen Specter is getting involved, you know there's got to be something there!"

PCCC: New Hope For Progressives?

The netroots are excited about the emergence of a new organization called the Progressive Change Campaign Committee (PCCC), which seeks to "provid[e] needed infrastructure and strategic advice to progressive candidates so they can run first-class campaigns and win." The Huffington Post's Ryan Grim writes:

"The organization will be the first of its kind exclusively to focus on electing progressive Democrats in congressional elections. It won't focus its energy on unseating conservative Democrats, but [Adam] Green, a cofounder, didn't rule out the possibility. Instead, it will prioritize competitive open-seat primaries and help general election candidates like [Sam] Bennett and [Tom] Perriello run effective campaigns."

• Open Left's Chris Bowers: "The organization is for real, composed of former campaign staff, MoveOn.org staff, and labor organizers. It is also on track to raise $650,000 this year, and has MoveOn.org backing. It should hit its fundraising targets no sweat, and it's experienced team knows what it is doing in a campaign setting. This is an exciting new piece of progressive infrastructure that should combine nicely with other emerging efforts, such as the primary project that I mentioned last month."
• digby: "This is an essential component of progressive politics. The stale CW of the village Democrats gets passed on to congressional candidates by simple osmosis --- there's no creativity, no use of modern methods and no real progressive message and the progressive ends up losing. Adam Green is a serious guy with some great ideas and his partners are obviously among the smartest tech people around. This is a very, very exciting project and I'll be watching with interest to see how it all unfolds."
• Open Left's David Sirota: "This is terrific news, and the news about PCCC's talks with Tom Geoghegan (the newest Better Democrats candidate) is fantastic. As I wrote earlier today, Geoghegan is one of the greatest living movement progressives in America and has a terrific shot at winning the March 3 special election in Illinois to replace Rahm Emanuel."

CHENEY: Still Beloved By The Rightroots

Yesterday, VP Dick Cheney held a lunch discussion with a small group of conservative bloggers and journalists at his home. Quin Hillyer reports:

"In a luncheon round table interview today with a small group of conservative journalists, Vice President Dick Cheney insisted that 'we don't torture' but that 'enhanced interrogation techniques' have 'produced a wealth of information' that has protected the United States against terrorists -- and, on a far more personal level, said that his four decades in public life have been a 'helluva ride' that he is 'seriously thinking' about recording in memoirs after he leaves office."

Several righty bloggers who attended the luncheon are praising Cheney:

• NRO's Kate O'Beirne: "He expressed concerns about the president-elect's approach to the war on terror based on his campaign rhetoric but noted that Senator Obama did vote to reauthorize the terrorist surveillance program. He recommends (hopes?) that the Obama team will carefully study the whats and whys of the Bush administration's (successful) efforts in countering the terrorist threat before abandoning certain strategies. While hoping they get it right, he's worried. So, so am I. Fortunately, the vice president is giving 'serious thought to writing a book.' Let's hope we will continue to benefit from his unparalled experience and sound judgment. Finally, for the umpteenth time the caricature of this talented, temperate, dedicated patriot struck me as insane."
• RedState's Erick Erickson: "The untold story of this administration, and one that I asked him about with very little success at getting an answer (to be honest, my question was poorly formed as it is a difficult topic), is that Cheney has been the great conservative influence at the White House. [...] For almost eight long years after 9/11/2001, we were not attacked at home. We were safe at home. Men, not boys, made tough decisions that they stood by. They did not back down. Many people don't like that they did not back down. Many people on the wrong side of history don't like their aggressive prosecution of the Global War on Terror. But they've kept us safe. 'At the end of eight years, we don't get a lot of credit for what didn't happen,' Cheney said matter of factly. No one ever does. Cheney pointed out that had we gone the judicial route many on the left wanted (and the prior administration had engaged in), we'd have never gotten the information we got from Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. A prosecutor could not have made him squeal like a pig. But he was not arrested and prosecuted. KSM went through enhanced interrogation and still sits at Gitmo. [...] Cheney is unapologetic as he should be. It was a fascinating lunch."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: The Strategic Logic of Nonviolence

Jonathan Zasloff recently pointed to Nelson Mandela as proof that "an oppressed and occupied people does not necessarily resort to terrorism." Yglesias adds:

"And of course there's the civil rights movement in the United States. And it's worth emphasizing here the extent to which strict adherence to non-violence was important to helping the movement Martin Luther King led to get what they wanted. When people who you regard as being 'on your side' start killing people for what you deem a reasonable cause, you tend to look on the killing in an understanding light. But when you don't regard those people as 'on your side' then things like firing rockets at populated areas or dropping bombs on schools begins to look monstrous. And when you're faced off against monsters, the last thing you want to do is give them any room to breath. The white south resisted desegregation pretty fiercely, but resistance would have been much fiercer if the civil rights movement had been killing tons of people and stoking fears that empowering blacks would lead to massacres.

Much the same applies to the South African situation. At a certain point, it became clear to the apartheid leaders that there system was untenable. But they were still more interested in the upholding the interests of white South Africa than in abstract considerations of justice. The fact that ANC behavior didn't imply that the organization was led by cold-blooded killers made it much easier to contemplate handing power over to them. In Israel, decline in political support for wild 'Greater Israel' notions has been swamped by the way Israeli discourse has become dominated by fear that any easing up on the Palestinians will endanger Israeli lives -- a fear that's hard to assuage driven by how violence-obsessed the Palestinian movement has been."

LEST WE FORGET: Area Teen Accidentally Enters Teen Center

From The Onion:

"SANDUSKY, OH -- In a moment of confusion, area teenager Eric Dooley briefly walked into a local teen outreach center Tuesday, a place that neither he nor any of his teenaged friends would ever knowingly enter. 'Oh, geez. I'm sorry,' the 15-year-old said as he quickly assessed the four battered foosball tables, outdated PlayStation console, overly friendly counselor, and garish orange and purple paint scheme -- all intended to appeal to him -- before exiting the facility in less than six seconds. 'This isn't where I'm supposed to be. Sorry. Sorry.' Dooley reportedly joined a gang later that afternoon."

Posted by Ian Faerstein at 12:51 PM

January 07, 2009

1/7: Standing Up For Panetta

The blogosphere is still buzzing about Barack Obama's reported decision to tap ex-WH CoS Leon Panetta as CIA dir. After news of the selection provoked a backlash from intelligence officials and various Dem Senators, liberal bloggers rushed to Panetta's defense. They're describing Panetta as "an ideal choice" to lead the agency in the post-Bush years and are downplaying his lack of experience in intelligence-gathering. They're also blasting incoming Senate Intel Cmte Chair Dianne Feinstein and outgoing Senate Intel Cmte Chair Jay Rockefeller for publicly criticizing the pick. Matthew Yglesias writes:

"Not to be mean about this, but I wish Sens Feinstein and Rockefeller had shown such concern about pushing back against the executive branch on intelligence matters back when, as members of the Intelligence Committee, both decided to back the invasion of Iraq rather than doing their jobs and calling attention to the problems with the intelligence the administration was presenting."

