February 27, 2009

2/27: Move Over, Reagan

The netroots are applauding Pres. Obama's ambitious budget, which includes major liberal priorities such as health care reform, a cap-and-trade system, and increased education spending. Matthew Yglesias sums up the views of many lefty bloggers when he writes: "It's not Obama's style to actually say this, but were this budget to be enacted it would be by far the most significant progressive step in over forty years." Liberal bloggers are particularly pleased that Obama is keeping his campaign promise to raise taxes on the wealthiest Americans, which some believe is necessary to "reverse income inequality in this country."

Conservative bloggers, of course, are criticizing Obama's plans to pay for his proposals by raising taxes on the affluent. Ed Morrissey warns that Obama's proposed tax increases will hurt U.S. businesses while John Hinderaker complains that "there are very few people who are actually rich, and those who are prosperous (what the Democrats mean by 'rich') are already overtaxed." Other righty bloggers are warning that Obama will discourage the wealthiest Americans from giving money to charity if he raises their taxes.

In non-budget news, conservative bloggers are pleased that the Senate voted 87-11 in favor of Sen. Jim DeMint's (R-SC) amendment to prohibit the FCC from reinstating the so-called "Fairness Doctrine." However, they're upset that the Senate also voted 57-41 in favor of Sen. Dick Durbin's (D-IL) amendment, which they view as a backdoor method of regulating the airwaves.

OBAMA BUDGET: Audacity We Can Believe In

Liberal bloggers are applauding Obama's ambitious budget:

• Think Progress' Yglesias: "It's not Obama's style to actually say this, but were this budget to be enacted it would be by far the most significant progressive step in over forty years."
• The Washington Monthly's Steve Benen: "It's probably fair to say that there's been some concern about whether President Obama would be as 'audacious' as Candidate Obama. He'd talk about bold and systemic change, but would he be limited by timidity? Would the president prefer slower, incremental change? The answer has become overwhelmingly clear over the last few days. [...T]he administration's budget outline...presents a sea change in the way the federal government would operate in the future. Looking for change you can believe in? I think we've found it."
• Ex-Treasury Sec. Robert Reich: "Finally, a progressive budget. President Obama's new budget is, well, audacious -- not just because it includes several big, audacious initiatives (universally affordable health care, and a cap-and-trade system for coping with global warming, for starters) but also because it represents the biggest redistribution of income from the wealthy to the middle class and poor this nation has seen in more than forty years."
• Ezra Klein: "[T]he big surprise is the size and seriousness of the commitment to education. Health wonks expected their portion of the budget. The emphasis on energy isn't a surprise -- more a return to the priorities that Obama was naming in the campaign. But according to folks in the educational community, even they didn't anticipate such aggressive action on their issues."
• AMERICAblog's Joe Sudbay: "Throughout the campaign, Obama said he was going to increase taxes on the wealthiest Americans. That made John McCain and the rest of the Republicans apoplectic. They thought the tax increase on the rich would surely result in an Obama loss. But, Obama won -- and he's following through on his campaign promise. [...] Obama is returning the tax code to where it was under Bill Clinton. That worked for the economy then. You can't really say [George W.] Bush's tax policy did much for the economy. Most Americans were happy with their economic situation at the end of 2000. Not so true for the end of 2008."

Meanwhile, OMB dir. Peter Orszag discussed the budget with progressive bloggers in a conference call yesterday. Daily Kos' mcjoan, Firedoglake's Stirling Newberry, and MyDD's Jonathan Singer are among the bloggers who spoke with Orszag.

OBAMA BUDGET II: Spendzilla On The Loose

Conservative bloggers are condemning Obama's proposed budget:

• Michelle Malkin: "Look out! Spendzilla is on the loose."
• NRO's James C. Capretta: "Here's the bottom line on President Obama's budget: It's a massive spending increase when what the country desperately needs is a plan for fiscal discipline."

Obama's most faithful conservative fan, The Atlantic's Andrew Sullivan, can't stomach the proposed budget: "We are being presented with what can only be described as a massive increase in government spending and power with the only fiscal balance being wringing much more money from the successful. The president predicted a tight budget and spending control in his non-SOTU, and he appealed to fiscal conservatives by promising a long-term attack on entitlement spending. I see nothing here yet that fulfills that promise."

Several angry conservatives are taking matters into their own hands:

• NRO's Jonah Goldberg: "It's not that I don't want government to do nice things for deserving people in certain circumstances. It's not necessarily that I'm hostile to this group of beneficiaries or that (though I am in fact hostile to some). It's that I think most of Obama's ideas will not work, will be a waste of money and will hurt the economy. And, flatly, I don't want to pay for it. I don't want to break the law. I don't want pull a [Timothy] Geithner or a [Tom] Daschle or anything like that. But I don't want to pay for it. I will look for every means within the boundaries of the law to minimize what I pay in taxes and I make no apologies for that whatsoever."
• NRO's Steve Hayward: "Amen, brother Jonah. I don't want to pay for this stuff either. [...] I've started buying municipal bonds, which I never thought I'd do until...well, never, actually. Good ones right now are an attractive buy on the merits, but the added bonus of sealing off the income from Obama makes it all the nicer. But my bigger idea is to go all Randian and literally go on strike [...] I'm going to start converting income opportunities into more leisure by deliberately reducing my income."

OBAMA BUDGET III: Soaking The Rich

Conservative are criticizing Obama's plans to pay for his proposals by increasing taxes on the affluent, as The New York Times describes:

"Individuals who earn more than $200,000 a year and families who make more than $250,000 would also lose the tax cuts enacted during the Bush administration, meaning their top income tax rate would rise to 39.6 percent from 35 percent, their investment income would be taxed at 20 percent rather than 15 percent and their deductions for mortgage interest, state and local taxes and charitable contributions would be reduced."

• Power Line's Hinderaker: "Barack Obama ran for President on a 'spread the wealth around' platform, and we're now seeing that this was no empty campaign promise. The Obama administration proposes to expand the wealth and power of the federal government beyond anything heretofore imagined. When he asked how he will finance his grandiose plans, Obama's only non-magical answer is that he will increase taxes on 'the rich.' This is a common Democratic Party mantra, of course. In truth, however, there are very few people who are actually rich, and those who are prosperous (what the Democrats mean by 'rich') are already overtaxed."
• Hot Air's Morrissey: "[T]he hike from 15% to 20% on capital-gains taxes assumes that people will invest and cash out in the same manner they do at 15%. They won't. The fact of increasing the tax will discourage investors and encourage them to shift money out before the hike. Not only will the extra revenue vanish, but investment levels will drop, leading to job losses and less opportunity for American businesses."

Many righty bloggers are arguing that Obama will discourage charitable giving by reducing tax deductions for Americans in the top income tax brackets:

• Townhall's Hugh Hewitt: "The attack on the mortgage interest rate deduction and the charitable deduction are simply hidden ways to increase the top rate beyond that of the Clinton years, but by using the deception, the Obama plan would devastate churches and charities that depend on the generosity of their highest income donors while also slamming the value of homes by reducing their value to borrowers. [...] Democrats who vote for this scheme are voting against every church in the land and against the equity every American has in their home. Radical plans like this one make academics happy and voters angry. Very angry."
• The Next Right's Patrick Ruffini: "Obama's massive $315 billion tax increase that violates a basic fairness principle in our tax code: that no matter who you are, we don't count a dollar of income for taxable purposes once deductions for things like charitable donations and mortgage interest are taken into account. [...] The White House proposal would reach into these deductions and effectively levy an additional tax of 7% on charitable contributions and mortgage interest (and up to 11.6% if Obama's tax increases go into effect) for those in the highest tax bracket -- in other words, those with the most ability to support America's charities. I smell overreach."
• RedState's Erick Erickson: "[C]hurches, faith based out reach groups, and think tanks -- the bulk of all three tend to be conservative -- depend on charitable giving. Historically, as taxes have increased, charitable giving has decreased. By raising taxes on the $250,000.00 and over crowd, a segment of the population between $250K and $1 million that is filled with small business owners innovating us out of recession, Obama will significantly impact conservative organizations in a way that won't affect most liberal advocacy groups."

FAIRNESS DOCTRINE: The Battle's Not Over

Conservative bloggers are pleased that the Senate voted 87-11 in favor of Sen. DeMint's amendment to prohibit the FCC from reinstating the so-called "Fairness Doctrine." However, they're upset that the Senate also voted 57-41 in favor of Sen. Durbin's amendment, which seeks "to encourage and promote diversity in communication media ownership, and to ensure that the public airwaves are used in the public interest." Righty bloggers view Durbin's amendment as a backdoor method of regulating the airwaves:

• Townhall's Amanda Carpenter: "We already know Barack Obama sure doesn't like the likes of talk radio titans like Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity. Yet, he's always been careful to say he opposes the Fairness Doctrine. He'd rather go about it in a different way. And, get his old homestate senator, Dick Durbin, to do his bidding."
• Malkin: "The Duct Tape Brigade is out there in full force. Eternal vigilance is required."
• Hot Air's Allahpundit: "Like I said in last week's post about this, when they reestablish Fairness it won't be called Fairness. It'll be done in the guise of 'localism' or piecemeal by incremental legislative changes. Forcing the Democrats to vote up or down on the old doctrine is useful insofar as it puts them on the record, but practically speaking, it doesn't achieve a lot. [...] Here are the rolls for DeMint's and Durbin's bills; the latter, unsurprisingly, was party-line. Durbin himself voted for DeMint's amendment, as did [MI Sen.] Debbie Stabenow -- who, you'll recall, was calling for hearings on bringing back Fairness as recently as three weeks ago. They're not taking DeMint's bill seriously, in other words, partly because of its expected fate in the House and partly because they're willing to sacrifice the label 'Fairness Doctrine' if they can bring back the substance of it later. Like the boss says, the fight's not over."
• CBN's David Brody: "[T]he fight goes on. Don't think for a minute some within the Democratic Party wouldn't love to see the Fairness Doctrine take shape in some sort of way. That's no secret. Senators like Tom Harkin [D-IA], Debbie Stabenow and others have said so. I think it's fair to say that The Fairness Doctrine in its purest state is history for now but conservatives won't sleep well at night until they are in the majority."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: The GOP And The Middle Class

Yesterday we posted Patrick Ruffini's complaint about "the Joe-the-Plumberization of the GOP," in which he made the following appeal to conservatives:

"We need to be confident, like the left is, that we are the natural governing party because our ideas are in alignment with basic American principles, and quit treating middle class, working class, or rural Americans like an interest group to be mollified by symbolic, substance-free BS."

The American Conservative's Daniel Larison responds:

"...Would that the GOP actually treated these people like interest groups by paying attention to their interests! It seems to me that conservatives and Republicans have assumed the GOP is the natural governing party, at least regarding the Presidency and to some extent as it relates to Congress since '94, which is why so many have continued to insist that America is a 'center-right nation' in face of mounting evidence that it is not and hasn't been for a while. Symbolic gimmickry does stem in part from a lack of confidence, but it is more the product of a movement and party that have ceased to understand, much less address, most of the pressing concerns of working- and middle-class Americans. The party assumes that all it needs to do is show up, push the right pseudo-populist buttons and reap the rewards, and for the most part the movement cheers. See Palin, Sarah.

The GOP settles for offering 'symbolic, substance-free BS' because enough conservatives are already persuaded that Republican policies obviously benefit the middle class, so there is no pressure to make Republican policy actually serve the interests of Republican constituents. It is taken for granted that this is already happening, but voters have been showing for several cycles that many of them do not believe this. Politically Democrats have been gaining ground in such unlikely places as Ohio and Indiana, which would be inexplicable if the GOP obviously and reliably represented working- and middle-class Americans. Of course, lately these voters don't see it that way, but instead see the right's pseudo-populists denounce workers for being overpaid, reject measures that would direct some spending to American industries that their free trade zeal has helped gut and even talk about a spending freeze in the middle of a severe recession."

LEST WE FORGET: Distinguished Officials For Proper Ebonics

The Atlantic's Ta-Nehisi Coates has had enough:

• [RNC Chair] Michael Steele's message to America: 'We know the past, we know we did wrong. My bad.'
• [MN Rep.] Michele Bachman, professional fool, on Michael Steele: 'Michael Steele! You be da man! You be da man.'

This. Must. Stop. I'm here to announce the formation of DOPE (Distinguished Officials for Proper Ebonics) whose sole mission will be to prevent such abominable phrases as 'You be da man.' We have sat quietly by, during the era 'Oh no she din't' and 'Women, be shopping.' We have endured the apostasy of Stuart Scott. ('Holla at a player if you see him in the streets!'). We can no longer be silent. The war is on.

