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 January 15, 2009 01:00 PM