PANETTA: Standing Up To The Critics

Liberal bloggers are fiercely defending Obama's reported decision to tap Panetta as CIA dir.:

• The Washington Monthly's Steve Benen: "[T]he more complaints I hear about Panetta at the CIA, the more I find the concerns underwhelming. Feinstein and Rockefeller feel snubbed? Given their recent track record, I don't much care. The head of the CIA should come from within the agency? At least six recent CIA chiefs didn't. Panetta doesn't have a background in national security intelligence? Nonsense, as White House chief of staff and an ISG member, Panetta dealt with the very sensitive intelligence on a daily basis. [...] If we start with a premise that Obama wanted to find a credible, experienced manager, who's dealt with intelligence but remains untainted by the Bush-era scandals, Panetta starts to look like an ideal choice."
• Think Progress' Yglesias: "On the merits, this idea that the CIA Director needs to be a career intelligence professional seems to have been pulled out of thin air. Porter Goss wasn't a career intel guy. Neither was George Tenet. Neither was John Deutsch. [...] Nor several other past directors. Meanwhile, it's not like Panetta was just pulled out of nowhere -- he was White House chief of staff where he had a hand in overseeing the entire federal government. He's got the administrative chops and he's held the intelligence clearances. Meanwhile, the sentiment that Obama is somehow obligated to appoint a current senior intelligence manager to the job seems merely designed to ensure that no senior intelligence officials are held to account for anything that happened during the Bush administration. And if you think there've been no serious intel problems during the Bush years, that makes a lot of sense. But if you live on planet earth, that's crazy."
• Daily Kos' mcjoan: "The pick has gotten the full-throated support of a few Intelligence Committee members: [OR Sen.] Ron Wyden, who was apparently tipped off to the nomination before Feinstein (that will make things a little awkward at the committee table); and [WI Sen.] Russ Feingold. [...] Panetta can also plan on the support of the former Intelligence Committee chair Republican Pat Roberts. [...] Everybody is getting on board the change wagon. Now that Obama has sent the unequivocal message that he will end the abuses of the Bush administration, all Congressional Dems need to join in."

The Atlantic's Andrew Sullivan also praises the choice: "Some are now citing Panetta's appointment as somehow 'political' rather than substantive. But it's obvious that Obama has actually found someone both capable of running a bureaucracy as complex as the CIA, of a stature to be approved by the Congress and maintain good relations, and with the good sense to know how interrogation based on torture is never right and much less effective than legal methods. It remains an inspired choice. And the critics help show why."

PANETTA II: If DiFi Opposes Him, Then He Must Be A Good Choice

Feinstein and Rockefeller continue to take heat from liberal bloggers for their public criticism of the Panetta appointment:

• Firedoglake's Phoenix Woman: "Feinstein's dig at Leon Panetta is allegedly based in her stated belief that we need an 'intelligence professional' at the head of the Central Intelligence Agency. Yet when several intelligence professionals tried to show her that Bush's planned war on Iraq was based in bogosity, she ignored them. Then again, she seems to be quite willing to suspend disbelief when it's a Republican president telling her to do so."
• mcjoan: "His spokesperson said that Rockefeller 'shares Ms. Feinstein's concerns.' Really. That's rich, coming from these two who practically fell over themselves to capitulate to the Bush administration and turn a blind eye to the abuses of that administration, to torture. NOW they decide to get a spine? NOW they decide to resist a president?"
• Yglesias: "Not to be mean about this, but I wish Sens Feinstein and Rockefeller had shown such concern about pushing back against the executive branch on intelligence matters back when, as members of the Intelligence Committee, both decided to back the invasion of Iraq rather than doing their jobs and calling attention to the problems with the intelligence the administration was presenting. Somehow other members of the SSIC like [IL Sen.] Dick Durbin and [MI Sen.] Carl Levin managed to figure out what was going on."
• dday: "Panetta isn't going to be sneaking through the Middle East collecting human intelligence; he's going to be managing a large bureaucracy. But moral lepers like DiFi value 'experience' that will lock in the status quo over experience that will reveal the agency's sins, and by extension her own. They don't want to risk any culpability on their part from becoming public, so they'd rather 'keep it in the family.'"
• Balloon Juice's John Cole: "What I dislike about the Feinstein reaction is that she did, in fact, go along with the rubber-stamping of all the Bush appointees, and she wasn't even in the Republican party. Now, for whatever reason, she appears to be eagerly hamstringing the appointee before a hearing is even scheduled."
• digby: "As [Glenn] Greenwald said, the mere fact that the complicit whiners Feinstein and Rockefeller (who, you'll notice, immediately ran crying to the press) are upset about it, reflects well on the decision."
• TPM's Josh Marshall: "There are a lot of fairly intricate and byzantine arguments about whether or not [Panetta] is a good choice. But the people who I'd want to see supporting the nomination do seem to support it. And as I said last night the nature of the opposition, even if it seems to be diminishing, makes me more inclined to support the choice."

PANETTA III: Did The Obama Team Deliberately Snub Feinstein?

Yesterday, TPM's Elana Schor confirmed that the Obama transition team consulted with Sen. Wyden (a junior member of the Intel Cmte) regarding the Panetta selection before consulting with Feinstein:

"[I] just spoke to Sen. Ron Wyden's (D-OR) office, where a spokeswoman confirmed what was hinted at this morning: Wyden had been in contact with the Obama transition team to discuss the Leon Panetta nomination, while incoming Senate intelligence chairman Dianne Feinstein was still in the dark."

Several bloggers believe that the Obama transition team deliberately kept Feinstein in the dark about the Panetta selection, and they see this as a good thing:

• Sullivan: "The more I think about this, the more it seems to me that the snub of these two was a deliberate signal. Their oversight of Bush's war crimes was pathetic. Ditto [House Intel Cmte Chair Jane] Harman. Obama is telling us he is serious about both improving intelligence and drawing a clear line -- for the entire world to see -- between the United States and the war criminals who will soon be leaving office, and those who enabled them."
• Harper's Scott Horton: "The intelligence community was steered by the Bush Administration into a series of criminal escapades. Effective congressional oversight would have exposed these failings and brought them to heel. But the Rockefeller-Feinstein record was little short of disastrous. I'm delighted that the Obama team didn't consult them. And I suspect that Panetta was chosen principally for his managerial skills, but secondarily because Obama wanted someone who would have a more powerful voice in Washington generally, and in Congressional circles in particular, than either Rockefeller or Feinstein."

Other bloggers don't think it was wise for the Obama transition team to snub Feinstein, if it indeed did so deliberately:

• Ezra Klein: "Horton is right to heap scorn on Rockefeller and DiFi's committee performance. But history suggests that acting highhandedly with powerful senators is a bad idea. Those are votes Obama will need not only on his nominee, but on much else, and the last thing his administration should do is anger them or their allies. The point of presidential consultation is to show respect for their opinions and make sure the working relationship is constructive. Putting that aside for either pique or vengeance is a bad idea indeed, and not the sort of thing progressives should cheer."
• AMERICAblog's John Aravosis: "As I wrote earlier, it's irrelevant whether anyone gets a frisson of schadenfreude out of dissing DiFi. The only question that matters is whether Obama, and Panetta, gain or lose by, seemingly intentionally leaving Feinstein out of the loop."

