January 06, 2009

1/6: Leon At Langley?

Although liberal bloggers don't exactly view ex-WH CoS Leon Panetta as a progressive champion, they're nevertheless pleased that he's been tapped by Pres.-elect Barack Obama to become the next CIA Director. Why? Because Panetta is an outspoken opponent of torture. After it was reported in November that ex-National Counterrorism Center head John Brennan was the leading candidate to become CIA Director, the netroots complained vociferously, as they didn't want anyone associated with the Bush admin.'s controversial interrogation programs to lead the CIA. Now lefty bloggers are relieved that Panetta is the choice. While the netroots may not love everything about Panetta's record, they believe that his appointment signifies a much-needed departure from George W. Bush's policies. As Spencer Ackerman writes: "Given the worries about whether John Brennan might have been too soft on torture...no one can have that fear about Panetta."

Conservative bloggers, on the other hand, are blasting the appointment. They believe that Panetta is dangerously unprepared to lead the CIA because he has "no experience whatsoever" in intelligence-gathering. Jim Geraghty describes the appointment "the first major-league screw-up on the part of the Obama Administration" and issues an ominous warning: "If there is a terror attack on American soil during Panetta's watch, it will set off a firestorm of criticism that will make the 9/11 Commission hearings look like a tea party."

PANETTA: A Rejection Of Torture?

Liberal bloggers are praising Obama's apparent decision to tap Panetta as CIA Director, primarily because of Panetta's outspoken opposition to torture:

• TalkLeft's Big Tent Democrat: "Good for Obama for not letting the CIA's torture apologists pressure him into naming one of their own. The President-Elect [has made] it clear that torture will not be tolerated in his administration."
• Firedoglake's Ackerman: "Given the worries about whether John Brennan might have been too soft on torture -- put aside the merits of that contention for a moment -- no one can have that fear about Panetta."
• BooMan: "Panetta is close to a perfect pick if you were going to choose someone from outside the Intelligence Community. And with all due regard for the Intelligence Community's professionalism, they need a fresh, respected face to present to the country and the world. Panetta has been an outspoken opponent of torture and that is exactly what we deserve."
• Daily Kos' mcjoan: "This appointment is a bit out of left field, but it is encouraging in several ways: Obama wasn't swayed by the intelligence community's all-out effort to put a current CIA type into the position -- an effort aimed at maintaining and/or justifying Bush policies, including torture. Instead, Obama went for someone with proven management skills, something that it desperately needed in the position. But the best news in all of this -- Leon Panetta is a much of a departure from torture as you could want."
• Mother Jones' David Corn: "A CIA director who has denounced torture, advocated intelligence cuts, and backed greater congressional control of covert operations -- that would be....different. This appointment certainly has the potential to spark opposition from inside and outside the agency. But if Panetta manages to make it to Langley without much fuss, that would indeed signal real change in Washington."
• Salon's Glenn Greenwald: "Panetta may have many flaws -- who doesn't after years and years in Washington? -- but Obama's apparent determination to avoid anyone 'tainted' by the CIA's last eight years is commendable."
• Atrios: "I don't really have any opinions about Panetta...but I'm glad Obama has chosen someone to head the CIA who wasn't involved with torturing and driving inmates insane."

The Atlantic's Andrew Sullivan also praises the pick: "[Panetta is] way, way better than Brennan, and, significantly, detached from the torture regime and its apparatus in a way that anyone involved in the CIA in the last eight years would not be. [...T]his appointment and Johnsen's are extremely encouraging for the restoration of Constitutional order after the Bush-Cheney protectorate."

PANETTA II: Stop Whining, DiFi

Liberal bloggers are blasting CA Sen. Dianne Feinstein -- the incoming Chair of the Senate Intelligence Cmte -- after she criticized the Panetta appointment:

