January 05, 2009

1/5: 2009, Off To A Rocky Start

Unsurprisingly, liberal and conservative bloggers disagree about the merits of the Israeli invasion of Gaza. Most lefty bloggers think the military operation will produce further bloodshed while doing nothing to stop terrorism or remove Hamas. Righty bloggers think the operation is necessary and justified, and they're blasting those who have criticized it.

Bloggers are also discussing the latest developments concerning the vacant U.S. Senate seats. Many liberal bloggers reacted negatively to the news that CO Gov Bill Ritter has appointed Denver school chief Michael Bennet to fill the Senate seat being vacated by incoming Interior Sec. Ken Salazar. These lefty bloggers are concerned about Bennet's lack of electoral experience and question his ability to win re-election in 2010. Conservative bloggers, meanwhile, are licking their chops in anticipation of a possible showdown between Dem Senators and ex-IL AG Roland Burris, whom disgraced IL Gov. Rod Blagojevich has appointed to fill Barack Obama's vacant Senate seat.

GAZA: What Will This Accomplish?

Many liberal bloggers are condemning the Israeli invasion of Gaza:

• TAPPED's Tim Fernholz: "This operation will do nothing to stop terrorism worldwide, and in fact it will likely exacerbate the problems of terrorism around the world in the near- and long-term, as once again terrorist groups have a bloody shirt to wave and a grievance to claim, while their operational capabilities will not be affected."
• The Reality-Based Community's Harold Pollack: "I don't understand what the continued fighting can accomplish. Israel will not uproot Hamas. It will not stop every rocket. Whatever rockets are destroyed, whatever soldiers are killed -- these will be fairly readily replaced. 1.5 million Gazans will still be there, still suffering, still enraged. The longer this war continues, the stronger the pressure on Israel will grow. The more difficult things will become for moderate governments that have a common interest in curbing Islamic extremism. A ground operation poses many risks for Israelis and for Palestinians. This is a bad idea."
• Firedoglake's Spencer Ackerman: "Israel should arbitrarily declare victory and get the hell out of Gaza. Hamas will claim victory too. But it was always going to claim victory, and every hour Israel is in Gaza pummeling them without destroying them is an hour that Hamas will be able to claim that more plausibly, just like Hezbollah did in 2006. That's how these types of asymmetric wars work; and also why it's better for the larger party not to launch them. Israel may not want to hear this now, but it's playing on Hamas' strategic terms. Stepping back is the truer 'success' at this point."
• BooMan: "I see extremely low prospects for this invasion resulting in a breakthrough in Israel-Palestine relations. As a general matter, war between two peoples is not conducive to better relations between them. Since I cannot envision a likely scenario in which this invasion will ultimately save more lives than it costs (on either side, or in total), I have no choice but to condemn it as a morally unacceptable decision."

Think Progress' Matthew Yglesias: "Israeli ground forces [are] now moving into Gaza. Whatever you think of the merits of this step, I think we can take it as implicit acknowledgment by the IDF that the past week's worth of air strikes were, though deadly to the people killed or maimed by high explosive and flying rubble, basically useless and undertaken without real strategy. So far, though, the fighting has succeeded in boosting the incumbent Labor/Kadima coalition's poll numbers versus their Likud adversaries. So that's something, I guess."

GAZA II: You Can't Negotiate With A Shark

Conservative bloggers are defending Israel's conduct and blasting critics of the Gaza invasion:

• NRO's Victor Davis Hanson: "It is now clear that the so-called and much praised 'international community,' the hallowed U.N., the revered EU, all pretty much are indifferent to the survival of a democratic Israel, or are actively supportive of its terrorist Hamas enemy. Only the U.S. (for now) stands by a constitutional state in its war against a murderous terrorist clique, with annhilation its aim and religous fascism its creed."
• Power Line's John Hinderaker: "Of all the thousands of 'humanitarians' who have demonstrated against Israel's effort to defend itself, are there any who care that many of the deaths and grievous injuries that have occurred in Gaza were inflicted not by Israel, but in cold blood for political purposes by Hamas? OK, just kidding. It's a rhetorical question, obviously."
• Commentary's Abe Greenwald: "During the next days and weeks of fighting, international sympathies will take an even sharper turn in favor of Gazans. This is unavoidable, and Israel need not concern itself with the criticism that comes its way during operations. It matters not that Israel called innocent Gazans and urged them to leave in advance of the ground fighting or that it facilitated the exit of visitors to Gaza -- the Jewish state might as well write off any hope of earning the world's compassion. But sympathy constitutes the less important half of Israel's PR goal. It is far more important to the country's existence that Israelis preserve -- in fact, reclaim -- their reputation as the most formidable fighting force in the region."
• Robert Stacy McCain: "This war was not caused by any genocidal ambition of the Israelis, but by the genocidal ambition of Hamas. Excuse me for repeating myself: You cannot negotiate with a shark. [...] And, to further repeat myself, the Palestinians in Gaza elected Hamas by a landslide majority. The Gazans fully intended that there should be consequences to their election of genocidal terrorist leaders and their only disappointment is that the consequences are not (yet) what they intended, namely the death of every Jew in Israel."