PANETTA IV: We're Cool With Him

Yesterday we observed that the majority of conservative bloggers were harshly criticizing the Panetta selection. However, a few conservative bloggers are expressing mild support for the choice:

• Townhall's Hugh Hewitt: "Panetta is widely regarded as very smart...and widely liked across both parties. Though a liberal, the experience of having skippered a White House staff will have schooled Panetta in the art of getting to the president when it must happen and in the ways of winning internal Executive Branch dust-ups. The Congressional background didn't help Porter Goss much, but perhaps it will help Panetta keep the budget cutters away. Panetta's a patriot, an experienced Washington hand, and close to the president-elect. As with many of the other early appointments on the incoming national security team, conservatives should be asking themselves if they ought not to be thanking their stars that the new team appears very realistic about the world they are being called on to lead and the enemies they will be facing."
• RedState's Streiff: "I don't have a problem with Barack Obama's nomination of long time Clinton loyalist and former California congressman Leon Panetta to head the Central Intelligence Agency. [...] The two biggest dings against Panetta are that 1) Dianne Feinstein and Jay Rockefeller have their panties knotted over their not being consulted and 2) Panetta is not an intelligence professional. I think both these objections are superficial [...] The least serious objection is Mr. Panetta's resume. When one looks at the history of the CIA and the directors there is really no evidence that intelligence professionals perform any better than your average charwoman."

On the other hand, RedState's Warner Todd Huston remains critical of the pick: "To paraphrase Forrest Gump, Inexperienced is as inexperienced does. At least that is what comes to my mind when hearing that Barack Obama has picked the inoffensive, completely inexperienced and unqualified Leon Panetta to be the new director of the CIA. Really. Leon Panetta? The onetime director of the Office of Management and Budget Panetta, that Leon Panetta? This old Clinton partisan has absolutely no experience whatsoever with intelligence gathering or the administration of the same. None. Zip. Nadda. Now, if George W. Bush had picked such an inexperienced man for any government position much less one at cabinet level, the media would have crucified him -- in fact, it did if you recount the Harriet Meyers for SCOTUS debacle."

GUPTA: America's New Favorite Doctor?

Liberal bloggers are praising Obama's apparent decision to tap CNN correspondent/neurosurgeon Sanjay Gupta as surgeon general:

• TAPPED's Tim Fernholz: "[T]he more I think about it, the more I think this is kind of a good idea. The surgeon general 'serves as America's chief health educator by providing Americans the best scientific information available on how to improve their health and reduce the risk of illness and injury,' according to the official website. Someone who has made a career of synthesizing complex medical knowledge into television specials seems to be the right person to educate Americans about their health."
• Klein: "Gupta is a great pick. [...] The surgeon general has an informal role as the country's leading medical and lifestyle educator, and it's that role the Gupta is uniquely positioned to fill. There's not a doctor in this country with half his media training and experience, nor one with a rolodex of editors and reporters a tenth as large."
• Benen: "Gupta seems like a strong choice. The responsibilities for a surgeon general are a little vague, but my sense is he/she is generally responsible for being a public health advocate, educating the public and being a spokesperson on medical and health issues. Given his work as a journalist, Gupta seems more than able to fill that role."

Conservative blogger Michelle Malkin is not a fan of the pick: "Celebrity idol Barack Obama picks another celebrity to head up the surgeon general's office. [...] At least it wasn't Deepak Chopra. What next? Judge Judy for the next Supreme Court opening? I vote for celebrity bounty hunter Duane 'The Dog' Chapman to head the Border Patrol."

BUSH: The Dream Is Over

Several conservative bloggers were disappointed by ex-FL Gov. Jeb Bush's decision not to run for Senate in 2010:

• NRO's Kathryn Jean Lopez: "Disappointing."
• NRO's Rich Lowry: "Bad news."
• Hot Air's Allahpundit: "With Bush out, the race to replace Martinez is wide open in a state that Obama carried and in a political climate where the GOP will have to defend 19 seats versus just 16 for the Democrats. A gimme in Florida would have helped -- a lot. Oh well."
• AmSpec Blog's W. James Antle, III: "Not only does that take the strongest Republican candidate off the table in that particular race but it also could dampen recruitment for other races. Being able to attract a big name like Jeb Bush might entice other big names to run as Republicans in 2010."
• AmSpec Blog's Quin Hillyer: "I am disappointed in Jeb's decision. I am no fan of the Bush family in general, but this Bush was a very solid conservative governor and would have been a near shoo-in for election to the Senate. Unlike Caroline Kennedy, he would have EARNED his spot by election from constituents who have already seen how he performs in office. I do find him a bit arrogant, to say the least, and I would never want him to run for or be president, but I think he really ought to have run for the Senate. After all his brother did to hurt the Republican and conservative 'brands,' the least Jeb sould do is to help make up for his brothers' (and fathers') harm by holding a seat conservatives desperately need to hold. Again, then, the Bushes disappoint."

Glenn Reynolds had a different reaction: "Jeb Bush won't run for Senate. Good. By all accounts he's a decent guy, but we could use a bit less dynastic politics these days."

SPECTER: How Ya Like Me Now, Toomey?

Conservative bloggers are praising PA Sen. Arlen Specter for criticizing Obama's decision to nominate ex-Deputy AG Eric Holder as AG:

• Lopez: "There looks like there will be a fight over the Holder nomination, after all; thank you Senator Specter."
• AmSpec Blog's Doug Bandow: "Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA) is the squishiest of the squishy. But he appears to be growing a backbone when it comes to Attorney General-designate Eric Holder. [...] It could be all talk, of course. But Sen. Specter has pointed to reasons for fighting the Holder nomination. A return to the bad old Clinton Justice Department surely isn't 'change that we can believe in.'"

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: The Idea Of Israel

TAPPED's Dana Goldstein criticizes the Israeli invasion of Gaza:

"[T]his latest incursion, and indeed, much of Israel's military history, seems manufactured in opposition to the founding idea of the Zionist project itself -- that the world should be made safe for Jews. And that if the larger world could not be safe, than at least one place -- the Promised Land -- should be. I needn't argue here that Israel is one of the most unsafe places on earth to be a Jew; with suicide bombings, missiles, and now full-fledged war, that much is apparent. Asking young Jews to fight and die in a ground war, one whose perpetration inflames anti-Semitic sentiments, is not the best way to make Israel, or the world at large, safe for the Jewish people. And sure enough, it is tragic to learn that due to the fighting in Gaza, Jews in France, Sweden, Belgium, and Denmark have suffered anti-Semitic violence and vandalism in recent days.

To be sure, Israel's military response is not dissimilar from that of other nations that have faced terrorist threats, and errantly believed they could quash the threat with brute force. But in a post-Holocaust world, Israel is simply not like any other country. It is special, and holds particular sway over the religious and cultural imagination. I don't need to be convinced that anti-Semitism is a world-historical force that would exist, sometimes virulently, with or without the existence of Israel. I majored in European History, for god's sake. [...] It's just that I want to believe that the collective, historical experience of Jewishness and Zionism leads to something better -- something more humane -- than what we've witnessed in the Middle East this past week. Jews in Israel and the Diaspora who are similarly frustrated have the responsibility, I think, to raise their voices. We support Israel's right to protect itself. We just don't see how this will accomplish that in the long run."