• Firedoglake's Attaturk: "Feinstein had no problem voting for pro-torture Attorney General Mike Mukaskey and pro-torture CIA head Porter Goss and both have by and large bought Bush's bullshit for 8 years running, but heaven forbid someone who will not run the CIA like a '24' episode be appointed."
• digby: "Dianne Feinstein is having a little public fit because she wasn't consulted about Panetta and had instructed the president-elect that he had to choose an 'intelligence professional.' Well, excuse me. When did Difi get a veto on cabinet appointments? The fact is that DiFi is actually implicated in the torture regime and should just shut up on this. Panetta is a royal pain in the ass in many ways, but he's not a torture apologist, he's not implicated in it and he's reputed to be a good manager. I see no reason why the position has to be chosen from among the CIA ranks just because Porter Goss was a miserable failure or the CIA rank and file are having a hissy."
• Balloon Juice's John Cole: "Feinstein, who had no problem voting yea for Porter Goss, [ex-CIA Dir.] George Tenet, and [ex-CIA Dir.] Michael Hayden, as well as Mike Mukasey, [FBI Dir.] Robert Mueller, and [ex-Def. Sec.] Donald Rumsfeld, has deftly just knee-capped her own party's nominee for CIA, and is now in the position of doing an about face and looking like a complete and total hack or denying the incoming President his selection, something she never did to any of Bush's choices. Way to be, DiFi."
• Greenwald: "Few things could reflect better on Panetta's selection than the fact that Feinstein and [WV Sen. Jay] Rockefeller -- two of the most Bush-enabling Senators -- are unhappy with it."
• TPM's Josh Marshall: "I'm not certain what I think about [Panetta's] appointment yet. But on first blush, the nature of the opposition makes me more inclined to support it."

AMERICAblog's John Aravosis, while no fan of Feinstein, is nevertheless concerned about her public criticism of the Panetta appointment: "Feinstein is the incoming chairwoman of the Senate Intelligence Committee. She wasn't notified of Obama's choice. That's rather unheard of. She has to oversee the CIA director's nomination hearing. You absolutely positively want her on board. You don't just spring the nomination on her in the press. Again, the fact that she's ticked off, going public, and expressing disapproval of the choice is a big big deal. As is Rockefeller's public criticism, as the outgoing chair of the Senate Intell Committtee and all the gravitas that entails. [...] You can debate the merits of whether Feinstein and Rockefeller are to blame for going public, or whether Obama is to blame for provoking them, but the public criticism of the nominee by the top two Senate Democratic experts on intelligence matters gives cover to any Republican, Democrat or Independent interested in defeating this nomination."

PANETTA III: This Is Going To Make It Harder For Some GOPers To Sleep At Night

Most conservative bloggers are harshly criticizing Obama's decision to tap Panetta as CIA Director, arguing that he lacks the relevant experience:

• Michelle Malkin: "Another day, another clueless [Bill] Clinton crony named to a top job for which he has no experience. The unqualified fish rots from the head down, after all. [...This is] damned scary."
• NRO's Geraghty: "[I]t appears the nomination of Leon Panetta to head the Central Intelligence Agency is the first major-league screw-up on the part of the Obama Administration. [...] If there is a terror attack on American soil during Panetta's watch, it will set off a firestorm of criticism that will make the 9/11 Commission hearings look like a tea party."
• RedState's Francis Cianfrocca: "We shouldn't be surprised that a man like Obama would pick a man like Panetta for a critically-important job that he isn't qualified to do."
• Ann Althouse: "He's 70. A 70-year-old man with no background will lead the hunt for al Qaeda."
• Hot Air's Ed Morrissey: "Barack Obama sent a message with the selection of [IL Rep.] Rahm Emanuel as his chief of staff, but apparently didn't think enough people understood it. He sent a stronger message yesterday with his choice of Leon Panetta for Director of CIA, and this time, it's unmistakable. Political considerations will trump competence and experience, even in the most critical roles Obama has to fill."
• RedState's Pejman Yousefzadeh: "Panetta's 'intelligence expertise and qualifications' are nearly nonexistent. To be sure, he was Chief of Staff to President Clinton and dealt with intelligence matters but it's one thing to serve as a consumer of intelligence and quite another to serve as a producer. Panetta has no experience whatsoever being a producer of intelligence and does not know how to be the head of an organization responsible for producing intelligence."
• Power Line's John Hinderaker: "I have nothing in particular against Leon Panetta, who seems to be a classic Clintonite pragmatist. That said, he has no evident qualification to be CIA Director other than general administrative ability. So why has Barack Obama nominated him for the post? [...] Democrats have committed themselves, for political reasons, to harsh criticisms of these and other aspects of the Bush administration's anti-terror campaign. So Obama had to abandon Brennan's nomination, and he is now stuck with someone who not only had nothing to do with the Bush administration's highly successful policies, but was adamantly opposed to them. Panetta fits the necessary political profile, so he will be CIA Director even though he has no experience in intelligence. Thus do political considerations sometimes constrain a President's ability to put the right people in executive posts."