Posted by Ian Faerstein at 12:30 PM

February 26, 2009

2/26: Getting Ready To Rumble

Liberal bloggers are pleased that Pres. Obama is proposing a $634B reserve fund for health care, which they see as evidence that Obama is "serious about pursuing health care reform." Although lefty bloggers were quick to note that $634B "isn't quite enough to pay for the subsidies that are an essential part of a universal-care system," they nevertheless see this proposal as "a good first step." While a few conservative bloggers are expressing concerns about the cost of this proposal, the rest have been relatively quiet. It appears that the real blogosphere fight over health care probably won't come until Congress starts debating health care reform in earnest.

What else is happening in the blogosphere?

• Conservative bloggers (Bluey, Rubin, Yousefzadeh) continue to blame the stock market's poor performance on Obama's policies and rhetoric, while liberal bloggers continue to push back against this argument.
• Liberal bloggers (Singer, Krugman, Benen, Black) continue to criticize Gov. Bobby Jindal's (R-LA) response to Obama's speech -- especially his attack on federal funding of volcano monitoring.

HEALTH CARE: $634 Billion? Dude Ain't Messin' Around...

Liberal bloggers are pleased that Obama is proposing a $634B reserve fund for health care, which they see as a sign that the President is serious about health care reform:

• The New Republic's Jonathan Cohn: "How big an investment is that? It's pretty big -- more, I believe, than any president has proposed setting aside for coverage expansions to the non-elderly since [Bill] Clinton tried for universal health insurance in the 1990s. And it confirms that Obama is serious about pursuing health care reform, beyond small incremental steps."
• Obsidian Wings' publius: "The good news is that it's pretty much official -- health care reform is ON this year. Obama is carving out a big chunk of money for it -- and we wouldn't be reading these stories if they weren't serious about it."
• AMERICAblog's Joe Sudbay: "Obama said he was serious about health care. His budget is serious about health care. [...] I'm impressed by the strategy -- and the number."
• Open Left's Chris Bowers: "I like this approach. $634 billion over ten years is not as much as we need to successfully overhaul the health care system, but it is a good first step that will make any further requests for more money in future months and years easier. It appears to be, quite literally, a down payment for health care reform."
• The New York Times' Paul Krugman: "The supposed commitment of $634 billion to health care reform isn't quite enough to pay for the subsidies that are an essential part of a universal-care system, but it's not ridiculously short, either. It's beginning to look as if Obama's really going to go through with this -- and if he gets us to universality, his legacy will be secure."

Meanwhile, Ezra Klein and Stirling Newberry analyzed the proposal in greater depth.

HEALTH CARE II: Mo' Money, Mo' Problems

Several conservative bloggers are expressing concerns about the size of Obama's proposed $634B health care reserve fund:

• Hot Air's Allahpundit: "The health-care money would be provided over 10 years, so, you know, no worries. Granted, they don't have an actual plan on how to spend it yet -- but then they don't have an economic plan yet either. [...] It's a down payment, with the balance to be paid by the permanent tax increases on the middle class that are coming, as the NYT reminds us in a moment of amazing candor today. How much will that balance be, allowing for the inevitable cost overruns? Only The One, in his supreme wisdom, knows."
• RedState's Dan Spencer: "According to the Post, Obama's health care overhaul will cost as much as $1 trillion over the next decade. [...] A trillion here a trillion there pretty soon..."

Power Line's John Hinderaker notes that Obama plans to help pay for this fund by reducing tax deductions for people in the top income bracket, which Hinderaker considers a mistake: "[Obama's proposals] will be achieved in part by reducing the deductions that are available to the 'wealthy,' i.e., those earning $200,000 (if single) or $250,000 (if married) per year. [...] Michael Barone has written that Obama was elected in November on the strength of a 'top and bottom coalition.' He carried high-income and low-income voters, while John McCain won a majority of middle-income voters. As the inevitable effects of Obama's policies become visible -- higher taxes, inflation, prolonged weakness in the economy, depressed stock market -- the 'top' part of his coalition will begin to erode. That process likely began today."

OBAMA: He May Be Popular With The Public, But Not With Traders

Conservative bloggers continue to blame the stock market's poor performance on Obama's policies and rhetoric:

• RedState's Robert Bluey: "The best thing President Barack Obama can do for the economy is keep quiet. A day after delivering an address that won widespread praise from the chattering class, Obama's big-government policies were rejected by traders on Wall Street. Wall Street's negative reaction to Obama is nothing new. Ever since Election Day, Obama's words have failed to inspire investors."
• Commentary's Jennifer Rubin: "The slides in markets and consumer-confidence ratings, to some extent, reflect the collective 'thumbs down' on the administration's course of action. The potential that the recovery will be stalled by a regime of more government spending, regulation, and taxation has not been lost on those who must invest, hire, and plan their expenditures. Will that flashing red light then be recognized as a dire warning in Washington and serve to upset the administration's plans for even more anti-free market policies? Perhaps."
• RedState's Pejman Yousefzadeh: "[H]ow many more days of this is the market supposed to take? Once again, cast your minds back to 2000-2001, when Democratic leaders were accusing George W. Bush of 'talking down the economy.' Isn't that what the Obama Administration is plainly doing?"

Liberal blogger Jane Hamsher disputes the notion that Obama is "talking down the economy": "I understand that every time the market takes a big drop trillions of dollars evaporate from the face of the planet and people already worried about their economic future become even more concerned, and politicians should certainly not speak recklessly. But there is a logic flaw embedded in the idea that [the economy's] overall health is a function of the direction in which the Dow is heading, and that nobody should be saying or doing anything to drive it down. [...] Having the courage to take action to restore the integrity of the market means doing things that will depress in the short term. If it doesn't go down when it has to swallow the bitter pills of regulation or bank nationalization, you're doing something wrong. Letting the market decide what is and what is not sound policy is like disciplining your kids based on how well they like it."

JINDAL: Clearly, He's Never Had To Run From Hot Molten Lava

Liberal bloggers are still hammering Jindal's response to Obama's speech -- particularly his attack on federal funding of volcano monitoring:

• The Washington Monthly's Steve Benen: "[T]here is some irony here. Jindal, the chief executive of a state ravaged by natural disasters, is mocking research funds that monitor natural disasters."
• MyDD's Jonathan Singer: "I grew up in Portland, Oregon, about 50 miles from Mount Hood, an 11,249-foot volcano that has been active in the past few hundred years, and only about 75 miles from Mount St. Helens, the eruption of which led to dozens of fatalities not even 30 years ago. Most of my family still lives in Portland, and I am in the city on a fairly regular basis. In the event that Hood, St. Helens, or any other volcano in the region were to blow, I would most certainly want the federal government to have done all it could on the detection front so that my family had ample warning to get to safety. Do Bobby Jindal and the Republican Party begrudge me that?"
• Krugman: "[B]oth [conservatives and liberals], I thought, agreed that the government should provide public goods -- goods that are nonrival (they benefit everyone) and nonexcludable (there's no way to restrict the benefits to people who pay.) The classic examples are things like lighthouses and national defense, but there are many others. For example, knowing when a volcano is likely to erupt can save many lives; but there's no private incentive to spend money on monitoring, since even people who didn't contribute to maintaining the monitoring system can still benefit from the warning. So that's the sort of activity that should be undertaken by government. So what did Bobby Jindal choose to ridicule in this response to Obama last night? Volcano monitoring, of course."

Several bloggers are arguing that Jindal's swipe at volcano funding is indicative of the extent to which the GOP has become an echo chamber:

• Atrios: "I've written before that I think part of the problem that conservatives/Republicans face is that their mythology has become a bit too complex for mere mortals (people who don't listen to [Rush] Limbaugh and read The Corner obsessively) to comprehend. They reference rogues' gallery of enemies and various 'bad things' that most people have never heard of. Simply trying to navigate through the various wingnutty minefields while throwing out the appropriate red meat has become difficult to do, and the result is incomprehensible to most of the country. Volcano monitoring! High speed rail!"
• The Atlantic's Andrew Sullivan: "The GOP emphasis on marsh mice and volcanoes and federal cars is a function of talk-radio conservatism -- and nothing like an adult approach to actual government."
• digby: "Jindal and the rest are going to have a problem: They are now officially a sub-culture and it's hard to get a majority when you literally speak a different language than most people."
• Balloon Juice's John Cole: "I believe that one of the big reasons Obama consistently did better in polls than on pundits' scorecards in the debates is that not many Americans had any idea what John McCain was talking about most of the time. [...] When he said 'bear DNA' over and over, I'm sure most Americans just thought he was having a senior moment. But [Mark] Halperin et al. thought it was brilliant. Field mice and volcano monitoring are just never going to work as well as 'welfare queens' and 'young bucks buying T-bones' did. They're too complicated."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: The Joe-the-Plumberization Of The GOP

The Next Right's Patrick Ruffini:

"If you want to get a sense of how unserious and ungrounded most Americans think the Republican Party is, look no further than how conservatives elevate Joe the Plumber as a spokesman. The movement has become so gimmick-driven that Wurzelbacher will be a conservative hero long after people have forgotten what his legitimate policy beef with Obama was.

A movement self-confident in its place in American society would not have made Joe the Plumber a bigger story than he actually was. Since its very beginnings as a movement, conservatism has bought into liberalism's dominant place in the American political process. They controlled all the major institutions: the media, academia, Hollywood, the Democratic Party, large segments of the Republican Party, and consequently, the government. Liberalism's image of conservatives in the '50s and '60s as paranoid Birchers gave birth to a conservative movement self-conscious of its minority status. As in any tribe that is small in number and can't fully trust its most natural allies (i.e. the business community or the Republican Party), the meta-debate of who is inside and outside the tribe is magnified exponentially.

The legacy of that early movement -- alive and well at CPAC and in the conservative institutions that still exist today -- is one driven inordinately by this question of identity. We have paeans to [Ronald] Reagan (as if we needed to be reminded again of just how much things suck in comparison today), memorabilia honoring 18th century philosophers that we wouldn't actually wear in the outside world, and code-word laden speeches that focus on a few hot button issues that leave us ill-equipped to actually govern conservatively on 80% of issues when we actually do get elected."

LEST WE FORGET: Thanks, Now I'm Even More Confused

From Overheard in New York:

Friend #1: My friend told me that in Wisconsin they deep-fry cheese curds.
Friend #2: What's "cheese curds"?
Friend #3: Kurds are a perennially oppressed ethnic minority group found in parts of Iran, Iraq, and Turkey.

Posted by Ian Faerstein at 12:33 PM

February 25, 2009

2/25: After Round 1, It's Obama 1, Jindal 0

Liberal bloggers loved Pres. Obama's speech to Congress, and they're buzzing about the various polls indicating that most Americans liked the speech as well. The netroots are especially happy about what they perceived to be Obama's "unapologetic, undefensive, and full-bodied embrace of progressive policies." What excites so many lefty bloggers about Obama is that they believe that he has the rhetorical gifts to make a convincing case for "a progressive and active government" -- and they think that Obama did a great job of making this case last night.

Of course, this is precisely what frightens conservative bloggers about Obama. Most righty bloggers conceded that Obama's delivery was excellent, but they're horrified by the agenda he laid out in his speech. As one conservative blogger wrote following Obama's speech: "Oratorywise, so good. Ideawise, so weak. Combination, so dangerous." Righty bloggers are accusing Obama of advocating "a bold list of socialist policies" in his speech, they're worried that his oratorical skills will enable him to convince Americans to accept the "slippery slope to socialism" that his ideas represent. Rich Lowry warns: "[Obama]'s trying to redefine extensive government activism as simple pragmatism, and if he succeeds, might well shift the center of American politics for a generation."

Meanwhile, liberal bloggers universally panned Gov. Bobby Jindal's (R-LA) response to Obama's speech, mocking his "sing songy" cadence and his "stale ideas". The majority of conservative bloggers were also critical of Jindal's delivery, even though they liked the content of his speech. Philip Klein writes: "He may be brilliant, but presentation matters too, and this was a lackluster performance."

OBAMA SPEECH: Another Speech, Another Home Run

Liberal bloggers loved Obama's speech:

• MyDD's Todd Beeton: "What an incredible speech. If the image of the President entering the hall to give his first address to congress didn't get you, surely the content and delivery of the speech did. It was tough, honest, compassionate and chills-inducing, if not tear-inducing on several occasions. He expressed justified righteous anger toward his predecessor but also offered hope to a nation desperately in need of it. President Obama gave the speech that our times required and the off the charts levels of approval from the MSNBC dial poll respondents reflected this."
• FiveThirtyEight's Nate Silver: "I thought that [speech] was done, very, very well. If the country/markets/etc. were looking for a symbolic pivot point, this might have been it."
• Firedoglake's Ian Welsh: "[A]nother excellent speech and some policy proposals and rhetoric in it that the most die hard liberal can believe in."
• AMERICAblog's Joe Sudbay: "That was some speech last night by President Obama. [...] He was very good -- and set the right tone. Very impressive. We've got a real president now."
• The Huffington Post's Robert L. Borosage: "[T]he president demonstrated clearly once more that he is a leader who can educate and inspire Americans. And he uses that mastery to make the case for a progressive and active government investing in our future. No longer will the president scorn the government that he leads."
• Obsidian Wings' publius: "Make no mistake -- this speech was an unapologetic, undefensive, and full-bodied embrace of progressive policies. Obama walked up there tonight in front of the entire country and endorsed the most liberal legislative agenda since LBJ. I loved it. In front of everyone, he stated that he would pursue major legislative efforts on energy, national health care, and education. Then he said he would raise taxes on rich people. Then he said he would cut spending on bloated defense and agribusiness subsidies. Then he reaffirmed that we would withdraw combat troops from Iraq. Then he reminded the country that he is closing Gitmo -- and explained the national security rationale for doing so. Say what you will about this speech, but there was nothing meek or defensive about it. It was a big speech about big things in historic times."