LEST WE FORGET: Fun With Craigslist

McSweeney's contributor Eric Feezell compiles a list of "Unpromising Apartment-Ad Teasers Actually Found on Craigslist That Would Make Even Less Promising Personal-Ad Teasers":

• Beautiful on the Inside!
• Totally gutted and refurbished charmer
• Huge unit! Looking for single person or couple only.
• Back on market. Spacious! Clean!
• 'UNIQUE'
• Gas, garbage incl. Cozy.
• Your complex awaits!
• BIG...CLOSE TO EVERYTHING...
• Rarely available and will go quickly!
• Look no further! I'm where the welcome mat goes!
• Legal in-law

Posted by Ian Faerstein at 01:00 PM

January 06, 2009

1/6: Leon At Langley?

Although liberal bloggers don't exactly view ex-WH CoS Leon Panetta as a progressive champion, they're nevertheless pleased that he's been tapped by Pres.-elect Barack Obama to become the next CIA Director. Why? Because Panetta is an outspoken opponent of torture. After it was reported in November that ex-National Counterrorism Center head John Brennan was the leading candidate to become CIA Director, the netroots complained vociferously, as they didn't want anyone associated with the Bush admin.'s controversial interrogation programs to lead the CIA. Now lefty bloggers are relieved that Panetta is the choice. While the netroots may not love everything about Panetta's record, they believe that his appointment signifies a much-needed departure from George W. Bush's policies. As Spencer Ackerman writes: "Given the worries about whether John Brennan might have been too soft on torture...no one can have that fear about Panetta."

Conservative bloggers, on the other hand, are blasting the appointment. They believe that Panetta is dangerously unprepared to lead the CIA because he has "no experience whatsoever" in intelligence-gathering. Jim Geraghty describes the appointment "the first major-league screw-up on the part of the Obama Administration" and issues an ominous warning: "If there is a terror attack on American soil during Panetta's watch, it will set off a firestorm of criticism that will make the 9/11 Commission hearings look like a tea party."

PANETTA: A Rejection Of Torture?

Liberal bloggers are praising Obama's apparent decision to tap Panetta as CIA Director, primarily because of Panetta's outspoken opposition to torture:

• TalkLeft's Big Tent Democrat: "Good for Obama for not letting the CIA's torture apologists pressure him into naming one of their own. The President-Elect [has made] it clear that torture will not be tolerated in his administration."
• Firedoglake's Ackerman: "Given the worries about whether John Brennan might have been too soft on torture -- put aside the merits of that contention for a moment -- no one can have that fear about Panetta."
• BooMan: "Panetta is close to a perfect pick if you were going to choose someone from outside the Intelligence Community. And with all due regard for the Intelligence Community's professionalism, they need a fresh, respected face to present to the country and the world. Panetta has been an outspoken opponent of torture and that is exactly what we deserve."
• Daily Kos' mcjoan: "This appointment is a bit out of left field, but it is encouraging in several ways: Obama wasn't swayed by the intelligence community's all-out effort to put a current CIA type into the position -- an effort aimed at maintaining and/or justifying Bush policies, including torture. Instead, Obama went for someone with proven management skills, something that it desperately needed in the position. But the best news in all of this -- Leon Panetta is a much of a departure from torture as you could want."
• Mother Jones' David Corn: "A CIA director who has denounced torture, advocated intelligence cuts, and backed greater congressional control of covert operations -- that would be....different. This appointment certainly has the potential to spark opposition from inside and outside the agency. But if Panetta manages to make it to Langley without much fuss, that would indeed signal real change in Washington."
• Salon's Glenn Greenwald: "Panetta may have many flaws -- who doesn't after years and years in Washington? -- but Obama's apparent determination to avoid anyone 'tainted' by the CIA's last eight years is commendable."
• Atrios: "I don't really have any opinions about Panetta...but I'm glad Obama has chosen someone to head the CIA who wasn't involved with torturing and driving inmates insane."

The Atlantic's Andrew Sullivan also praises the pick: "[Panetta is] way, way better than Brennan, and, significantly, detached from the torture regime and its apparatus in a way that anyone involved in the CIA in the last eight years would not be. [...T]his appointment and Johnsen's are extremely encouraging for the restoration of Constitutional order after the Bush-Cheney protectorate."

PANETTA II: Stop Whining, DiFi

Liberal bloggers are blasting CA Sen. Dianne Feinstein -- the incoming Chair of the Senate Intelligence Cmte -- after she criticized the Panetta appointment:

• Firedoglake's Attaturk: "Feinstein had no problem voting for pro-torture Attorney General Mike Mukaskey and pro-torture CIA head Porter Goss and both have by and large bought Bush's bullshit for 8 years running, but heaven forbid someone who will not run the CIA like a '24' episode be appointed."
• digby: "Dianne Feinstein is having a little public fit because she wasn't consulted about Panetta and had instructed the president-elect that he had to choose an 'intelligence professional.' Well, excuse me. When did Difi get a veto on cabinet appointments? The fact is that DiFi is actually implicated in the torture regime and should just shut up on this. Panetta is a royal pain in the ass in many ways, but he's not a torture apologist, he's not implicated in it and he's reputed to be a good manager. I see no reason why the position has to be chosen from among the CIA ranks just because Porter Goss was a miserable failure or the CIA rank and file are having a hissy."
• Balloon Juice's John Cole: "Feinstein, who had no problem voting yea for Porter Goss, [ex-CIA Dir.] George Tenet, and [ex-CIA Dir.] Michael Hayden, as well as Mike Mukasey, [FBI Dir.] Robert Mueller, and [ex-Def. Sec.] Donald Rumsfeld, has deftly just knee-capped her own party's nominee for CIA, and is now in the position of doing an about face and looking like a complete and total hack or denying the incoming President his selection, something she never did to any of Bush's choices. Way to be, DiFi."
• Greenwald: "Few things could reflect better on Panetta's selection than the fact that Feinstein and [WV Sen. Jay] Rockefeller -- two of the most Bush-enabling Senators -- are unhappy with it."
• TPM's Josh Marshall: "I'm not certain what I think about [Panetta's] appointment yet. But on first blush, the nature of the opposition makes me more inclined to support it."

AMERICAblog's John Aravosis, while no fan of Feinstein, is nevertheless concerned about her public criticism of the Panetta appointment: "Feinstein is the incoming chairwoman of the Senate Intelligence Committee. She wasn't notified of Obama's choice. That's rather unheard of. She has to oversee the CIA director's nomination hearing. You absolutely positively want her on board. You don't just spring the nomination on her in the press. Again, the fact that she's ticked off, going public, and expressing disapproval of the choice is a big big deal. As is Rockefeller's public criticism, as the outgoing chair of the Senate Intell Committtee and all the gravitas that entails. [...] You can debate the merits of whether Feinstein and Rockefeller are to blame for going public, or whether Obama is to blame for provoking them, but the public criticism of the nominee by the top two Senate Democratic experts on intelligence matters gives cover to any Republican, Democrat or Independent interested in defeating this nomination."