PANETTA IV: A Few Dissenters On The Right

A few conservative bloggers are expressing mild support for the choice:

• NRO's Michael Ledeen: "I always liked Panetta. He served in the Army and is openly proud of it. He seems to be a good lawyer (oxymoronic though it may seem). He's a good manager. And he's going to watch Obama's back at a place that's full of stilettos and a track record for attempted presidential assassination second to none. [...] The self-proclaimed cognoscenti will deride his lack of 'spycraft,' and he's never worked in the intel bureaucracy or, for that matter, in foreign policy or national security. But he's been chief of staff, which involved all that stuff. I think it's a smart move."
• Power Line's Paul Mirengoff: "My first reaction to Barack Obama's selection of Leon Panetta as CIA director was puzzlement. After all, Panetta has no real background in intelligence gathering or analysis. But on reflection, Obama's decision may make sense on the merits. The CIA's primary importance these days arguably has less to do with intelligence gathering or analysis than with political gamesmanship. [...] In this context, it is understandable that, in selecting a CIA director, Obama would place a higher premium on political acumen than on background in intelligence. [...] It may, in addition, reflect the plausible view that one need not have experience in the field of intelligence to run an agency that does an effective job of gathering and assessing intelligence."

JOHNSEN: Warming The Netroots' Hearts

Liberal bloggers are praising Obama's decision to tap Indiana Univ. law prof. Dawn Johnsen as Assistant AG for the Office of Legal Counsel:

• Greenwald: "[T]his appointment may be Obama's best yet, perhaps by far."
• digby: "This is an excellent day for those who believe in presidential adherence to the rule of law -- the Obama team has chosen an absolutely first rate person to bring back 'honor and integrity' to the Office of Legal Council. [...] There have been few experts in the field of presidential authority who have been more outspoken and critical of the Bush administration's lawless regime. [Obama] literally couldn't have chosen anyone better to signal an abrupt change with the past."
• Obsidian Wings' hilzoy: "[Johnsen's] general advocacy of transparency is really heartening, as is her seriousness about the need for OLC to check the President, and her commitment to the rule of law. It's also worth noting that she is pretty scathing about many of the Bush administration's legal theories and opinions, including its account of the unitary executive and the Commander-in-Chief powers."
• The Washington Monthly's Steve Benen: "This is most definitely change I can believe in."

OBAMA: Is There Such A Thing As Too Much Bipartisanship?

Liberal bloggers were upset to learn that Obama and congressional Dems are crafting a $300B tax cut in an effort to win GOP support for their economic stimulus package:

• Marshall: "It would be far better on many counts to bring in substantial Republican support for this bill. [...] But Obama seems to be telegraphing that to a significant degree the fundamental structure of the legislation is being built around accommodating the concerns of Republicans -- members of a political party that are about as unpopular and weak as you can get at the moment. And that sounds a lot like he's negotiating with himself, something that will embolden opposition and invite Republicans to up the ante even further."
• hilzoy: "According to the WSJ, one reason for relying so heavily on tax cuts is that 'it may make it easier to win over Republicans who have stressed that any initiative should rely more heavily on tax cuts rather than spending.' To which I can only say: screw them. Their economic philosophy got us into this mess; we should not let them force us to use ineffective means to get out of it. If the Democrats can't keep enough of their Senators in line to get this passed, and corral a couple of Republicans, then we're in worse shape than I imagine. I'd really rather try to do it right before preemptively conceding to the Mitch McConnells of the world."
• dday: "[T]he worst part of all of this is the fact that it appears the Obama team looks at tax cuts as a way to get Republicans on board. Here's the deal: there are only two Republicans in America, at most, that need to be 'on board' with something like this, and if a new President and a Democratic Senate can't flip them, I don't know why they even try anymore. This looks like an example of a bias that the Obama team has had for a while, that everything has to be bipartisan and attract the support of both parties, because only then can it be legitimate."
• Firedoglake's Ian Welsh: "In order to get those 80 [Senate] votes, Obama has pre-compromised his stimulus bill, which will define the first year of his administration more than anything else, loading it up with 310 billion of tax cuts, making up 40% of the total. (I will also note that he and his team seem to have flunked negotiation 101, because you don't pre-compromise if you know how to negotiate, you come out with the most liberal bill possible, even if that's not what you want, so you can bargain towards the bill you want. This bill will be watered down even further from it's already pre-compromised state)."