OBAMA SPEECH II: The Danger He Represents

Most conservative bloggers agreed with their liberal counterparts that Obama delivered his speech well, but they sharply criticized his message:

• The Cato Institute's Will Wilkinson: "Oratorywise, so good. Ideawise, so weak. Combination, so dangerous."
• The New Ledger's Pejman Yousefzadeh: "[W]hile the delivery of the speech was excellent, the actual content left much to be desired."
• AmSpec Blog's Klein: "President Obama gave a characteristically well-delivered speech, and one that demonstrates why he has the potential to be a transformational liberal leader. Sure, his contradictory goals don't stand up to much scrutiny. He says we'll all have to give up some of our priorities even while outlining the most expansive domestic agenda in decades. He says he doesn't believe in bigger government, but vows to pump more money into banks, bail out homeowners, set up a fund to provide auto loans, and spend billions more on education and energy. [...] At some point, he'll face his own day of reckoning, when his rhetorical flourishes will be swatted down by reality. But until that day comes, he'll get much of what he wants. The big question is how much damage he can do before the public catches on to him."
• Townhall's Hugh Hewitt: "The trouble with the speech, of course, is that what the president promises to do simply cannot be done, because the costs are so staggeringly high that the economy cannot bear all or even most of them absent the sort of renewed economic growth that soaring tax rates will snuff out. [...] The president's talk was well phrased and beautifully delivered, and deeply disconnected from the realities of economic growth."
• Right Wing News' John Hawkins: "[W]e essentially have an off-the-charts liberal, who wants to radically change our country, promising everything to everybody and counting on the mainstream media to keep the American people in the dark about the enormity of the changes he's making and the fact that he can't possibly keep his contrasting promises."
• Power Line's Paul Mirengoff: "Oddly, I think Obama is so gifted an orator that he can sell this nonsense, at least on this night. His magical mystery tour is coming to take us away, and plenty of Americans are dying to be taken."

NRO's Lowry sums up the fears of many on the right: "[Obama]'s trying to redefine extensive government activism as simple pragmatism, and if he succeeds, might well shift the center of American politics for a generation."

OBAMA SPEECH III: What Are You Guys Talking About? He Sucked!

A few conservative bloggers criticized both the content and the delivery of Obama's speech, but they were in the minority:

• RedState's Dan Spencer: "All things considered this was not a very good performance for a president widely perceived as a truly great orator."
• Power Line's John Hinderaker: "I thought President Obama was surprisingly ineffective tonight. He started as I expected he would, with optimistic, Rooseveltian assurances. But that theme was forgotten long before the speech ended. Assuming it did finally end -- Obama went on far too long, and television sets were turning off all across America, well before it was over. I didn't make it to the end. I'm sure millions of others didn't, either."
• RedState's Erick Erickson: "There are too many questions out of this speech. He contradicted himself. He refused to give details, just boilerplate pablum. The great oratory failed."

JINDAL SPEECH: Kenneth The Page?

The netroots universally panned Jindal's response to Obama's speech, with many bloggers comparing his sing-song cadence to that of the "30 Rock" character Kenneth The Page:

• TPM's Josh Marshall: "I thought Jindal's comments and presentation was just weird and cringy and awful."
• Think Progress' Matthew Yglesias: "Bobby Jindal apparently believes it's appropriate to address the citizens of the United States in a tone that suggests we're all nine years old."
• Firedoglake's Eli: "Why does he sound like he's narrating a children's movie?"
• Silver: "If it sounds like Jindal is targeting his speech to a room full of fourth graders, that's because he is. They might be the next people to actually vote for Republicans again."
• Beeton: "Is it just me, or does Bobby Jindal sound an awful lot like Kenneth from 30 Rock?"
• Sudbay: "[Jindal] was awful. Unimpressive and uninspiring. [...] Let's admit it: Sarah Palin has nothing to worry about from Jindal."

Of course, liberal bloggers also criticized the content of Jindal's speech:

• TAPPED's Dana Goldstein: "[Jindal's] basic message was that government causes problems, and can't fix them. The thing is, during this time of economic uncertainty, Americans are looking toward government for help and reassurance, not for a cold shoulder."
• The Washington Monthly's Steve Benen: "[A]s bad as Jindal's performance was, his ideas were even worse -- tax cuts, drilling, school vouchers, spending bad, government bad. Why bother picking a fresh face if all the party has to offer is stale ideas? Why ask a young governor with a reputation for innovation to present the same old agenda that the GOP has pitched for a generation?"
• Ezra Klein: "[This is] a speech that [House Min. Leader John] Boehner could have given in 2007 and that [ex-Senate Maj. Leader Bill] Frist could have given in 2005 and that [ex-Senate Maj. Leader Trent] Lott could have given in 1998 and that [ex-House Speaker Newt] Gingrich could have given in 1993. Jindal made a mistake accepting the GOP's invitation to give this response. Yesterday, he seemed like a different kind of Republican. Today, he doesn't."

JINDAL SPEECH II: Speaking Of Natural Disasters...

Liberal bloggers were especially critical of two things Jindal said in his speech. First of all, they blasted him for invoking the government response to Hurricane Katrina as an argument against the stimulus bill:

"Today in Washington, some are promising that government will rescue us from the economic storms raging all around us. Those of us who lived through Hurricane Katrina, we have our doubts."

• Sudbay: "[U]sing Katrina as an example to tout the GOP? That was sheer brilliance."
• digby: "[M]y God, I'm gobsmacked by the fact that he actually raised Katrina in the way he did, suggesting that they didn't need government help. I just don't know what to say about that."
• AMERICAblog's John Aravosis: "Let's think for a moment. Who was it who abandoned New Orleans again? Uh, that would be the Republican president who ignored Katrina, the Republican presidential candidate who ate an oversized birthday cake in California while citizens of New Orleans drowned, and the Republican Congress who refused to investigate what went wrong. Your point would be what exactly, Mr. Jindal? That voters shouldn't trust Republicans to protect them in time of need?"
• Klein: "It's as if [GOPers] don't think Americans are smart enough to remember who was running the government in 2005."

Liberal bloggers also hammered Jindal for criticizing a provision in the stimulus bill that provides funds for volcano monitoring:

"While some of the projects in the [stimulus] bill make sense, their legislation is larded with wasteful spending. It includes...$140 million for something called 'volcano monitoring.' Instead of monitoring volcanoes, what Congress should be monitoring is the eruption of spending in Washington, DC."

• MyDD's Jonathan Singer: "Jindal coming out against volcano monitoring? Really? Really? Someone from a state that was devastated by a natural disaster doesn't believe in trying to detect natural disasters to warn Americans and save lives?"
• Silver: "Such a strange thing for Jindal to say, especially since he hails from the state that was ravaged by Katrina."
• Yglesias: "What's with the attack on 'something called "volcano monitoring"'? Volcano monitoring is where they monitor volcanos. So as to better understand, better predict, and better prepare for natural disasters. Is that so complicated? Are only hurricanes worth responding to?"
• MyDD's Charles Lemos: "[T]here are 169 volcanoes in the United States. Eighteen of them have been designated as 'Very High Threat Volcanoes' by the United States Geological Survey. Twelve of these have been active or erupted within the last 200 years and eight since 1984. [...] And yet the Governor of a state that was devastated by a natural disaster just three and half years ago thinks that it is too much to spend $140 million, as he put it, 'for something called "volcano monitoring".'"

JINDAL SPEECH III: Good Content, Bad Delivery

Many conservative bloggers criticized Jindal's delivery, even though they liked his message:

• NRO's Jim Geraghty: "I thought the text of Jindal's argument was fine, but the governor's delivery just wasn't working for me. He seemed to have somehow figured out a way to speak too quickly and too slow at the same time. [...] His remarks sounded like they were being read aloud, not spoken naturally."
• Klein: "The substance of his speech read fine, but his delivery was absolutely awful. It's true that whoever delivers the response from a quiet room somewhere is always at a disadvantage, and these type of speeches are rarely memorable. But I thought Jindal came off particularly bad. His delivery was flat and his jokes and anecdotes were awkward, his grin childish. He seemed more like a high school student giving a valedictory speech than a potential future leader of the party. He may be brilliant, but presentation matters too, and this was a lackluster performance."
• Townhall's Amanda Carpenter: "There was a cheesy, salesman-like quality to the response that I don't think connected with the Rick Santelli-inspired anger so many Republicans are feeling right now. And, I'm pretty sure he's going to be SNL's next target. His speech tempo was just, so weird. Enough complaning from me. He didn't pass the primetime test and it makes me sad. I don't want to dwell."
• Glenn Reynolds: "Jindal's reply? I'd say so-so. [...] I thought he was adequate but not great. Audio problems didn't help. Also, work out some, Bobby. Obama has opened space up for skinny guys with big ears, but..."
• Hawkins: "I thought Jindal was good, but not great. He was a bit wooden at first and didn't hit the Democrats as hard as I would have liked. That said, he got better as he went on, was optimistic, had some really good stories, and offered some real options on tax care, health care, and schools."
• The Next Right's Matthew Gagnon: "Barack Obama is a hard man to follow, no doubt about it. [...] But by all measures, Jindal failed, and he failed for a number of reasons."
• Hot Air's Allahpundit: "This was his star turn and he came off wooden, especially at the beginning. Oh well. His loss is the rest of the GOP governors' gain."

JINDAL SPEECH IV: C'mon Guys, Lay Off Bobby

Other righty bloggers defended Jindal:

• Townhall's Matt Lewis: "[T]hose who obsess over his delivery are missing the bigger story. Jindal tonight was likable, his personal story was compelling, and he offered a positive vision of conservatism for America. While it is rare for one speech to change a nation's trajectory, it can at least be said that tonight's speech was one step in the right direction."
• Michelle Malkin: "I thought his delivery was fine. And it's always better to have lowered expectations, anyway. Otherwise, you end up with...the inconquerable hype of the Obamessiah. [...] I'll take Bobby Jindal's genuine faith in American entrepreneurship over Barack Obama's fear-mongering-turned-faux Reaganism any day. His actions and his actual record -- reforming his state's decrepit health care system, fixing higher ed, serving in Congress, tackling entitlement reform, managing natural emergencies, etc. -- remain mightily impressive."
• AmSpec Blog's Wlady Pleszczynski: "Jindal could have been Demosthenes or Al Pacino or Justin Timberlake and he would have come across as lame and out of his depth. There's just no way anyone can follow a gifted political performer like Obama wowing the country and the Congress at his first (de facto) State of the Union appearance. [...] Yet compared to the few other times I've seen Jindal in action, he seemed pleasant, relaxed, a bit youthful, but genuinely friendly and decent. [...] Even in its current condition, the GOP could do a lot worse than have a Bobby Jindal taking it."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: An Open Field For Liberalism?

The Atlantic's Ross Douthat offers his thoughts on Obama's speech and Jindal's response:

"Obama was fantastic -- worlds better than his inaugural. He laid out the most ambitious and expensive domestic agenda of any Democratic President since LBJ, and did it so smoothly that you'd think he was just selling an incremental center-left pragmatism. I think that he has an acute sense -- more acute than most people in Washington, probably -- of just how much running room is open in front of him at the moment, and he intends to make the absolute most of it. Burkean temperament or no, this was not a Burkean speech by any stretch: It was the speech of a man seeking to turn a moment of crisis into a domestic-policy revolution, and oozing confidence from every pore along the way. Now all he has to do is find a way to pay for it ...

And Jindal -- yeah, he was just as lousy as everybody's saying. As far as themes and messaging went, he basically chose option A on [Marc] Ambinder's list -- government isn't the solution; pork is the problem; etc. -- and embedded it in a weak, sing-song delivery that I suspect left even the people who respond favorably to that message cold. Sure, responding to a Presidential speech is almost always a thankless, hopeless job -- but shouldn't someone as smart as Jindal have recognized that, and either turned the opportunity down flat, or found a way to sound like something other than a kindergarten teacher delivering familiar GOP talking points? In the event, his speech was the capstone on a lousy night for conservatism: If that's the best the Right has to offer as a rebuttal to Obama, American liberalism is going to be running untouched down the field for years to come."