PANETTA III: This Is Going To Make It Harder For Some GOPers To Sleep At Night

Most conservative bloggers are harshly criticizing Obama's decision to tap Panetta as CIA Director, arguing that he lacks the relevant experience:

• Michelle Malkin: "Another day, another clueless [Bill] Clinton crony named to a top job for which he has no experience. The unqualified fish rots from the head down, after all. [...This is] damned scary."
• NRO's Geraghty: "[I]t appears the nomination of Leon Panetta to head the Central Intelligence Agency is the first major-league screw-up on the part of the Obama Administration. [...] If there is a terror attack on American soil during Panetta's watch, it will set off a firestorm of criticism that will make the 9/11 Commission hearings look like a tea party."
• RedState's Francis Cianfrocca: "We shouldn't be surprised that a man like Obama would pick a man like Panetta for a critically-important job that he isn't qualified to do."
• Ann Althouse: "He's 70. A 70-year-old man with no background will lead the hunt for al Qaeda."
• Hot Air's Ed Morrissey: "Barack Obama sent a message with the selection of [IL Rep.] Rahm Emanuel as his chief of staff, but apparently didn't think enough people understood it. He sent a stronger message yesterday with his choice of Leon Panetta for Director of CIA, and this time, it's unmistakable. Political considerations will trump competence and experience, even in the most critical roles Obama has to fill."
• RedState's Pejman Yousefzadeh: "Panetta's 'intelligence expertise and qualifications' are nearly nonexistent. To be sure, he was Chief of Staff to President Clinton and dealt with intelligence matters but it's one thing to serve as a consumer of intelligence and quite another to serve as a producer. Panetta has no experience whatsoever being a producer of intelligence and does not know how to be the head of an organization responsible for producing intelligence."
• Power Line's John Hinderaker: "I have nothing in particular against Leon Panetta, who seems to be a classic Clintonite pragmatist. That said, he has no evident qualification to be CIA Director other than general administrative ability. So why has Barack Obama nominated him for the post? [...] Democrats have committed themselves, for political reasons, to harsh criticisms of these and other aspects of the Bush administration's anti-terror campaign. So Obama had to abandon Brennan's nomination, and he is now stuck with someone who not only had nothing to do with the Bush administration's highly successful policies, but was adamantly opposed to them. Panetta fits the necessary political profile, so he will be CIA Director even though he has no experience in intelligence. Thus do political considerations sometimes constrain a President's ability to put the right people in executive posts."

PANETTA IV: A Few Dissenters On The Right

A few conservative bloggers are expressing mild support for the choice:

• NRO's Michael Ledeen: "I always liked Panetta. He served in the Army and is openly proud of it. He seems to be a good lawyer (oxymoronic though it may seem). He's a good manager. And he's going to watch Obama's back at a place that's full of stilettos and a track record for attempted presidential assassination second to none. [...] The self-proclaimed cognoscenti will deride his lack of 'spycraft,' and he's never worked in the intel bureaucracy or, for that matter, in foreign policy or national security. But he's been chief of staff, which involved all that stuff. I think it's a smart move."
• Power Line's Paul Mirengoff: "My first reaction to Barack Obama's selection of Leon Panetta as CIA director was puzzlement. After all, Panetta has no real background in intelligence gathering or analysis. But on reflection, Obama's decision may make sense on the merits. The CIA's primary importance these days arguably has less to do with intelligence gathering or analysis than with political gamesmanship. [...] In this context, it is understandable that, in selecting a CIA director, Obama would place a higher premium on political acumen than on background in intelligence. [...] It may, in addition, reflect the plausible view that one need not have experience in the field of intelligence to run an agency that does an effective job of gathering and assessing intelligence."

JOHNSEN: Warming The Netroots' Hearts

Liberal bloggers are praising Obama's decision to tap Indiana Univ. law prof. Dawn Johnsen as Assistant AG for the Office of Legal Counsel:

• Greenwald: "[T]his appointment may be Obama's best yet, perhaps by far."
• digby: "This is an excellent day for those who believe in presidential adherence to the rule of law -- the Obama team has chosen an absolutely first rate person to bring back 'honor and integrity' to the Office of Legal Council. [...] There have been few experts in the field of presidential authority who have been more outspoken and critical of the Bush administration's lawless regime. [Obama] literally couldn't have chosen anyone better to signal an abrupt change with the past."
• Obsidian Wings' hilzoy: "[Johnsen's] general advocacy of transparency is really heartening, as is her seriousness about the need for OLC to check the President, and her commitment to the rule of law. It's also worth noting that she is pretty scathing about many of the Bush administration's legal theories and opinions, including its account of the unitary executive and the Commander-in-Chief powers."
• The Washington Monthly's Steve Benen: "This is most definitely change I can believe in."

OBAMA: Is There Such A Thing As Too Much Bipartisanship?

Liberal bloggers were upset to learn that Obama and congressional Dems are crafting a $300B tax cut in an effort to win GOP support for their economic stimulus package:

• Marshall: "It would be far better on many counts to bring in substantial Republican support for this bill. [...] But Obama seems to be telegraphing that to a significant degree the fundamental structure of the legislation is being built around accommodating the concerns of Republicans -- members of a political party that are about as unpopular and weak as you can get at the moment. And that sounds a lot like he's negotiating with himself, something that will embolden opposition and invite Republicans to up the ante even further."
• hilzoy: "According to the WSJ, one reason for relying so heavily on tax cuts is that 'it may make it easier to win over Republicans who have stressed that any initiative should rely more heavily on tax cuts rather than spending.' To which I can only say: screw them. Their economic philosophy got us into this mess; we should not let them force us to use ineffective means to get out of it. If the Democrats can't keep enough of their Senators in line to get this passed, and corral a couple of Republicans, then we're in worse shape than I imagine. I'd really rather try to do it right before preemptively conceding to the Mitch McConnells of the world."
• dday: "[T]he worst part of all of this is the fact that it appears the Obama team looks at tax cuts as a way to get Republicans on board. Here's the deal: there are only two Republicans in America, at most, that need to be 'on board' with something like this, and if a new President and a Democratic Senate can't flip them, I don't know why they even try anymore. This looks like an example of a bias that the Obama team has had for a while, that everything has to be bipartisan and attract the support of both parties, because only then can it be legitimate."
• Firedoglake's Ian Welsh: "In order to get those 80 [Senate] votes, Obama has pre-compromised his stimulus bill, which will define the first year of his administration more than anything else, loading it up with 310 billion of tax cuts, making up 40% of the total. (I will also note that he and his team seem to have flunked negotiation 101, because you don't pre-compromise if you know how to negotiate, you come out with the most liberal bill possible, even if that's not what you want, so you can bargain towards the bill you want. This bill will be watered down even further from it's already pre-compromised state)."

On the right side of the blogosphere, Hinderaker is cheered by the news: "[C]onservatives should be happy that the Democrats are willing to cut taxes at all. $300 billion, if it passes, will provide more near-term relief than either of the Bush tax cuts. And a considerable portion of the proposed cuts will go to companies, which should benefit the economy much more than additional federal spending. [...] Some Republicans are wary of Obama's tax cut proposal, and it's obviously important to see the details before trying to pass judgment. For now, though, Obama's support for major tax cuts can only be seen as one more pleasant surprise from the incoming administration."