CO SEN: From School Chief To Senator?

Liberal bloggers were puzzled by Gov. Ritter's decision to appoint Denver schools Superintendent Michael Bennet to fill Salazar's Senate seat:

• The Washington Monthly's Steve Benen: "I talked to a couple of people in Colorado this afternoon, and there's a general sense of 'huh?' in response to this pick. Most notably, many in-state Democrats hoped (and expected) Ritter to pick a more prominent official, with more legislative experience, who knows how to raise money, and would help keep the seat in Democratic hands in the future, as compared to Bennet, who is not well known, has no legislative background, and has never had to raise a war chest. There's also a concern about diversity -- Ritter is replacing a Latino senator with a white guy most in-state voters aren't especially familiar with."
• Yglesias: "I know little about Bennet, but my key education sources say he has a good record on education policy, though obviously a Senator has much more wide-ranging responsibilities. [...] Intuitively, it strikes me as a bit odd to reach for the head of a city agency rather than, say, the mayor of the city in question. But I don't know squat about Colorado politics so maybe there are angles here that I'm missing."
• Open Left's Chris Bowers: "While I am glad that Ken Salazar's Blue Dog younger brother did not receive the appointment, Bennet doesn't seem to be an exciting pick. Also, it is a little disappointing that, with Barack Obama becoming President and Ken Salazar becoming Secretary of Interior, the Senate appears to have gone from six minority members to only four. The Senate really is one of the most retrograde institutions in the entire country."
• BooMan: "I don't think the progressive movement knows enough about Bennet to have strong opinions one way or the other. If there is an early concern it is limited to Bennet's ability to win election to a full-term in 2010."

Other liberal bloggers are strongly opposed to the appointment:

• Daily Kos' Markos Moulitsas: "If Michael Bennet was considered a caretaker appointment, this would make more sense. But it doesn't seem so. Bennet was chosen because he had the right pedigree and connections, not because he brings any relevant accomplishments to the table. Any appointment to an elected position should have, as a minimum, electoral experience (even of the losing variety). Instead, Bennet parlayed three years as schools superintendent into the second-highest elected office in the land. That's a sweet gig if you can get it. [...] Meanwhile, I look forward to a competitive primary in 2010 in the great state of Colorado."
• Open Left's David Sirota: "In terms of politics (ie. ability to get reelected in 2010, ability to lift the statewide ticket in 2010, etc.), Bennet makes no sense for reasons that are undeniable: He's A) never run for any office in his life B) never run for -- or even held by appointment -- a statewide office in Colorado and C) lived in the state of Colorado for barely a decade. [...] Colorado has no dearth of very, very qualified people to be U.S. Senator [...] Looking at this bench, and then selecting a person with almost none of those qualities confirms that what gets rewarded in politics today is not legislative accomplishments nor even political ones -- what counts is money, inside connections, Ivy League pedigree and a Beltway-padded resume."

IL SEN: Should Senate Dems Suck It Up And Seat Burris?