LEST WE FORGET: Area Man Thought He Had More Forks Than This

From The Onion:

"CHARLOTTE, NC -- Rummaging through his silverware tray Thursday morning, database administrator Ben Pagano, 30, was shocked to discover that he owned far fewer forks than previously assumed. 'What the hell? I thought I had a bunch of them,' Pagano said after double-checking the tray's knife compartment and his bedroom nightstand for any wayward forks. 'Didn't I have, like, six when I moved in here? I wonder if Bill took some when he moved out.' At press time, 11 of Pagano's forks and his missing wristwatch were still in the apartment's broken dishwasher, which none of the roommates had opened since April."

Posted by Ian Faerstein at 01:03 PM

February 24, 2009

2/24: Let's Get Fiscal

Conservative bloggers are portraying yesterday's "fiscal responsibility summit" hosted by Pres. Obama as a "boot-licking session" that won't result in any meaningful policy changes. Liberal bloggers, meanwhile, were relieved that Obama abandoned his plans to announce the creation of a Social Security task force, but they still have major worries that Obama will propose benefit cuts as part of a plan to ensure the program's long-term solvency. It's clear that the netroots will not rest until cutting Social Security benefits is "off the bargaining table".

What else is happening in the blogosphere?

• Liberal bloggers (Dworkin, Beeton, Marshall, Greenwald, Benen) are buzzing about recent polls indicating that Obama is significantly more popular than cong. GOPers.
• Conservative bloggers (Geraghty, Reynolds, Hinderaker, Hawkins) are blaming the stock market's continued poor performance on Obama's economic policies.
• Conservative bloggers (Hewitt, von Spakovsky, hogan, Goldberg) are criticizing the proposal to give Washington, D.C. a vote in the House of Representatives.

FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY SUMMIT: Lots Of Talk; Little Action

Conservative bloggers are portraying yesterday's "fiscal responsibility summit" hosted by Obama as a largely political exercise that won't result in any meaningful policy changes:

• NRO's Yuval Levin: "I have had a nagging sense these past few weeks that Barack Obama thinks that he is the president of a university. Yesterday's conference, with its breakout sessions and half-aware absurdity, certainly didn't allay that worry."
• Michelle Malkin: "Republicans including [AZ Sen.] John McCain and [House GOP Whip] Eric Cantor joined Democrat tax cheat Charlie Rangel and spendocrat Henry Waxman, along with Obama corrupto-cronies such as the SEIU's Andy Stern in a boot-licking session with Dear Leader. [Obama] gathered them all in a press conference setting and called on them as if they were journalistic stenographers. Obama paid lip service to bipartisanship. They paid lip service to bipartisanship. Obama declared the need to fix health care. They declared the need to fix health care. Obama said we had budget problems. They nodded their heads and bemoaned our budget problems."
• Right Wing News' John Hawkins: "The man has been in office one month, seems to be headed towards a 2 trillion deficit this year based on insane spending programs he supports and he's [talking about fiscal responsibility]?!?!?!? [...] In the same situation, I don't think even Bill Clinton would be audacious enough to deliver those lines. It's like getting a lecture about non-violence from a blood soaked, knife wielding Charlie Manson."

Liberal blogger Matthew Yglesias thinks the summit was "a small-scale political masterstroke": "Yesterday's fiscal responsibility summit turned out to be pretty boring. And that all-encompassing dullness tended, I think, to obscure the real story coming out of the summit -- the way Barack Obama basically rolled the Blue Dogs. [...] Faced with Blue Dog pressure over the stimulus, the White House agreed to bend-not-break and make a big deal about how the deficit is terrible and we need a summit about fiscal responsibility. Then he unveiled a plan to contain the medium-term deficit that consists of tax hikes on the wealthy and fewer wars. Good ideas! But not ideas that involve liberals giving any actual ground. Similarly, he's moved decisively to execute liberals' long-time hope of redefining the 'entitlement problem' as primarily a problem that requires systematic health care reform. [...] All told, it's a small-scale political masterstroke. Obama's progressive agenda remains what it's always been, but now it's fiscally responsible! Not that I thought it is or was ever irresponsible. But it lacked the 'fiscally responsible' label, and now he's got it without giving anything up."

Meanwhile, ex-Labor Sec. Robert Reich criticizes Obama's promise to cut the annual deficit in half by 2012: "The President's message on fiscal responsibility -- that he'll cut the current budget by half by the end of his first term -- is smart politics right now, but it may be dumb politics by November of 2012, and it doesn't make much economic sense regardless. We're in a deepening recession, in case you hadn't noticed. The biggest challenge is to ramp up aggregate demand. Yes, we have to borrow lots from the Chinese and Japanese to do this, and, yes, it's costly in terms of additional interest payments to them. But there's no choice. In fact, if the slump gets worse -- and I have every reason to fear it will because that's the direction we're heading in as fast as you can imagine -- we'll probably have to have a second stimulus. And if the second isn't enough, a third. And so on. FDR's biggest mistake was doing too little until World War II."

FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY SUMMIT II: Hands Off The Third Rail, Obama

While liberal bloggers are relieved that Obama didn't announce the creation of a Social Security task force at yesterday's fiscal responsibility summit, they're still worried that the President is open to cutting Social Security benefits:

• Open Left's David Sirota: "23 years is a long time -- almost a quarter century. It's also the gap between when Medicare will face some budget problems and when Social Security will face some budget problems. [...] Knowing this chronology, knowing that 45 million Americans also don't have health insurance, knowing President Obama campaigned on a promise to pass universal health care and not cut Social Security, it seems strange that President Obama is adamant about focusing the debate over entitlement reform even partially on Social Security and not on universal health care, which (if done right) could save lots of money."
• Atrios: "[I]f you really thought it was important to have some budget model make Social Security be 'solvent' for all eternity, it could easily be accomplished with a payroll tax increase. No mix [of tax increases and benefit cuts would be] necessary."
• Firedoglake's Jame Hamsher: "There is no compelling reason to tinker with Social Security, which will take in $180 billion more than it pays out this year and continue to run a surplus for the next 10 years. The 'looming crisis of 2041' could as Atrios notes be accomplished with the simple payroll tax increase Obama suggested during his campaign. Cutting Social Security, 'significantly' or otherwise, is a sop to the Blue Dogs and the Republicans to get them to buy in to healthcare reform, which is no doubt why [WH CoS] Rahm Emanuel is meeting with [SC Sen.] Lindsay Graham about 'entitlements generally, health care and Social Security' per the Times. [...] I'm betting that before this is over, we're going to have it out over whether 'liberals' find it acceptable to have reductions in Social Security benefits. Not that they need our support -- it could be achieved with a NAFTA-style Blue Dog/Republican coalition -- but it will still be interesting to find out where everyone comes down."
• digby: "The NY Times reports today that the left is agitated by talk of cutting social security. At least the administration knows that now, rather than being under the illusion that the left will support them, as the Politico reported a couple of weeks ago. That's a step in the right direction. But SS has to be off the bargaining table."

In response to Ezra Klein's assurances that "Social Security is not in danger," Hamsher asks: "If cutting Social Security benefits is off the table, why won't [WH Press Sec.] Robert Gibbs say it?"

OBAMA: Hey GOPers, Look At The Polls!

Liberal bloggers are buzzing about new Washington Post and New York Times polls indicating that Obama's job approval ratings are much higher than those of cong. GOPers:

• Daily Kos' DemFromCT: "Americans trust Obama on the economy, not congressional Republicans."
• MyDD's Todd Beeton: "Barack Obama [is] at Reaganesque levels of popularity one month into his first term. [...] This statistic on the relative levels of confidence respondents have in the President's ability to handle the economy vs. that of congressional Republicans is remarkable."
• TPM's Josh Marshall: "The Post and the Times both have new polls out tonight showing continued, strong support for President Obama: Post (68%); Times (63%). Beneath that topline, the numbers show very negative reactions to how Republicans have managed their opposition."
• TalkLeft's Big Tent Democrat: "[Obama] has forged a relationship of trust with the American People. He is a tremendous politician. The cable chatter and the Media chatter do not matter, as his poll results demonstrate."
• Balloon Juice's DougJ: "Obviously, no one could have predicted that the Republicans' heroic battle against the stimulus package would hurt them politically. [...Apparently] not many voters want the GOP to be back in the saddle again. [...] I'm sure the pundits will continue to cite some Rasmussen results that show what a genius Eric Cantor is, though. I hate to keep beating this one, but I'm not sure I've ever seen the gap between Villager opinion and public opinion this wide. Not since the Clinton impeachment anyway."
• Salon's Glenn Greenwald: "The political establishment has never come to terms with, and the media establishment just refuses to acknowledge, how deeply unpopular and discredited the GOP is among most Americans in the wake of the eight-year [George W.] Bush disaster. [...] The punditry's claims that Americans want Democrats to dilute their policies in order to attract and include Republican support is entirely misleading. The endless media stories that Eric Cantor, [RNC Chair] Michael Steele and [CNBC host] Rick Santelli are now riding some resurgent, anti-stimulus GOP wave are pure fiction. And the incessant calls for 'bipartisanship' are anti-democratic in the extreme."

Obsidian Wings' publius argues that the public's low opinion of cong. GOPers doesn't matter because the GOP's strategy is a long-term one: "It's easy to look at these numbers and think, 'Wow, the GOP blew it on the stimulus. The public doesn't support them.' But that argument doesn't really work. The House GOP position -- at whatever reading level it was generally articulated on -- isn't a short-term strategy. The stimulus was always going to pass, and the pro-Obama/pro-stimulus numbers were never going to change all that quickly. The House GOP is playing a long-term game. In the spirit of parliamentary opposition, they're looking ahead to the next election. What the public thinks now is not necessarily relevant to what the public will think 18 months from now. They've gone all in but haven't seen the flop yet."

The Washington Monthly's Steve Benen still thinks these poll numbers are bad news for GOPers: "Publius makes the point that the GOP isn't necessarily striving for short-term gains, and is thinking more about positioning for 2010 and 2012. There's certainly something to that -- Republicans want to be able to say, 'We told you so,' if the economy continues to struggle in the coming years. But I also think Republicans expected some kind of boost out of the recent economic fight, which featured a very aggressive p.r. push on GOP economic ideas. If the new poll results are any indication, their efforts haven't worked at all."

OBAMA II: Hey Dems, Look At The Dow Jones!

Conservative bloggers continue to blame the stock market's continued poor performance on Obama's economic policies:

• NRO's Jim Geraghty: "To use Jen Rubin's terms, Economic America has no faith in what Political America is doing."
• Glenn Reynolds: "Stocks have now fallen to 1997 levels. Not much of a confidence vote from the markets."
• Power Line's John Hinderaker: "The stock market tumbled again today, to its lowest level in more than a decade. Whatever else you think about the government's efforts to right the economy, it's impossible to say that it has succeeded in instilling confidence that its policies are on the right track."

Meanwhile, liberal bloggers continue to push back against this argument.

DC REPRESENTATION: The Rightroots Say No

Conservative bloggers are criticizing the proposal to give Washington, D.C. a vote in the House of Representatives:

• Townhall's Hugh Hewitt: "[This is] trashing the Constitution. [...] It seems to me that any state that does not want its power diluted in the Congress has the standing to immediately challenge the law, and hopefully one will do so."
• RedState's hogan: "To offer this representation extra-state is to tug at the thread holding our Republic together. If we begin tugging, how long before an argument is made by an activist court that representation no longer attaches to the state? Why not just take 305 million and divide by 435 -- and apportion throughout the land regardless of state boundaries? How long before the electoral college is ignored? [...] To continue down this path is perilous, and to offer an amendment to the Constitution, and particularly to offer an unconstitutional statute, that will turn our federalist structure on its head is wrong-headed."
• NRO's Hans von Spakovsky: "The Founders understood that it was necessary for the seat of federal government to be in an insular city -- one that would not make the members of Congress beholden or subject to the politicians of any particular state for, for example, services that they may require to work and live. In exchange, the citizens of the federal city would receive the benefit of having their interests advocated in some measure by all the members of Congress who work (and in many cases live) in the District and who, therefore, are attuned to the city's interest. Anyone doubting that this is true need only look to the fact that the District receives $5.55 for every dollar in federal taxes it pays: more than twice as much as any actual state."

NRO's Jonah Goldberg: "DC statehood is a bad idea for reasons familiar to lots of people. But it is true that taxation without representation runs against the American creed. What baffles me is how so many smart people think the way to remedy this injustice is to get more votes in Congress, when what we need to do is abolish the income tax for DC residents (like me!)."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: The Limits Of Umbrage

The Atlantic's Ta-Nehisi Coates thinks African-Americans should take a lesson from Obama's response to McCain's question at yesterday's fiscal responsibility summit:

"John McCain trie[d] to knife Obama at yesterday's event. It's not that raising the cost of the [presidential] helicopter is illegitimate. But that stupid, passive-aggressive grin comes over him just as he delivers the line. We've all seen that grin before -- it's usually paired with a 'my friends.' But later for that, watch Obama's response. Classy. Cool. And funny. He's not concerned with whether McCain is trying to knife him or not. He's beyond it. I think there is a serious lesson for black folks in the manner in which Obama handles opposition -- the legitimate opposition, but especially the illegitimate opposition.