The Next Right's Jon Henke thinks GOPers should be wary about supporting the Dem stimulus bill: "If Obama passes the perfect progressive stimulus bill without much Republican help, he owns the spending, the deficits, the tax hikes and all of the pain that comes with it. Republicans will be happy to run against those problems in 2010 and 2012. But if Obama buys significant Republican support for his bill, Republicans will own the deficits, tax hikes and intervention, as well. The stimulus bill will be for Republicans what the Iraq war was for Democrats -- a policy they first supported, then regretted, then tripped over themselves to explain. The 'they were for it before they were against it' ads would be inevitable and devastating. [...] Obama doesn't want bipartisan support, so much as he wants political immunization. In this case, unity and bipartisanship = lashing the Republicans to the mast of Government."

RNC CHAIR: Who Will Save The GOP?

Several conservative bloggers are offering their thoughts about yesterday's RNC Chair debate:

• Townhall's Amanda Carpenter: "The unwillingness on behalf of the candidates to directly attack current RNC Chairman Robert 'Mike' Duncan for his management of the 2008 presidential election dismays me. In big-time college and NFL football, coaches get fired after a bad season. Everyone seems to think, and will tell you on background, it should be the same in politics. No one wants to stay it out loud on stage though. At least for today."
• NRO's Mark Hemingway: "While there were some very good answers given by the candidates, there were far more bad ones. First, no one really addressed rebuilding the G.O.P. as a majority party and were more at ease playing to the base. Republicans need a detailed plan to expand the party and bring back independent voters, much like the Democrats came up with their successful fifty state strategy after 2004. [...N]o one really addressed how you do the needed outreach to hispanic voters and reconcile this with immigration reform. Lastly, technology and internet organizing were much discussed topics which is a marked improvement. However, discussing how many people follow you on Twitter or how many Facebook friends you have is not evidence you are tech savvy. No one on stage really evinced an understanding of internet organizing and technology on a conceptual level, let alone how they would employ it to rebuild the party."
• Malkin: "There was much pandering and kowtowing and pledging to increase minority outreach efforts. What no RNC candidate would say: I will never engage in 'outreach' efforts at the cost of our security and sovereignty."
• Robert Stacy McCain: "Who won the debate? Some conservatives I talked to afterwards said they thought [Chip] Saltsman -- who managed Mike Huckabee's presidential campaign -- 'exceeded expectations' with a very smooth, concise message. Another told me he thinks Duncan will surprise everyone by retaining the chairmanship. And another said he thinks the current situation favors [MI GOP Chair Saul] Anuzis, whom he described as 'everyone's second choice.'"

In other RNC Chair-blogging, RedState's Robert Bluey unloads on ex-MD LG Michael Steele, while Geraghty responds by arguing that "you can find evidence of any of these candidates straying from the conservative position."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Obama, The Center-Right President?

Commentary's Jennifer Rubin:

"[L]et's get this straight: Robert Gates will be the Defense Secretary, we're ramping up U.S. forces in Afghanistan and providing a reasonable period of time for a hand-off in Iraq, there isn't going to be a windfall oil profits tax or income tax hike but there is going to be a huge set of business tax cuts -- and Rick Warren is giving the invocation at the Inauguration. Who won in November?

I'm sure there will be times during the next four years when the Obama administration's decisions on issues (e.g. judicial appointments) have conservatives banging their heads against the wall, bemoaning the fact that John McCain wasn't elected. But so far it's hard to imagine McCain would have been doing more than the incoming Obama team seems to be proposing -- and with as much chance of success -- to further some key center-Right policy aims."

LEST WE FORGET: Father-Son Communication

From Overheard Everywhere:

Tourist baby: Bah bah bah bah bah!
Tourist dad, changing his diaper: I hear ya.
Tourist baby: Bah bah bah bah bah bah!
Tourist dad: Uh huh.
Tourist baby: Bah bah bah bah!
Tourist dad: I told you not to mess with those guys.
(tourist baby laughs)
Tourist dad: Yeah, you know what I'm talking about!

-- Restroom, Walt Disney World

Posted by Ian Faerstein at 01:01 PM

January 05, 2009

1/5: 2009, Off To A Rocky Start

Unsurprisingly, liberal and conservative bloggers disagree about the merits of the Israeli invasion of Gaza. Most lefty bloggers think the military operation will produce further bloodshed while doing nothing to stop terrorism or remove Hamas. Righty bloggers think the operation is necessary and justified, and they're blasting those who have criticized it.

Bloggers are also discussing the latest developments concerning the vacant U.S. Senate seats. Many liberal bloggers reacted negatively to the news that CO Gov Bill Ritter has appointed Denver school chief Michael Bennet to fill the Senate seat being vacated by incoming Interior Sec. Ken Salazar. These lefty bloggers are concerned about Bennet's lack of electoral experience and question his ability to win re-election in 2010. Conservative bloggers, meanwhile, are licking their chops in anticipation of a possible showdown between Dem Senators and ex-IL AG Roland Burris, whom disgraced IL Gov. Rod Blagojevich has appointed to fill Barack Obama's vacant Senate seat.

GAZA: What Will This Accomplish?

Many liberal bloggers are condemning the Israeli invasion of Gaza:

• TAPPED's Tim Fernholz: "This operation will do nothing to stop terrorism worldwide, and in fact it will likely exacerbate the problems of terrorism around the world in the near- and long-term, as once again terrorist groups have a bloody shirt to wave and a grievance to claim, while their operational capabilities will not be affected."
• The Reality-Based Community's Harold Pollack: "I don't understand what the continued fighting can accomplish. Israel will not uproot Hamas. It will not stop every rocket. Whatever rockets are destroyed, whatever soldiers are killed -- these will be fairly readily replaced. 1.5 million Gazans will still be there, still suffering, still enraged. The longer this war continues, the stronger the pressure on Israel will grow. The more difficult things will become for moderate governments that have a common interest in curbing Islamic extremism. A ground operation poses many risks for Israelis and for Palestinians. This is a bad idea."
• Firedoglake's Spencer Ackerman: "Israel should arbitrarily declare victory and get the hell out of Gaza. Hamas will claim victory too. But it was always going to claim victory, and every hour Israel is in Gaza pummeling them without destroying them is an hour that Hamas will be able to claim that more plausibly, just like Hezbollah did in 2006. That's how these types of asymmetric wars work; and also why it's better for the larger party not to launch them. Israel may not want to hear this now, but it's playing on Hamas' strategic terms. Stepping back is the truer 'success' at this point."
• BooMan: "I see extremely low prospects for this invasion resulting in a breakthrough in Israel-Palestine relations. As a general matter, war between two peoples is not conducive to better relations between them. Since I cannot envision a likely scenario in which this invasion will ultimately save more lives than it costs (on either side, or in total), I have no choice but to condemn it as a morally unacceptable decision."

