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 January 13, 2009 12:50 PM