More than any black public figure in recent memory, Obama understands the problems with a strategy premised on taking offense. It's not that Obama never takes umbrage, it's that he's careful about what and when he takes umbrage. I don't really know what the line is. But I know taking offense at calling the stimulus bill a spending bill hits people in a way that, say, taking offense at Michael Steele wouldn't.

There a certain sect of the American commentariat which believes black people complain about the country too much. Usually this same sect spends their time complaining about the country even more. I'm not down with that. But I think all of us should think hard about what we take offense, why, and what good ultimately comes of it. Apologies, I guess. I'm not sure that cartoons are worth our time. But governors denying unemployment benefits to tax-payers, in order to build some political cred, certainly is."

LEST WE FORGET: Not Everyone Can Be This Awesome

From Overheard in New York:

Hobo: Any change? Anything you got to give?
Suit: I wish I had something to give, but pretty soon, I'm going to be like you.
Hobo: My man, you cannot be this awesome.

Posted by Ian Faerstein at 01:02 PM

February 23, 2009

2/23: The GOP Gets Feisty

GOP senators took a lot of hits in the liberal blogosphere this weekend. First of all, lefty bloggers called Sen. Richard Shelby (R-AL) a "conspiracy theorist" and a "nasty, braindead piece of work" after he questioned Pres. Obama's citizenship during a meeting with constituents. Second, lefty bloggers blasted Sen. Jim Bunning (R-KY) for predicting that SCOTUS Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg would probably be dead from pancreatic cancer within nine months. Steve Benen writes: "It seems a little early in Obama's presidency to see Republicans become this deranged. I shudder to think how unhinged they'll be in, say, a year."

Meanwhile, conservative bloggers are praising GOP governors such as Haley Barbour (R-MS), Bobby Jindal (R-LA), and Mark Sanford (R-SC) for rejecting some of the federal aid allocated to their states in the stimulus bill. Righty bloggers are also buzzing about some of the recent organized protests against the Obama admin.'s economic measures. It's clear that conservative bloggers believe that GOPers must establish credibility on spending issues if they want to make a political comeback in 2010.

SHELBY: Wingnut Fever -- Catch It!

Liberal bloggers are criticizing Sen. Shelby for questioning Obama's U.S. citizenship during a meeting with some of his constituents:

"Another local resident asked Shelby if there was any truth to a rumor that appeared during the presidential campaign concerning Obama's U.S. citizenship, or lack thereof.

'Well his father was Kenyan and they said he was born in Hawaii, but I haven't seen any birth certificate,' Shelby said. 'You have to be born in America to be president.'"

• Daily Kos' Markos Moulitsas: "Conspiracy theorist in the Senate."
• TPM's Eric Kleefeld: "Oh, brother. The conspiracy-mongering that Barack Obama is secretly a Kenyan citizen who has hidden his real birth certificate has now found its way into the utterances of a United States Senator: Richard Shelby, Republican of Alabama."
• The Washington Monthly's Benen: "Shelby isn't just some random yahoo with a right-wing radio talk-show; he's a four-term United States senator. He's the ranking member on the Senate Banking Committee, for crying out loud. It's incumbent on him to be somewhat coherent and conduct himself with at least a little sanity. [...] It seems a little early in Obama's presidency to see Republicans become this deranged. I shudder to think how unhinged they'll be in, say, a year."
• digby: "Richard Shelby left the Democratic party in 1994 finally signaling the final success of the Southern Strategy and the long overdue gathering of all conservatives under the same banner. It was a good day for Democrats. We may be a lot of bad things, but at least we don't have to claim this nasty, braindead piece of work."
• AMERICAblog's John Aravosis: "Anybody else think Dick Shelby just had himself a Trent Lott moment? And interesting that both men are from the deep south."
• Firedoglake's Teddy Partridge: "Remember all that Bush-era haranguing from the reichwing about Democrats, MoveOn and progressive bloggers undermining the President in a time of war? Now that the Presidency is in Democratic hands, Senator Richard Shelby (D-now-R-Alabama) has decided it's fine to question the legitimacy of our President to serve -- during wartime! Senator Shelby, you give America's enemies comfort with statements like this."

BUNNING: Stay Classy, Senator

Liberal bloggers are also criticizing Sen. Bunning for predicting that Justice Ginsburg will probably die from pancreatic cancer within nine months:

• Daily Kos' Barbara Morrill: "What an insensitive clod. [...] Who would have thought that another Republican Senator could manage to eclipse the stupidity of Richard Shelby this quickly? And by the way, Bunning thinks that Ginsburg is going to be replaced by a conservative judge? Someone may want to clue him in on the most recent presidential election results."
• TAPPED's Adam Serwer: "Fortunately for Senator Bunning, diarrhea of the mouth is not fatal."
• MyDD's Transplanted Texan: "Revolting, no? But hardly surprising -- this is the guy who, in 2004, 'compared his dark-complexioned opponent to one of Saddam Hussein's sons.'"
• TPM's Josh Marshall: "[Bunning is] one class act."

STIMULUS: Bless Those Southern Governers

Conservative bloggers are praising conservative GOP governors like Barbour, Jindal, and Sanford for rejecting some of the federal aid allocated to their states in the stimulus bill:

• AmSpec Blog's Doug Bandow: "Congressional Republicans showed surprising fidelity to principle in opposing the Democrats' big spending pork-ridden 'stimulus' package. But the toughest battle now is occurring among the governors. Men of principle, like South Carolina's Mark Sanford, are opposed by proto-Democrats like California's Arnold Schwarzenegger. [...] This is a moment for the grassroots to speak up. The Republican Party has a chance to regain its voice in opposing wasteful spending. The rank and file need to make clear who speaks for them."
• Hot Air's Allahpundit: "Sweet: Jindal rejects $98 million in stimulus money for Louisiana. In one fell swoop, he's stolen Sanford's thunder as stimulus critic-in-chief. Risky, but I like it. [...] The left will naturally hammer him for hating the poor -- or, per [SC Rep.] Jim Clyburn, black people -- but by framing it as a savings to businesses he can sell it as something that'll produce more employment in the long run."

On the other hand, liberal bloggers are blasting these GOP governors for their actions:

• digby: "I guess Jindahl and Barbour figure they've got four years for the economy to improve enough that their voters won't remember that they put them out on the street during the recession."
• Obsidian Wings' publius: "It's hard to see the spectacle of cash-starved governors refusing money for their constituents as anything other than ideology gone mad."

ECONOMY: The Obama Recession?

Many conservative bloggers are blaming the stock markets' poor performance since Election Day on Obama's economic policies (liberal bloggers, unsurprisingly, dispute this thesis):

• NRO's Jim Geraghty: "On Election Day 2008, the Dow Jones Industrial Average closed at 9,625. On Inauguration Day 2009, the DJIA closed at 7,949.09. Today the Dow is at 7,342, down 124 points on the day, and down 600 points in the month since Obama became president. [...] Many factors affect stock prices on any given day, but to the extent that the market has responded to Obama's election and taking office, it has been in one steady direction: down. Doesn't the message seem clear? With massive government borrowing, with higher taxes seen as inevitable, with the government taking from those who did pay their mortgages to bail out those who didn't, with details of much-touted financial rescues still sparse, with demonization of American businesses...who in their right mind would want to invest in a company right now? Why buy stock in companies that are going to be punished six ways to Sunday by an ever-growing government?"
• Commentary's Jennifer Rubin: "[T]he Obama administration, and specifically the boy genius Treasury Secretary, succeeded in wreaking havoc on the markets in a matter of weeks. It is rather remarkable that they thought they'd spur a recovery by talking down the economy, providing no clarity to investors and financial institutions in dire need of some, and coming up with pork-a-thon 'stimulus' bill. One wonders how much wealth has been incinerated (and how long the recession has been prolonged) by a government-induced panic."

Conservative bloggers are also buzzing about some of the recent organized protests against the Obama admin.'s economic measures. Michelle Malkin and Glenn Reynolds are talking about creating a nationwide "Tea Party" movement, inspired by CNBC host Rick Santelli's call for a "Chicago Tea Party" to protest the Obama admin.'s mortgage plan.

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: The Slumdog Backlash

Ezra Klein agrees with Dennis Lim's critique of the newly-crowned Best Picture winner:

"Slumdog Millionaire is really two movies: 'Slumdog' and 'Millionaire.' Slumdog is a grim depiction of acute poverty, ethnic violence, and the terrible havoc deprivation wreaks on men's souls. It is powerful, and some, if not all, of the characters are richly drawn. The relationship between the brothers is complex and compelling. The cinematography is breathtaking.

But Millionaire is much worse: An unconvincing and poorly drawn fantasy. The love story makes little sense, and mistakes a near-pathological fixation for romance. The game show vehicle is smart, but undeveloped: It's a self-conscious narrative gimmick, which is rather the worst kind.

That said, it has a purpose: Slumdog and Millionaire don't hang together, but Millionaire has allowed a fundamentally despairing tale to be sold as an uplifting fable. The theatres would not be nearly so full if the movie were sold as a relentless tale of third world despair. And it's either to the filmmaker's credit or shame that Millionaire ends up unable to detract from Slumdog: Walking out, you know full well that there are a lot of slumdogs, and very few millionaires."

LEST WE FORGET: Sounds Like Someone's Got A Case Of The Mondays

From FMyLife.com:

• Today, I called the campus police to give me a ride to the cafeteria since I am on crutches from knee surgery. I was only halfway into the car when the man started driving and ran over my foot. Now neither my right knee or my left foot work. FML.
• Today, my boyfriend of 2 years sent me a text message saying, "Don't worry I'm gonna break up with her soon. Love you." FML.
• Today, I received my passport in the mail. They got my birthdate wrong. Then I picked up my birth certificate that I had sent in with the application. Turns out my parents have been celebrating my birthday on the wrong day for 16 years. FML.
• Today, I looked at the Facebook of the girl I really liked, and I saw she wrote on her friend's wall "Last night was the biggest mistake of my life." We hooked up last night. FML.
• Today, on the crowded train, a cute guy called me over and told me to stand next to him because there were less people there. We started talking, but he left before I could get his number. Just when I was about to tell my friends about it, I find out that he stole my phone. FML.

Posted by Ian Faerstein at 01:05 PM

February 20, 2009

2/20: Deconstructing Orszag

Ben Smith's interview with OMB dir. Peter Orszag -- who will help lead Obama's upcoming "fiscal responsibility summit" -- received a mixed reaction in the liberal blogosphere. Some lefty bloggers were cheered by Orszag's argument that the best way to address Social Security's projected "actuarial deficit" is to reform the health care system, not dramatically cut benefits. However, other liberal bloggers were disturbed by the fact that benefit cuts are even being discussed (according to Smith, Orszag believes that "Social Security requires only modest tax hikes and benefit cuts" -- our emphasis). Jane Hamsher complains: "There's nothing 'liberal' about accepting the frame that Social Security needs addressing in any way that cuts benefits, no matter how 'slight.'"

Meanwhile, the conservative blogosphere is buzzing about a recent rant by CNBC's Rick Santelli (which was heavily promoted by Matt Drudge) in which he characterized Obama's mortgage plan as "rewarding the losers." Righty bloggers are describing Santelli's remarks as "dead-on" and are suggesting that Obama's mortage plan will incite a middle-class "revolt". One conservative blogger is even speculating about a "Palin-Santelli 2012" presidential ticket. Liberal bloggers, naturally, had a different take on Santelli's remarks; one described his speech as "right-wing backlash stuff at its absolute best."

ORSZAG: Making The Right Noises?

Smith's interview with Orszag generated a divided response from lefty bloggers. Here are some of the key grafs from Smith's article:

"Orszag's long-running project -- something that has made him the left's favorite Cabinet member -- has been replacing talk of an 'entitlement crisis' with his argument that Social Security requires only modest tax hikes and benefit cuts, while Medicare and Medicaid have much more dramatic fiscal woes.

'Social Security faces an actuarial deficit over the next 75-100 years. In the past I've resisted the term "crisis" to describe that kind of situation,' he said. 'This is not quantitatively as important as getting healthcare done.'"