Think Progress' Matthew Yglesias: "Israeli ground forces [are] now moving into Gaza. Whatever you think of the merits of this step, I think we can take it as implicit acknowledgment by the IDF that the past week's worth of air strikes were, though deadly to the people killed or maimed by high explosive and flying rubble, basically useless and undertaken without real strategy. So far, though, the fighting has succeeded in boosting the incumbent Labor/Kadima coalition's poll numbers versus their Likud adversaries. So that's something, I guess."

GAZA II: You Can't Negotiate With A Shark

Conservative bloggers are defending Israel's conduct and blasting critics of the Gaza invasion:

• NRO's Victor Davis Hanson: "It is now clear that the so-called and much praised 'international community,' the hallowed U.N., the revered EU, all pretty much are indifferent to the survival of a democratic Israel, or are actively supportive of its terrorist Hamas enemy. Only the U.S. (for now) stands by a constitutional state in its war against a murderous terrorist clique, with annhilation its aim and religous fascism its creed."
• Power Line's John Hinderaker: "Of all the thousands of 'humanitarians' who have demonstrated against Israel's effort to defend itself, are there any who care that many of the deaths and grievous injuries that have occurred in Gaza were inflicted not by Israel, but in cold blood for political purposes by Hamas? OK, just kidding. It's a rhetorical question, obviously."
• Commentary's Abe Greenwald: "During the next days and weeks of fighting, international sympathies will take an even sharper turn in favor of Gazans. This is unavoidable, and Israel need not concern itself with the criticism that comes its way during operations. It matters not that Israel called innocent Gazans and urged them to leave in advance of the ground fighting or that it facilitated the exit of visitors to Gaza -- the Jewish state might as well write off any hope of earning the world's compassion. But sympathy constitutes the less important half of Israel's PR goal. It is far more important to the country's existence that Israelis preserve -- in fact, reclaim -- their reputation as the most formidable fighting force in the region."
• Robert Stacy McCain: "This war was not caused by any genocidal ambition of the Israelis, but by the genocidal ambition of Hamas. Excuse me for repeating myself: You cannot negotiate with a shark. [...] And, to further repeat myself, the Palestinians in Gaza elected Hamas by a landslide majority. The Gazans fully intended that there should be consequences to their election of genocidal terrorist leaders and their only disappointment is that the consequences are not (yet) what they intended, namely the death of every Jew in Israel."

CO SEN: From School Chief To Senator?

Liberal bloggers were puzzled by Gov. Ritter's decision to appoint Denver schools Superintendent Michael Bennet to fill Salazar's Senate seat:

• The Washington Monthly's Steve Benen: "I talked to a couple of people in Colorado this afternoon, and there's a general sense of 'huh?' in response to this pick. Most notably, many in-state Democrats hoped (and expected) Ritter to pick a more prominent official, with more legislative experience, who knows how to raise money, and would help keep the seat in Democratic hands in the future, as compared to Bennet, who is not well known, has no legislative background, and has never had to raise a war chest. There's also a concern about diversity -- Ritter is replacing a Latino senator with a white guy most in-state voters aren't especially familiar with."
• Yglesias: "I know little about Bennet, but my key education sources say he has a good record on education policy, though obviously a Senator has much more wide-ranging responsibilities. [...] Intuitively, it strikes me as a bit odd to reach for the head of a city agency rather than, say, the mayor of the city in question. But I don't know squat about Colorado politics so maybe there are angles here that I'm missing."
• Open Left's Chris Bowers: "While I am glad that Ken Salazar's Blue Dog younger brother did not receive the appointment, Bennet doesn't seem to be an exciting pick. Also, it is a little disappointing that, with Barack Obama becoming President and Ken Salazar becoming Secretary of Interior, the Senate appears to have gone from six minority members to only four. The Senate really is one of the most retrograde institutions in the entire country."
• BooMan: "I don't think the progressive movement knows enough about Bennet to have strong opinions one way or the other. If there is an early concern it is limited to Bennet's ability to win election to a full-term in 2010."

Other liberal bloggers are strongly opposed to the appointment:

• Daily Kos' Markos Moulitsas: "If Michael Bennet was considered a caretaker appointment, this would make more sense. But it doesn't seem so. Bennet was chosen because he had the right pedigree and connections, not because he brings any relevant accomplishments to the table. Any appointment to an elected position should have, as a minimum, electoral experience (even of the losing variety). Instead, Bennet parlayed three years as schools superintendent into the second-highest elected office in the land. That's a sweet gig if you can get it. [...] Meanwhile, I look forward to a competitive primary in 2010 in the great state of Colorado."
• Open Left's David Sirota: "In terms of politics (ie. ability to get reelected in 2010, ability to lift the statewide ticket in 2010, etc.), Bennet makes no sense for reasons that are undeniable: He's A) never run for any office in his life B) never run for -- or even held by appointment -- a statewide office in Colorado and C) lived in the state of Colorado for barely a decade. [...] Colorado has no dearth of very, very qualified people to be U.S. Senator [...] Looking at this bench, and then selecting a person with almost none of those qualities confirms that what gets rewarded in politics today is not legislative accomplishments nor even political ones -- what counts is money, inside connections, Ivy League pedigree and a Beltway-padded resume."

IL SEN: Should Senate Dems Suck It Up And Seat Burris?

Most liberal bloggers aren't fans of ex-IL AG Roland Burris, whom Blagojevich has chosen to fill IL's vacant Senate seat. However, lefty bloggers believe that Senate Dems don't have sufficient justification to refuse to seat Burris:

• Atrios: "I really think the Senate Dems are going to make themselves look ridiculous if they try to avoid seating Burris. Whatever one thinks of Blago, he's still the governor, and he hasn't even been indicted or impeached. If there's no suggestion that this specific appointment is tainted, then I really don't see what the problem is."
• Balloon Juice's John Cole: "If Blagojevich is so corrupt that he can not appoint an innocent and good man to take the seat, then the Democrats needs to do something about it. He can be impeached. They could have had a special election (something Blago supported, I believe). But sitting around beating our breasts and saying 'he should resign for the good of the state and the country' is not cutting it, and unless and until the Democrats stop pussyfooting around and do something, they should all just shut up and cope. Right now, Blagojevich is by legal standards not guilty of anything, and he is well within his rights to appoint someone to that seat."
• Daily Kos' Trapper John: "The simple facts are that Blago is still Governor, the Illinois constitution still calls for gubernatorial appointment to fill US Senate vacancies, and Roland Burris is constitutionally qualified to sit in the Senate. That should be enough to settle the matter. Moreover -- not that it's all that relevant to the question of whether Burris ought to be seated -- Burris has not been at all implicated or tainted by the Blago investigation, has no more of a history of ties with Blago than does Barack Obama, and is likely to serve for just two years as a placeholder. Finally, refusal to seat Burris will deny Illinois full Senate representation for months, as it's now clear that Blago isn't resigning anytime soon, and the Illinois ledge doesn't appear ready to move on a special election bill. In other words, there's not much of a legal argument to avoid seating Burris, and not a lot in the way of ethical grounds, either."

IL SEN II: Now Senate Dems Have A Spine?

