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 January 16, 2009 01:26 PM