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 January 12, 2009 01:00 PM