Some liberal bloggers are angry that Senate Dems are taking a harder stand against Burris than they have against other politicians:

• Open Left's Chris Bowers: "It is more than a little worrying that the only moment when Senate Democrats decide to take the gloves off is to block a Democrat who was legally appointed to the Senate from being seated. Kind of makes you think that Senate Democrats are more willing to stand up to other Democrats than they are to Republicans."
• Firedoglake's Jane Hamsher: "How will it look if the Sergent at Arms bars Burris from the Senate floor, but did nothing to [ex-WH Counsel] Harriet Miers and [ex-WH Dep. CoS] Karl Rove when they defied Senate subpoenas? How will it look if they refuse to accept Burris into the Democratic Caucus after having accepted [CT Sen.] Joe Lieberman, who spent years enabling Bush administration crime and corruption as Chairman of the Homeland Security Committee? How does it look to be screaming about Burris's 'taint' when they did nothing for decades about [AK Sen.] Ted Stevens, and gave him a standing ovation even after he'd been convicted? Or for that matter, their inaction with regard to [ID Sen.] Larry Craig? How does it look now that Reid is manipulating Senate procedure to exclude Burris, but simply shrugged his shoulders over [SCOTUS Justice] Samuel Alito, warrantless wiretapping and the Military Commissions Act?"

Conservative blogger Pejman Yousefzadeh is giddy: "[T]his merits the popping and munching of copious amounts of popcorn. Too bad Illinois Democrats didn't change the law and mandate a special election when they had the chance to, eh? They could have saved everyone a lot of headaches -- most especially, members of their own party in Washington, DC."

RICHARDSON: Another Dem Scandal?

Conservative bloggers are buzzing about the news that NM Gov Bill Richardson has withdrawn his nomination to be Obama's Commerce Sec.:

• Glenn Reynolds: "Boy, with this, Blagojevich, etc., this Obama 'honeymoon' is looking kinda rocky."
• Michelle Malkin: "Looks like the chickens of Bill Richardson's pay-to-play scandal have come home to roost. Let it be the first of many ethics-tainted Obama nominations to go down in flames. [...] Who's next? Perhaps the Richardson bungle will embolden Republicans for a fight over [ex-Deputy AG] Eric Holder. Also on the withdrawal wish list: Crooked [ex-EPA Admin.] Carol Browner."
• Hinderaker: "[I]t is safe to say that the Democrats' image as the 'culture of corruption' party continues to grow."
• NRO's Jim Geraghty: "I'm sure we'll hear from Obama administration spokespeople that we should not expect ethical problems from the crew they're bringing in; all of their nominees have been vetted. But then again...so was Richardson, right?"
• Hot Air's Ed Morrissey: "Thus far, the Obama transition looks pretty shaky. [Incoming WH CoS] Rahm Emanuel may or may not have connections to the unfolding scandal in Illinois, and now Richardson won't even bother with a confirmation hearing. [...O]ne has to wonder what kind of vetting the Obama transition team has done with the marquee selections, and how badly they'll bungle the rest."
• Commentary's Jennifer Rubin: "It is the Obama team's first significant misstep (well, aside from directing a series of conversations with the known-to-be under-investiagtion Blago and not imploring fellow Democrats in Illinois to pass a bill for a special Senate election). With the advent of this incident and of Blago-gate, it is fair to ask whether the Chicago crowd isn't too relaxed about the appearance of corruption. Have they gotten so used to the the stench of impropriety and the possibility of federal investigation that the alarm bells no longer sound? The Obama players are from Chicago, but they're not in Chicago any longer."

RICHARDSON II: Gone, Billy, Gone

Liberal bloggers had varied reactions to the news that Richardson will not be Commerce Sec.:

• BooMan: "I have to say that I heard rumblings both during the primaries and during the vetting for potential vice-presidential picks that Bill Richardson had too many dubious business connections and would prove an embarrassment if he wound up on the ticket. He is, of course, innocent until proven guilty, but this hardly comes a surprise to me. I applaud Richardson for doing what Governor Blagojevich refused to do, which is putting the party and the country before his own personal ambition."
• TalkLeft's Big Tent Democrat: "I never cared for Richardson myself so no tears shed from me. It SHOULD explain to some observers why the smart political move for Dems is to separate themselves from corrupt pols as much as possible -- see Blago/Burris. But it probably won't."
• MyDD's Transplanted Texan: "So much for no drama."

Benen doesn't think Richardon's decision will cause a major headache for Obama: "[D]oes any of this matter? I rather doubt it. Every incoming president seems to have one cabinet nominee run into trouble -- Linda Chavez, Zoe Baird, and John Tower are the three most recent examples -- and at least Richardson is bowing out before Congress returns and well in advance of confirmation hearings. [...] I suppose the RNC and Fox News will try to raise a fuss, but in general, I suspect most of the political world won't care much at all. It's no doubt annoying to the transition office -- some vetters will get a stern talking to -- but in the bigger picture, Richardson's withdrawal seems like little more than a speedbump."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Can Israel Really Remove Hamas?

The Atlantic's Jeffrey Goldberg:

"'Can Israel break the will of Hamas?' a reader asks. The answer: I don't think so. Maybe momentarily. But Hamas will find ways to regain its 'honor.' Usually, this means exploding buses. The even deeper question: Can Israel force the overthrow of the Hamas government in Gaza? I'm not sure why Israel would want to -- it won't be replaced by the Palestinian Authority, but instead by a situation similar to Somalia -- but I think this is impossible, for the moment. The ideal situation, of course, is that the people of Gaza, realizing that Hamas has delivered them hardship, overthrow their government. But Hamas also alleviates the hardship it creates. The group has thoroughly penetrated the social fabric of Gaza. Its schools, orphanages, hospitals and soup kitchens serve the entire population. Hamas is not al-Qaeda. It delivers services, and because it delivers services, the population of Gaza depends on Hamas. I don't see the removal of Hamas as a near-term possibility."

LEST WE FORGET: World Of Warcraft Vs. My Girlfriend

McSweeney's Tyler Curry (h/t Ta-Nehisi Coates):

"Ashley, you have never been willing to accommodate my World of Warcraft needs, or even to compromise the slightest bit. Last month, when your mother was in a car accident, you called and not only demanded I drive you to the hospital but insisted I stay there to provide 'emotional support' -- despite knowing full well that I had booked that evening off to fight forest trolls in Zul'Aman. When I suggested you take a cab and that I join you in three to four hours, you unleashed a string of expletives that even my therapist found disturbing. You also refused to wait until we finished off the eagle boss, the one who drops the helm piece I have been trying to get for months.

For the record, she turned out fine anyway. Many paraplegics lead rich and rewarding lives.

Also, what you stumbled upon me doing with that Level 64 blood elf in the back room of the Silvermoon City Inn was neither 'sick and perverted' nor 'cheating on you.' We were role-playing. That I called you by her character's name later that evening was just a weird coincidence. I do not wish your body looked like that. You and I both know that it's physically impossible for humans to have those proportions, at least while retaining all of their internal organs."

Posted by Ian Faerstein at 03:11 AM

Copyright 2007 by National Journal Group Inc.
The Watergate · 600 New Hampshire Ave., NW
Washington, DC 20037
202-739-8400 · fax 202-833-8069
NationalJournal.com is an Atlantic Media publication.