Some liberal bloggers were comforted by Orszag's remarks, which they saw as evidence that the Obama admin. wants to reform the health care system rather than cut Social Security and Medicare benefits:

• Ezra Klein: "You'll notice that Orszag says 'health care,' not 'Medicaid and Medicare.' The Obama administration believes that the entitlement problem is a health care entitlement problem, and the health care entitlement problem is a health care system problem. And so the focus now is on health care reform: The fiscal responsibility summit will be used, in part, to make this argument. In Obama's Washington, a plan to cut Social Security is no longer enough to qualify you as 'fiscally responsible.' You need an answer to the Medicare and Medicaid questions, which means you need an answer to the health care system. We will see the beginnings of the White House's answer -- an answer that has required a series of decisions by President Obama himself -- when the budget emerges next Thursday. That, and not Monday's summit, is where the nature of the administration's commitment to fiscal responsibility will come clear."
• The Washington Monthly's Steve Benen: "Whenever President Obama or anyone associated with his administration utters the phrase 'entitlement reform,' it generates an audible gasp. The fear, of course, is that the White House might buy into conservative rhetoric about weakening Social Security. Those concerns are especially acute now, on the eve of next week's 'fiscal responsibility summit,' which may include some high-profile figures who see entitlement 'crises' where none exist. For what it's worth, I'm not worried. Obama has always been entirely consistent on the issue -- Social Security isn't a crisis; Medicare needs to be addressed in the context of the healthcare system's larger problems. Those close to the president keep saying the same thing. OMB Director Peter Orszag, who'll help lead the 'fiscal responsibility summit,' said all the right things to Ben Smith yesterday. [...] If anything, the 'fiscal responsibility summit' appears to be a vehicle for advancing the Obama healthcare agenda. Works for me."
• Think Progress' Matthew Yglesias: "I'm not sure Orszag really is 'the left's favorite cabinet member' -- he's a pretty moderate dude. Ask about [Energy Sec.] Steven Chu or [Labor Sec.] Hilda Solis. But the left certainly agrees with Orszag about this issue. [...] Only structural reform of health care can avoid long-term budgetary apocalypse."

ORSZAG II: "Modest" Benefit Cuts Are Still Benefit Cuts

Other liberal bloggers had a different reaction to Smith's interview with Orszag. These bloggers were alarmed by Smith's claim that Orszag believes "that Social Security requires only modest tax hikes and benefit cuts" (our emphasis):

• Firedoglake's Jane Hamsher: "This seems to be the frame du jour, that 'modest benefit cuts' is a liberal 'solution' to the Social Security 'problem.' [...] There's nothing 'liberal' about accepting the frame that Social Security needs addressing in any way that cuts benefits, no matter how 'slight.' The Orszag plan calls for raising the retirement age and cutting benefits for people under 55. The 'liberal' position, per Jamie Galbraith, is that Social Security benefits actually need to be increased, not decreased."
• digby: "I agree with Jane on this. When did the 'liberal' position become 'modest tax hikes and benefit cuts on social security' are necessary? That's just not true. In fact, according to most progressive economists, social security benefits need to be raised. (And after watching this rather huge loss of retirement wealth in the past year, I would think that it's politically unthinkable to even whisper about lowering benefits at this point.)"
• Open Left's Chris Bowers: "[W]hile those in the policy wonk business may think that modest Social Security benefit cuts represent some sort of liberal consensus, the fact is that such a plan is heavily opposed by liberals at large, and indeed opposed by the nation at large, too. It is very good that the Obama administration is looking to reframe the entitlement debate toward health care and away from Social Security, and that Social Security is not on the administration's radar. However, as long as someone who, only four years ago, published a plan favoring Social Security benefit cuts is apparently drafting the federal budget, I reserve the right to remain unnerved about potential Social Security cuts during the Obama administration. Those fears will be greatly reduced if no such cuts appear in the budget outline that will be revelaed next Thursday."

Klein thinks Hamsher's reaction to Orszag's remarks is too alarmist: "There are two things going on in Jane Hamsher's post on the 'fiscal summit.' The first is a show of thundering opposition to benefit cuts in Social Security. That's a good thing. Progressives should draw bright lines. The second, though, is an effort to read the tea leaves to suggest that the Obama administration has a secret plan to cut Social Security benefits. That makes rather less sense. [...] The point of Orszag's argument is not how you fix Social Security. It's to stop talking about an entitlement crisis. [...] Orszag is one of the good guys here."

Hamsher pushes back: "Orszag's not running for prom king here so whether he's 'one of the good guys' is not really relevant. He has been presenting his plan to cut Social Security benefits as part of the White House's efforts on 'fiscal responsibility,' according to people who have directly participated in those presentations. [...] If Ezra's got great sources in the administration, why is he venturing guesses about what Orszag intends? Why doesn't he go and ask them, point blank -- is cutting Social Security benefits off the table? [...] It may be that in the wake of the horrified response Orszag got from Congressional leadership that any ideas about 'fixing' Social Security have been abandoned -- these things seem to be changing by the minute. But if Ezra has valuable sources within the administration willing to speak to him about what the White House intends, there are a lot of people right now who would like to know. He should be using them to find out solid information on that front rather than float anonymous spin and then speculate about the meaning."

SANTELLI: This Trader's As Mad As Hell And He's Not Gonna Take It Anymore!

Conservative bloggers are buzzing about a recent rant by CNBC's Santelli in which he blasted the Obama admin.'s mortgage bailout plan:

"'The government is promoting bad behavior,' Santelli said of President Obama's $75 billion initiative to refinance mortgages.

'I have an idea,' he said on the Chicago Mercantile Exchange floor. 'How about this, new President and new administration, why don't you put up a Web site to have people vote on the Internet ... to see if we really want to subsidize the losers' mortgages? Or would we like to at least buy cars and buy houses in foreclosure and give them to people who might have a chance to actually prosper down the road... reward people who could carry the water instead of drink the water.'"

Conservative bloggers were delighted by Santelli's remarks:

• RedState's Erick Erickson: "So the [RedState] contact email address is getting inundated by people sending links to Drudge's top story -- the CNBC call for a modern Boston Tea Party over Captain Bull Crap's crap mortgage plan. People respond viscerally to this. They might not had Porkulus not overreached. But it did. And now there is this. Most people bought their homes responsibly. They bought what they could afford. Some people tried to take advantage of the system or did not think ahead. They've gotten burned. No one wants to bail out irresponsibility, which is exactly what Captain Bull Crap's plan would do. The result of Obama pushing forward with this could be transformative societal change against him with the middle class in revolt."
• NRO's Kathryn Jean Lopez: "The reaction to Rick Santelli's Chicago-trading-floor incident this morning echoes the emotional reaction my inbox had to Sarah Palin's convention speech this summer. [...] I think people are hungry for someone who is fed up with the way things are and who seem to believe in something enough to know there in an alternative worth fighting for. Some of the voices may be far from perfect, but Americans are looking for signs of the life of an alternative. And so if a representative pops up -- someone who appears to have roots and energy, folks will cheer them on in the hopes there's a candidate here. Maybe not a presidential candidate, but a leader of some sort. Someone who can offer a vision of something other than a culture of bailout. Today, Rick Santelli was that sign of life."
• The Heritage Foundation's Conn Carroll: "Santelli's criticism of the mortgage bailout plan is dead on: The plan treats borrowers who sacrificed to pay their mortgages on time the same as those who used their equity for a boat and stopped paying their loans. This moral hazard sends a clear message to our children that they can avoid the consequences of their actions."

Meanwhile, NRO's Stephen Spruiell interviewed Santelli after the video of his rant became an Internet sensation.

SANTELLI II: Way To Stick Up For The Rich Guy, Rick!

Liberal bloggers, naturally, had a different reaction to Santelli's remarks:

• CJR's Ryan Chittum: "This is an example of what's wrong with a certain kind of financial journalism, the kind where people of like backgrounds spend all day staring at tickers and interviewing each other. The segment couldn't more clearly illustrate the disconnect between the financial-services sector, certain financial journalists, and, you know, 'reality.' [...] What sent Santelli, CNBC's hot-air, oops, 'On-Air Editor,' over the edge? The homeowner bailout. Of course, he didn't get himself into nearly this much of a lather over the trillions of dollars we've given to Wall Street welfare cases and the busted banks. Oh no. He's mad that non-financial-service-professionals, otherwise known as homeowners, or, according to Santelli 'losers,' are up now for help—to the tune of $275 billion, much of which would go to the banks anyway."
• Firedoglake's Scarecrow: "CNBC's on-air editor, Rick Santelli, calls ordinary Americans who face losing their homes to foreclosure 'losers' who don't deserve government help. [...] America's homeowners have just lost about $6 trillion in home value in the last year, largely because the people who are supposed to oversee and finance the economy didn't do their jobs, but Santelli thinks we should let Americans facing foreclosure just fail. That way, more patriotic Americans like the traders surrounding him -- the guys who made a bundle riding the housing bubble economy -- can scarf up the properties for pennies on the dollar and get rich. Thanks, Rick and CNBC, for making the case for a surcharge on transactions, greater securities regulations, and an increase in the top marginal tax rates."
• dday: "[This is] right-wing backlash stuff at its absolute best. Lost from this complaint is the plain fact of predatory lending, that lenders got cash rebates to put people in crappy, high-interest mortgages, that they hid terms of the agreement and denied disclosure, and that all of those hardworking folks are seeing their property values plummet as a result of millions of foreclosed homes glutting the market. To the tune of $6 trillion dollars in home value. [...] The revolution has begun. These workaday stock traders are going to take back this country for the laissez-faire capitalists who are entitled to it."
• Open Left's David Sirota: "[This is] what Thomas Frank has called 'Market Populism' -- the portrayal of Wall Street's agenda as an impassioned mass-based populist movement. [...W]ith the economy in meltdown, I'm convinced that part of why the public is so angry is because what they see on television and in their newspapers is so fundamentally at odds with how they are feeling and what they are dealing with. As Santelli shows, large swaths of the media and political Establishment actively and publicly denigrate the people who are most hard hit by the downturn."
• MyDD's Charles Lemos: "[R]eferring to suffering Americans as 'losers' is just so classy and morally uplifting. And his proposal there at end reminds yet again of Andrew Mellon's candid assessment that 'in a depression, assets return to their rightful owners.' Mr. Santelli is bemoaning the fact he is being deprived of the chance to make a killing by profiting on the misery of others. Let us not be deceived, this is his real complaint -- he's being denied 'the right' to buy foreclosed properties for pennies on the dollar. Rick Santelli is today's Andrew Mellon."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Hip-Hop Republicans

The Atlantic's Ross Douthat offers his thoughts about RNC Chair Michael Steele's plan to appeal to younger voters by applying GOP principles to "urban-surburban hip-hop settings":

"Michael Steele sounds clownish, and merits some mockery, but he isn't entirely wrong: Symbolism matters in politics, and there are almost certainly some votes to be gained for the GOP simply by easing the party's optics and rhetoric in a more youth-oriented, multicultural, self-aware direction. (As Mike Huckabee has demonstrated, just being less crabby and more self-deprecating can make a difference in how the media covers you.) But the basic dynamic that Daniel Larison identifies is still the most important one: Policy choices matter most, and for a losing political party whose current raft of policy proposals are deeply unpopular, better communication strategies and candidate recruitment only make sense as a supplement to a message adjustment, not as a substitute for it."

LEST WE FORGET: Thanks A Lot, Folks; I'll Be Here All Week

From Overheard in the Office:

Assistant to boss: I need to leave early today for a dentist's appointment. Would that be okay?
Boss: Sure, is at 2:30?
Assistant: 2:30? No, it's at 3.
Boss: Well, it should be at 2:30.
Assistant: Why?
Boss (chuckling): Because your tooth hurty. Get it? Two thirty, tooth hurty.
Assistant: Are you kidding me?

Posted by Ian Faerstein at 01:00 PM

February 19, 2009

2/19: The Road To 60 Gets Tougher

Liberal bloggers weren't all that happy to learn that KS Gov. Kathleen Sebelius is reportedly Pres. Obama's top choice for the position of HHS Sec. -- not because they don't like Sebelius, but because they were hoping that she would run for Senate instead. Jennifer Bruenjes sums up the netroots' feelings about the rumored appointment when she writes: "One step forward for the Obama administration who adds a quality cabinet member. Two giant leaps back for Democrats -- and Kansans -- hoping to capture a Senate seat in 2010." Meanwhile, Ezra Klein observes that Sebelius will not be able to play the same role that ex-SD Sen. Tom Daschle would have played in leading Obama's health reform effort, since the KS governor is "a newcomer to Washington, with few contacts on the Hill and little knowledge of the players or the process."

What else is happening in the blogosphere?

• Conservative bloggers (Malkin, Liebau, Goldberg, Mirengoff, Emanuel, Hawkins, Geraghty) are unloading on AG Eric Holder for calling the U.S. "a nation of cowards" in failing to openly confront racial issues.
• Conservative bloggers (Carpenter, Field, Morrissey) continue to worry that Dems will try to reinstate the so-called "Fairness Doctrine", even though Obama opposes it.
• Liberal bloggers (Marshall, Kleiman, Martin) are buzzing about the fact that some GOPers are conceding that nationalizing insolvent banks might be necessary.