Most liberal bloggers aren't fans of ex-IL AG Roland Burris, whom Blagojevich has chosen to fill IL's vacant Senate seat. However, lefty bloggers believe that Senate Dems don't have sufficient justification to refuse to seat Burris:

• Atrios: "I really think the Senate Dems are going to make themselves look ridiculous if they try to avoid seating Burris. Whatever one thinks of Blago, he's still the governor, and he hasn't even been indicted or impeached. If there's no suggestion that this specific appointment is tainted, then I really don't see what the problem is."
• Balloon Juice's John Cole: "If Blagojevich is so corrupt that he can not appoint an innocent and good man to take the seat, then the Democrats needs to do something about it. He can be impeached. They could have had a special election (something Blago supported, I believe). But sitting around beating our breasts and saying 'he should resign for the good of the state and the country' is not cutting it, and unless and until the Democrats stop pussyfooting around and do something, they should all just shut up and cope. Right now, Blagojevich is by legal standards not guilty of anything, and he is well within his rights to appoint someone to that seat."
• Daily Kos' Trapper John: "The simple facts are that Blago is still Governor, the Illinois constitution still calls for gubernatorial appointment to fill US Senate vacancies, and Roland Burris is constitutionally qualified to sit in the Senate. That should be enough to settle the matter. Moreover -- not that it's all that relevant to the question of whether Burris ought to be seated -- Burris has not been at all implicated or tainted by the Blago investigation, has no more of a history of ties with Blago than does Barack Obama, and is likely to serve for just two years as a placeholder. Finally, refusal to seat Burris will deny Illinois full Senate representation for months, as it's now clear that Blago isn't resigning anytime soon, and the Illinois ledge doesn't appear ready to move on a special election bill. In other words, there's not much of a legal argument to avoid seating Burris, and not a lot in the way of ethical grounds, either."

IL SEN II: Now Senate Dems Have A Spine?

Some liberal bloggers are angry that Senate Dems are taking a harder stand against Burris than they have against other politicians:

• Open Left's Chris Bowers: "It is more than a little worrying that the only moment when Senate Democrats decide to take the gloves off is to block a Democrat who was legally appointed to the Senate from being seated. Kind of makes you think that Senate Democrats are more willing to stand up to other Democrats than they are to Republicans."
• Firedoglake's Jane Hamsher: "How will it look if the Sergent at Arms bars Burris from the Senate floor, but did nothing to [ex-WH Counsel] Harriet Miers and [ex-WH Dep. CoS] Karl Rove when they defied Senate subpoenas? How will it look if they refuse to accept Burris into the Democratic Caucus after having accepted [CT Sen.] Joe Lieberman, who spent years enabling Bush administration crime and corruption as Chairman of the Homeland Security Committee? How does it look to be screaming about Burris's 'taint' when they did nothing for decades about [AK Sen.] Ted Stevens, and gave him a standing ovation even after he'd been convicted? Or for that matter, their inaction with regard to [ID Sen.] Larry Craig? How does it look now that Reid is manipulating Senate procedure to exclude Burris, but simply shrugged his shoulders over [SCOTUS Justice] Samuel Alito, warrantless wiretapping and the Military Commissions Act?"

Conservative blogger Pejman Yousefzadeh is giddy: "[T]his merits the popping and munching of copious amounts of popcorn. Too bad Illinois Democrats didn't change the law and mandate a special election when they had the chance to, eh? They could have saved everyone a lot of headaches -- most especially, members of their own party in Washington, DC."

RICHARDSON: Another Dem Scandal?

Conservative bloggers are buzzing about the news that NM Gov Bill Richardson has withdrawn his nomination to be Obama's Commerce Sec.:

• Glenn Reynolds: "Boy, with this, Blagojevich, etc., this Obama 'honeymoon' is looking kinda rocky."
• Michelle Malkin: "Looks like the chickens of Bill Richardson's pay-to-play scandal have come home to roost. Let it be the first of many ethics-tainted Obama nominations to go down in flames. [...] Who's next? Perhaps the Richardson bungle will embolden Republicans for a fight over [ex-Deputy AG] Eric Holder. Also on the withdrawal wish list: Crooked [ex-EPA Admin.] Carol Browner."
• Hinderaker: "[I]t is safe to say that the Democrats' image as the 'culture of corruption' party continues to grow."
• NRO's Jim Geraghty: "I'm sure we'll hear from Obama administration spokespeople that we should not expect ethical problems from the crew they're bringing in; all of their nominees have been vetted. But then again...so was Richardson, right?"
• Hot Air's Ed Morrissey: "Thus far, the Obama transition looks pretty shaky. [Incoming WH CoS] Rahm Emanuel may or may not have connections to the unfolding scandal in Illinois, and now Richardson won't even bother with a confirmation hearing. [...O]ne has to wonder what kind of vetting the Obama transition team has done with the marquee selections, and how badly they'll bungle the rest."
• Commentary's Jennifer Rubin: "It is the Obama team's first significant misstep (well, aside from directing a series of conversations with the known-to-be under-investiagtion Blago and not imploring fellow Democrats in Illinois to pass a bill for a special Senate election). With the advent of this incident and of Blago-gate, it is fair to ask whether the Chicago crowd isn't too relaxed about the appearance of corruption. Have they gotten so used to the the stench of impropriety and the possibility of federal investigation that the alarm bells no longer sound? The Obama players are from Chicago, but they're not in Chicago any longer."