On the right side of the blogosphere, Hinderaker is cheered by the news: "[C]onservatives should be happy that the Democrats are willing to cut taxes at all. $300 billion, if it passes, will provide more near-term relief than either of the Bush tax cuts. And a considerable portion of the proposed cuts will go to companies, which should benefit the economy much more than additional federal spending. [...] Some Republicans are wary of Obama's tax cut proposal, and it's obviously important to see the details before trying to pass judgment. For now, though, Obama's support for major tax cuts can only be seen as one more pleasant surprise from the incoming administration."

The Next Right's Jon Henke thinks GOPers should be wary about supporting the Dem stimulus bill: "If Obama passes the perfect progressive stimulus bill without much Republican help, he owns the spending, the deficits, the tax hikes and all of the pain that comes with it. Republicans will be happy to run against those problems in 2010 and 2012. But if Obama buys significant Republican support for his bill, Republicans will own the deficits, tax hikes and intervention, as well. The stimulus bill will be for Republicans what the Iraq war was for Democrats -- a policy they first supported, then regretted, then tripped over themselves to explain. The 'they were for it before they were against it' ads would be inevitable and devastating. [...] Obama doesn't want bipartisan support, so much as he wants political immunization. In this case, unity and bipartisanship = lashing the Republicans to the mast of Government."

RNC CHAIR: Who Will Save The GOP?

Several conservative bloggers are offering their thoughts about yesterday's RNC Chair debate:

• Townhall's Amanda Carpenter: "The unwillingness on behalf of the candidates to directly attack current RNC Chairman Robert 'Mike' Duncan for his management of the 2008 presidential election dismays me. In big-time college and NFL football, coaches get fired after a bad season. Everyone seems to think, and will tell you on background, it should be the same in politics. No one wants to stay it out loud on stage though. At least for today."
• NRO's Mark Hemingway: "While there were some very good answers given by the candidates, there were far more bad ones. First, no one really addressed rebuilding the G.O.P. as a majority party and were more at ease playing to the base. Republicans need a detailed plan to expand the party and bring back independent voters, much like the Democrats came up with their successful fifty state strategy after 2004. [...N]o one really addressed how you do the needed outreach to hispanic voters and reconcile this with immigration reform. Lastly, technology and internet organizing were much discussed topics which is a marked improvement. However, discussing how many people follow you on Twitter or how many Facebook friends you have is not evidence you are tech savvy. No one on stage really evinced an understanding of internet organizing and technology on a conceptual level, let alone how they would employ it to rebuild the party."
• Malkin: "There was much pandering and kowtowing and pledging to increase minority outreach efforts. What no RNC candidate would say: I will never engage in 'outreach' efforts at the cost of our security and sovereignty."
• Robert Stacy McCain: "Who won the debate? Some conservatives I talked to afterwards said they thought [Chip] Saltsman -- who managed Mike Huckabee's presidential campaign -- 'exceeded expectations' with a very smooth, concise message. Another told me he thinks Duncan will surprise everyone by retaining the chairmanship. And another said he thinks the current situation favors [MI GOP Chair Saul] Anuzis, whom he described as 'everyone's second choice.'"

In other RNC Chair-blogging, RedState's Robert Bluey unloads on ex-MD LG Michael Steele, while Geraghty responds by arguing that "you can find evidence of any of these candidates straying from the conservative position."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Obama, The Center-Right President?

Commentary's Jennifer Rubin:

"[L]et's get this straight: Robert Gates will be the Defense Secretary, we're ramping up U.S. forces in Afghanistan and providing a reasonable period of time for a hand-off in Iraq, there isn't going to be a windfall oil profits tax or income tax hike but there is going to be a huge set of business tax cuts -- and Rick Warren is giving the invocation at the Inauguration. Who won in November?

I'm sure there will be times during the next four years when the Obama administration's decisions on issues (e.g. judicial appointments) have conservatives banging their heads against the wall, bemoaning the fact that John McCain wasn't elected. But so far it's hard to imagine McCain would have been doing more than the incoming Obama team seems to be proposing -- and with as much chance of success -- to further some key center-Right policy aims."

LEST WE FORGET: Father-Son Communication

From Overheard Everywhere:

Tourist baby: Bah bah bah bah bah!
Tourist dad, changing his diaper: I hear ya.
Tourist baby: Bah bah bah bah bah bah!
Tourist dad: Uh huh.
Tourist baby: Bah bah bah bah!
Tourist dad: I told you not to mess with those guys.
(tourist baby laughs)
Tourist dad: Yeah, you know what I'm talking about!

-- Restroom, Walt Disney World

Posted by Ian Faerstein at January 6, 2009 01:01 PM