SEBELIUS: Are You Sure You Don't Want To Run For Senate Instead?

While liberal bloggers think Sebelius would be "a very positive addition" to Obama's cabinet, many of them were disappointed to learn that she is reportedly Obama's top choice for the position of HHS Sec., as they were hoping that she would run for the Senate in 2010:

• Swing State Project's James L: "Assuming Sebelius is nominated and accepts the gig (and you would think she would have publicly declined by now if she were not willing to serve), Democrats will have a pretty barren shelf of possible candidates for [Kansas'] open Senate race in 2010. What a bummer."
• Think Progress' Matthew Yglesias: "Everyone loves Sebelius, so it'd hardly be a crazy pick. Still, I worry about too much progressive talent in the cabinet and not enough in the 2010 midterms."
• Daily Kos' Scout Finch: "One step forward for the Obama administration who adds a quality cabinet member. Two giant leaps back for Democrats -- and Kansans -- hoping to capture a Senate seat in 2010."

Meanwhile, Klein examines Sebelius's strengths and weaknesses: "Sebelius is well-liked by the activist community and broadly respected for her political and managerial in a deep red state. She knows health care well from the regulatory side, having served as insurance commissioner in Kansas. Her tenure in that position wasn't dramatic, but it was a solid performance that she smartly played for populist credibility. [...] Word is also that she gets along easily with Obama and there's little doubt that she'd sail through confirmation hearings. Of the names floated for HHS so far, she arguably makes the most sense."

Klein continues: "But be clear: Sebelius is a choice for Health and Human Services, not health reform. She'd be a newcomer to Washington, with few contacts on the Hill and little knowledge of the players or the process. She's not versed in the administration's health care plan nor has she been present for the internal conversations that have sharpened in recent weeks as the coming budget forced hard decisions on the proposal. She'd be walking into a situation where various internal players and advisers have already carved out a broad role for themselves in the administration's process and she'd be facing down a Congress that's surprisingly far along in its own preparations. That's not to say that as head of HHS she wouldn't be in on the meetings and have a voice at the table. But she will not be replacing Daschle as the central figure in both the administration's health care reform effort and its health services bureaucracy."

HOLDER: Backlash

Conservative bloggers are blasting Holder for making the following statement while giving a speech marking Black History Month:

"Though this nation has proudly thought of itself as an ethnic melting pot, in things racial we have always been and continue to be, in too many ways, essentially a nation of cowards."

• Michelle Malkin: "Funny. When I think of racial cowards, I think of Barack Obama at Jeremiah Wright's church, sitting there week after week, year after year, saying nothing about the separatist demagoguery echoing from the pulpit to the pews. When I think of racial cowards, I think of all the navel-gazers who fret about poisonous racial dialogue, but say nothing about 'My President Is Black' bigotry. When I think of racial cowards, I think of the people cowed by mau-mau-er Al Sharpton -- now attacking the NYPost over a cartoon lampooning that crazy dead chimp. When I think of racial cowards, I think of the folks who enable p.c. thugs to cry racism over 'That One' and 'Thug Thizzle' and 'tricked out'. Holder doesn't want an honest dialogue about race. In the Age of Obama, 'talking enough with each other about race' means the rest of us shutting up while being subjected to lectures about our insensitivity and insufficient integration on the weekends."
• Townhall's Carol Platt Liebau: "This is disappointing drivel, especially coming from the Attorney General, but it shouldn't be surprising. It's emblematic of the left-wing views on everything from race to economics that infuse the Obama administration. [...] Finally, it strikes me that there's more than a little irony in the nation's first black attorney general -- appointed by the nation's first black president -- excoriating Americans for their racial attitudes or race-related actions. Really, General Holder, do you think things are just that bad right now, right here in the USA?"
• NRO's Jonah Goldberg: "I find Eric Holder's comments on race both hackneyed and reprehensible. He says that America is 'essentially a nation of cowards' because it doesn't talk about race enough. First, I think this is nonsense as we talk about race a great, great, great deal in this country. Endless courses in colleges and universities, chapters in high school textbooks, movies, documentaries, after-school-specials and so on are devoted to discussing race. [...] Second, to the extent we don't talk about race in this country the primary reason is that liberals and racial activists have an annoying habit of attacking anyone who doesn't read from a liberal script 'racists' or, if they're lucky, 'insensitive.'"
• Power Line's Paul Mirengoff: "We have plenty of problems as a nation. I doubt that insufficient discussion of race is one of them. But if it is, Holder's mind-set is part of the problem, not part of the solution."
• Hot Air's Allahpundit: "[...This is] the same old nonsense about having an 'honest' conversation on race, which typically means agreeing root and branch with the leftist position on any policy issue that touches that subject (e.g., illegal immigration) on penalty of being called a racist."
• RedState's Jeff Emanuel: "Folks like Holder, the Rev. Joseph Lowery, and their race-minded fellows are clinging to an increasingly outdated and obsolete worldview like a man long-since rescued from the sea clinging to a life preserver."
• Right Wing News' John Hawkins: "Here's the simple reality. There is no real dialogue on race in this country -- and there will probably be no real dialogue on race in this country for the foreseeable future. Why? Because white people aren't free to speak honestly about race. [...] That being said, electing Barack Obama proved without a shadow of a doubt that this is not a racist country and since that's the case, I hope to see a lot more people, black and white, refusing to dance to the tune of the race hustlers on the left who are constantly pretending to be offended to fill their wallets or further their political agendas."
• AmSpec Blog's Quin Hillyer: "[I]t doesn't take a lot of bravery to spout off when you are the chief law-enforcement officer in the land. And while Holder talks a good game about bringing races together, he is actually a devotee of racial bean-counting even at the cost of hindering public safety. Methinks Holder is not the right one to make the case about racial togetherness."

NRO's Jim Geraghty: "Mr. President, do you agree with the assessment of your Attorney General that, 'Though this nation has proudly thought of itself as an ethnic melting pot, in things racial we have always been and continue to be, in too many ways, essentially a nation of cowards'? And does every senator who voted for Holder feel just swell right about now?"

FAIRNESS DOCTRINE: Striking Fear In The Hearts Of The Rightroots

Conservative bloggers have long believed that Dems are trying to reinstate the so-called "Fairness Doctrine", which would require broadcasters to present opposing viewpoints on controversial issues. Conservative fears were not assuaged by a WH spokesperson's claim that Obama "opposes any move to bring back the so-called Fairness Doctrine":

• Townhall's Amanda Carpenter: "[T]his shouldn't reassure anyone."
• Townhall's Chris Field: "He can say it as often as he wants and he might oppose the specific language known as the 'Fairness Doctrine,' but that doesn't mean he opposes the principle of it. In fact, just the opposite can be seen from his record as senator."
• Hot Air's Ed Morrissey: "Obama opposes the Fairness Doctrine, because as he said last summer, it distracts from ownership diversification and other issues like net neutrality that would presumably deliver the same result, only in another guise. I'd like to hear that the White House will actively oppose any attempts to regulate political content on broadcast airwaves. That kind of a statement would make it much harder for a later climbdown from Team Obama."

AmSpec Blog's Philip Klein thinks GOPers should stop worrying about this topic: "I know that talk radio is all over this issue, but based on everything I've observed covering Obama, I don't think he's going to risk the big stuff to get into a battle over what is ultimately a marginal issue for him. Instead of focusing on the fairness doctrine, conservatives would be better off gearing up for fights on card check and health care, two areas in which Obama will actually attempt to do some very bad things."

BANKS: Resistance Is Futile; You Will Be Nationalized

Several liberal bloggers are buzzing about the fact that conservatives like Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) and ex-Fed Chair Alan Greenspan are suggesting that nationalizing insolvent banks might be necessary:

• TPM's Josh Marshall: "[I]t does seem pretty clear that this is where everything is trending. The issue isn't whether people like the idea of 'nationalization'. It's better framed as whether you (a) want the government to temporarily take over certain banks or (b) want to continue giving away hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars in an effort that probably isn't even going to work. Especially for Republicans, you really can't be anti-bailout and anti-nationalization. Those are the only options."
• The Reality-Based Community's Mark Kleiman: "Greenspan is for it. Lindsay Graham is for it. If the Geithner plan as announced had included nationalization, the entire Noise Machine would have spent the next several months bleating about 'socialism.' This way, Obama gets to do it reluctantly, partly in deference to the opinions of prominent Republicans."
• Obsidian Wings' Eric Martin: "Whether we call the flower in question 'pre-privatization,' 'temporary receivership' or good old-fashioned 'nationalization,' the endemic aroma remains sage. It is unfortunate that such creative nomenclature is necessary due to Americans' knee-jerk opposition to anything even reminiscent of socialism -- despite the reality of our mixed economy and the fact that our government regularly nationalizes unhealthy banks via the FDIC (as Atrios is wont to point out ad nauseam to littel avail). But if tweaking the name facilitates the adoption of good policy, so be it. Refreshingly, some Republicans, such as Lindsay Graham, are starting to come around -- even using the dreaded 'N' word -- despite intense pressure from within the GOP ranks. [...] This is the best way forward, and the sooner [Treasury Sec.] Tim Geithner gets it/accepts it, the better. And if he doesn't, then it's incumbent upon Obama to assert himself."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Blue Dog Thinking

Ezra Klein:

"Chris Hayes's nice piece on the Blue Dog Democrats asks the right question: Why fiscal conservatism? These are, in theory, conservative Democrats from marginal districts interested in demonstrating independence from [House Speaker] Nancy Pelosi. They could choose social conservatism or international aggression or anti-corporate populism or anti-crime posturing. But fiscal conservatism? There's no district in America that wants to see its Social Security benefits cut. People are about as interested in the long-term national debt as they are in the finer points of Anderson Localization Theory. But still, the Blue Dogs persevere.

Chris gets at some convincing answers -- it's less dangerous than opposing abortion, and better for corporate fundraising -- but there's a piece I think he misses, too. The Blue Dogs smartly hew to a form of elite centrism that assures them almost uniquely glowing press coverage. They've picked the issues -- entitlement reform and budgetary policy -- that most excite members of the Washington Post editorial board, and so they attract much more press coverage lauding them as thoughtful and heterodox than they would if they'd chosen a lonely crusade on behalf of, say, clean election funding, or health care delivery system reform. And since the opinions of the elite media filter rapidly into the home state coverage -- both because their political reporters dream of one day working for elite outlets and because many regional and local papers simply syndicate AP and Washington Post stories -- soon enough, this or that Blue Dog can feel confident that the papers that matter to her reelection will be convinced of her moderation.

Put another way: It doesn't matter if you're a centrist or a liberal. It only matters whether you're perceived as a centrist or a liberal. And Blue Dogs have chosen to be ostentatiously and inconsistently heterodox on the issue that's most visible to the perception-makers."

LEST WE FORGET: First Grandma, Treasury Secretary Geithner Up All Night Talking, Laughing

From The Onion:

"WASHINGTON -- Accounts from several White House staffers suggest Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner and the president's live-in mother-in-law, Marian Robinson, have developed an unlikely bond, meeting nearly every night by the Green Room fireplace after Geithner has finished his daily economic briefing and Robinson has put her granddaughters Sasha and Malia to bed. 'They're generations apart, but they've really hit it off,' said aide Jennifer Bronner, who often sees the 71-year-old retiree from Chicago's South Side and the 47-year-old overseer of the nation's economy spend hours giggling and whispering together late into the night. 'Last night I heard [Robinson] call Secretary Geithner "Honeybee" when she offered him one of her famous chocolate-chip walnut cookies and a mug of hot cocoa. They share something that would warm the heart of even the most jaded old cynic.' Despite his uphill battle against a worsening recession and failing global markets, Geithner's midnight chats with Robinson have reportedly taught him to take life one day at a time, not sweat the small stuff, and always save old nylons so they can be filled with potpourri and used to freshen sock drawers."

Posted by Ian Faerstein at 12:28 PM

February 18, 2009

2/18: It's Time To Go, Roland

Most liberal bloggers are calling on Sen. Roland Burris (D-IL) to resign following his admission that he tried (unsuccessfully) to raise money for ex-IL Gov. Rod Blagojevich before Blagojevich appointed him to the Senate. Lefty bloggers believe that Burris "has sunk whatever credibility he might have once had," and some are urging the Senate to expel Burris if he refuses to resign on his own. Conservative bloggers, meanwhile, are enjoying "the latest embarrassment to Democrats over this Senate seat," while others are calling for a special election to replace Burris.

What else is happening in the blogosphere?

• Liberal bloggers (Hamsher, digby, Bowers) have significant concerns about Pres. Obama's upcoming "fiscal responsibility summit", as they believe that the politicians attending the summit are pressuring Obama to cut Social Security and Medicare benefits.
• Liberal bloggers (Dworkin, Singer, Benen) are buzzing about a new Gallup poll indicating that Congress' approval rating has jumped 12% in the past month, which they see as evidence that the public supports the Dems' economic agenda.
• Conservative bloggers (Erickson, Hawkins, Morrissey) are praising CA's GOP senators for ousting their leader after he negotiated a state budget deal that included tax increases. Righty bloggers believe that this incident provides "a lot of lessons" for the national GOP.

