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 January 23, 2009 01:30 PM