RICHARDSON II: Gone, Billy, Gone

Liberal bloggers had varied reactions to the news that Richardson will not be Commerce Sec.:

• BooMan: "I have to say that I heard rumblings both during the primaries and during the vetting for potential vice-presidential picks that Bill Richardson had too many dubious business connections and would prove an embarrassment if he wound up on the ticket. He is, of course, innocent until proven guilty, but this hardly comes a surprise to me. I applaud Richardson for doing what Governor Blagojevich refused to do, which is putting the party and the country before his own personal ambition."
• TalkLeft's Big Tent Democrat: "I never cared for Richardson myself so no tears shed from me. It SHOULD explain to some observers why the smart political move for Dems is to separate themselves from corrupt pols as much as possible -- see Blago/Burris. But it probably won't."
• MyDD's Transplanted Texan: "So much for no drama."

Benen doesn't think Richardon's decision will cause a major headache for Obama: "[D]oes any of this matter? I rather doubt it. Every incoming president seems to have one cabinet nominee run into trouble -- Linda Chavez, Zoe Baird, and John Tower are the three most recent examples -- and at least Richardson is bowing out before Congress returns and well in advance of confirmation hearings. [...] I suppose the RNC and Fox News will try to raise a fuss, but in general, I suspect most of the political world won't care much at all. It's no doubt annoying to the transition office -- some vetters will get a stern talking to -- but in the bigger picture, Richardson's withdrawal seems like little more than a speedbump."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Can Israel Really Remove Hamas?

The Atlantic's Jeffrey Goldberg:

"'Can Israel break the will of Hamas?' a reader asks. The answer: I don't think so. Maybe momentarily. But Hamas will find ways to regain its 'honor.' Usually, this means exploding buses. The even deeper question: Can Israel force the overthrow of the Hamas government in Gaza? I'm not sure why Israel would want to -- it won't be replaced by the Palestinian Authority, but instead by a situation similar to Somalia -- but I think this is impossible, for the moment. The ideal situation, of course, is that the people of Gaza, realizing that Hamas has delivered them hardship, overthrow their government. But Hamas also alleviates the hardship it creates. The group has thoroughly penetrated the social fabric of Gaza. Its schools, orphanages, hospitals and soup kitchens serve the entire population. Hamas is not al-Qaeda. It delivers services, and because it delivers services, the population of Gaza depends on Hamas. I don't see the removal of Hamas as a near-term possibility."

LEST WE FORGET: World Of Warcraft Vs. My Girlfriend

McSweeney's Tyler Curry (h/t Ta-Nehisi Coates):

"Ashley, you have never been willing to accommodate my World of Warcraft needs, or even to compromise the slightest bit. Last month, when your mother was in a car accident, you called and not only demanded I drive you to the hospital but insisted I stay there to provide 'emotional support' -- despite knowing full well that I had booked that evening off to fight forest trolls in Zul'Aman. When I suggested you take a cab and that I join you in three to four hours, you unleashed a string of expletives that even my therapist found disturbing. You also refused to wait until we finished off the eagle boss, the one who drops the helm piece I have been trying to get for months.

For the record, she turned out fine anyway. Many paraplegics lead rich and rewarding lives.

Also, what you stumbled upon me doing with that Level 64 blood elf in the back room of the Silvermoon City Inn was neither 'sick and perverted' nor 'cheating on you.' We were role-playing. That I called you by her character's name later that evening was just a weird coincidence. I do not wish your body looked like that. You and I both know that it's physically impossible for humans to have those proportions, at least while retaining all of their internal organs."

Posted by Ian Faerstein at January 5, 2009 03:11 AM