BURRIS: Your 15 Minutes Are Up, Senator

Most liberal bloggers are calling on Burris to resign following his admission that he tried (unsuccessfully) to raise money for Blagojevich before the disgraced governor appointed him to the Senate:

• Daily Kos' Barbara Morrill: "...Roland Burris has sunk whatever credibility he might have once had. Roland Burris needs to hire an engraver and then resign his seat for the good of the Party, the Senate, and the people of Illinois."
• TalkLeft's Big Tent Democrat: "Resign Sen. Burris."
• The Washington Monthly's Steve Benen: "Perhaps now would be a good time for Burris to think about spending more time with his family."
• MyDD's Todd Beeton: "...Burris has violated the public trust. His constant protestations to the contrary just become all the sadder with every new revelation. The next step must be for Democratic Senate leaders to demand his resignation and for the Illinois legislature to do what it should have done much earlier: call for a special election to fill the seat."
• The Reality-Based Community's Mark Kleiman: "Boot him. Now. It's the right thing to do, and his replacement is likely to be a stronger candidate in 2010, even if Burris isn't in jail by then."

TPM's David Kurtz: "Sen. Roland Burris' political position is becoming increasingly untenable: state criminal investigation, Senate ethics probe, and calls to resign, including from the Chicago Tribune. Maybe Blago's spectacular fall has skewed our sense of what a political flameout looks like. But by any usual standard, Burris is in deep, deep trouble."

Think Progress' Matthew Yglesias: "I think it's fair to say that Roland Burris' debut as a U.S. Senator is not going so well. [...] Now we've got an Illinois prosecutor looking into things along with the Senate ethics committee and I'd say Burris' shot at the 2010 nomination look pretty slim. He doesn't really seem to have done anything corrupt per se, but ambition and desire for a Senate seat definitely seem to have gotten the better of his good sense and basic ethics. Maybe he could be made Commerce Secretary?"

BURRIS II: Pass The Popcorn!

Conservative bloggers are buzzing about the latest revelation concerning Burris, which they think will cause political damage to Dems:

• Hot Air's Ed Morrissey: "By my count, Burris now has four different versions of his contacts with Rod Blagojevich, and this one will embarrass Democrats the most. [...] Keep the popcorn coming, because I doubt that we've heard the final version of this story from Burris."
• Power Line's John Hinderaker: "Burris' position now appears to be that there was no quid pro quo for his appointment because he was unable to come up with the quid."
• RedState's Pejman Yousefzadeh: "Time for Roland Burris to go."
• AmSpec Blog's Philip Klein: "If Burris is forced to step down, it will be the latest embarrassment to Democrats over this Senate seat. But I'm sure some Republicans are hoping Burris sticks around a bit longer -- at least until the next election."
• Townhall's John Hanlon: "Burris is quickly becoming a major headache for the Democratic Party and for Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid."
• NRO's Kathryn Jean Lopez: "Democrats have got to want this senatorial nightmare to be over."
• Commentary's Jennifer Rubin: "This three-ring circus is the result of allowing the Illinois political machine to run amok. It sounds like the job of the Agent of Change to clean up his own state and party. Let's see if the White House can get it right this time. Two sentences will suffice: 'Burris must go. An election must be held.' If they can't manage that, I suspect they'll be in for a heap of trouble."

OBAMA: Beware The "Entitlement Reformers"

Liberal bloggers have significant concerns about Obama's upcoming "fiscal responsibility summit", as they believe that the politicians attending the summit are pressuring Obama to cut Social Security and Medicare benefits:

• Firedoglake's Jane Hamsher: "[The summit] will be led by [TN Rep.] Jim Cooper, [NH Sen.] Judd Gregg, [ND Sen.] Kent Conrad and other 'entitlement reform' fetishists. [...NRO's James] Capretta says that given the tight time constraints, Peter Orszag -- Director of the Office of Management and Budget -- is in the driver's seat. [...] As we reported the other day, Orszag is co-author of the Diamond-Orszag plan for reforming Social Security, which calls for raising the retirement age and cutting benefits -- which the White House has been presenting as the foundation of their plan. And the Wall Street Journal is reporting that 'entitlement reformers' have been given the go-ahead on their dream to short-circuit Congressional approval. [...] I don't particularly like the way things are lining up on this."
• Open Left's Chris Bowers: "One of the main goals of the summit is to create a commission that will provide non-amendable, non-filibusterable legislation that will cut Social Security and Medicare. [...] On February 2nd, the Washington Post reported that President Obama was opposed to such a commission. [...] Today, however, the Wall Street Journal is reporting that President Obama is in favor of such a commission. [...] Now, I share both Jane and David's incredulity that the Obama administration would embrace such a proposal, given that President Obama campaigned on eliminating the Social Security cap, not on cutting benefits or raising the retirement age. [...] However, even if it is just wishful thinking from conservatives, we still need to take it seriously. People like Jim Cooper do, in fact, want to cut Social Security and Medicare. They are also extracting some concessions from the Obama administration, such as the 'fiscal responsibility summit.' We will find out more on February 23rd, and then February 26th, but as the budget fight looms, don't discount the possibility that Social Security could actually be cut even under a Democratic trifecta."
• Daily Kos' Markos Moulitsas: "Will Obama really push for social security 'reform'? The early signs don't look good."

digby: "Obama has been vague on social security since the campaign. I never got his decision to put it on the menu back in Iowa except as some sort of strange appeal to older voters that didn't make any sense. His use of universal health care sabaoteur Jim Cooper as a health care spokesman sounded many alarms. But he has also made many assurances that he has no intention of breaking the compact on social security and medicare, so I've never known quite where he was. [...H]e may have calculated that that this is a brave Nixon goes to China moment, but he's got to know that at this point liberals (and a lot of others) aren't going to sit still for this, no matter what the Politico says. This will crack up his coalition. The only way he can pass this is NAFTA style, with mostly Republicans and Blue Dogs. Doing that on this issue during a serious economic downturn could be politically catastrophic."

GALLUP: Hooray For A Less-Hated Congress!

Liberal bloggers are buzzing about a new Gallup poll indicating that Congress' approval rating has jumped 12% in the past month. Lefty bloggers see this poll as evidence that the public supports the Dems' economic agenda:

• Daily Kos' DemFromCT: "Hello, Media? Remember all those warm and fuzzy stories about how [GOP Whip] Eric Cantor is the new face of the GOP? Obstructionism is good, right? Well, Gallup suggests maybe not."
• TAPPED's Mori Dinauer: "I think this current jump is attributable to the fact that Congress is actually getting things done, and doing them quickly, which is more important to the public than doing it in a 'bipartisan' fashion."
• MyDD's Jonathan Singer: "Wow. So much for the Republicans trying to blow up, then run against, Congress. [...] There's still room to grow, and the public won't likely come close to voicing more approval than disapproval of Congress until Congress gets done more of what it needs to get done (enacting universal healthcare would go a long way, for instance). Still, this is a pretty remarkable move for Congress' approval rating, one that should change some opinions inside the Beltway (though I'm not holding my breath)."
• Benen: "[T]o hear the GOP leaders tell it, a public backlash against Congress for its recent efforts was inevitable. Just the opposite has happened, at least for now. I should add, in case there's any doubt, that the increase in support is not evidence of public approval of unanimous Republican opposition to the economic recovery plan. The poll bump came as a result of self-identified Democrats and Independents expressing new-found support, while Republicans are 'now less likely to approve of Congress than they were in January.'"
• The Washington Post's Greg Sargent: "Since the stimulus package is the thing most identified with Congress, it's hard not to see these numbers as reflecting growing approval for the stim bill. These numbers also should make one question whether the GOP Congressional leadership's strategy is working. The GOP's primary message in recent days has been that the Dem Congressional leadership is betraying President Obama's calls for bipartisanship, is mucking up the workings of Congress with partisanship as usual and is foisting a pork-stuffed bill on the American people. But now that the stim bill has passed, reflecting an unusually large level of harmony between the new Democratic President and the Democratic Congressional leadership, many more people are saying they like what Congress is doing."

CA GOP: This Is How It's Done, Baby!

Conservative bloggers are praising the GOPers in the CA Senate for ousting their leader after he negotiated a state budget deal that included tax increases:

• RedState's Erick Erickson: "This is what it looks like when Republicans act like Republicans. [...] The Senate GOP leader crafted a deal for tax increases with the Democratic leadership and Governator. That did not sit too well with the rank and file Republican senators who know doubt have learned what happens to Republicans who act like Democrats by watching the voters purge the GOP from Washington. [...] This is encouraging news and nationwide the GOP should stand up and take notice. In California, as elsewhere, tough decisions on what government should necessarily do were avoided in good times while the money flowed. Government provided for all sorts of things, employees were unionized, etc. Now California can't afford its government. So California's government's answer is to increase in size some more. Sure, there will be $16 million in cuts. But there will be $11 billion in loans and $14.4 billion in tax increases. California must honestly examine what is needed and slaughter the unnecessary sacred cows that survive. The GOP looks like it understands this."
• Right Wing News' John Hawkins: "Rarely do I say this, but the Republican Party can learn a lesson from the Cali GOP. [...] You have Republicans taking a stand on principles and refusing to back down on their promises to their constituents just because the left is saying there's an 'emergency.' Then when their leader caved, abandoned his principles, and sold his fellow Republicans out, they responded by getting a new leader. There are a lot of lessons there for the Republican party nationally."
• Morrissey: "[This] sends a message to party leadership that the California GOP will not willingly follow along with more tax increases in a state that already has become one of the worst for tax burdens in the nation. California did not get into its financial crisis through low taxes, and higher taxes won't provide anything more than a Band-Aid on a gaping wound. [...] Until the legislature gets serious about budget cuts, higher taxes only provide a junkie's fix to addiction. The Republicans just signaled a cold-turkey approach, and they're willing to throw their own leadership under the bus to get it. They look serious about fixing the real problems. Will the Democrats get serious, too, or go tharn in the headlights?"

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Should Dems Abolish The Filibuster?

Mother Jones' Kevin Drum thinks it's in the Dems' long-term interest to abolish the Senate filibuster:

"I got several emails after my last filibuster post suggesting that I should think twice. What if the GOP had been able to get all their judicial nominees through during the past eight years? What if [George W.] Bush had passed Social Security reform? What if, what if, what if. But look: only a handful of Bush's judges were successfully filibustered. Social Security reform never even came up for a vote. But even conceding that, yes, there would be some short-term pain from conservative rule in a filibuster-less world, in the long run the filibuster is bad for liberalism because liberals are fundamentally in favor of change and the filibuster is fundamentally obstructive. It's well suited for a movement that wants to stand athwart history and yell 'Stop!' but less well suited to a movement that has a positive agenda revolving around the enactment of ambitious new social programs.

This makes it unsurprising that conservatives want to keep the filibuster around. They know perfectly well that once liberal social programs are enacted, they become very popular and very hard to get rid of. They can't count on the swing of the pendulum to eventually turn the public against Social Security or Medicare or national healthcare, so their only alternative is to stop programs like this in the first place. For them, the filibuster is a key tool. But not for us. Sure, if we get rid of the filibuster we'll pay a price when Republicans get back into power. But overturning conservative programs isn't that hard. And in return we'll make a lot of progress during out own time in office, progress that's largely permanent."

LEST WE FORGET: Depressing Anecdotes That Will Make Your Day Seem Better By Comparison

From FMyLife.com:

• Today, I got a "save the date" card for the wedding of a couple my husband knows. I was excited because I really wish to be better friends with these people. I emailed the bride, "I got your STD!" and hit send before I realized how that sounded. FML.
• Today, I saw my friend across campus, and I decided that I wanted to play a trick on her and scare her from behind. Turns out, I scared a complete stranger with really bad panic induced asthma. FML.
• Today, while at work I was reading "The Very Hungry Caterpillar" to me class of 5 year olds. I got near the end of the book and said "Look at the big fat caterpillar" to which one of my pupils replied "Just like you, Miss!" FML.
• Today, in the middle of dinner, I went to rest my chin on my hand, missed, and stuck the straw from my drink straight up my nose. My nose bled all over the table. He hasn't called me since. FML.
• Today, I took a friend out for what I thought was date. After dinner was over and I paid, she pulled the bill out and wrote her name phone number on it for the waiter. FML.
• Today, I was talking to my parents about feeling insecure with my "beach body" as Spring Break keeps getting closer and closer. My dad proceeded to warn me by saying, "Don't wear a gray swimsuit. People will try to roll you back into the ocean". FML.

Posted by Ian Faerstein at 12:30 PM

February 17, 2009

2/17: Back In The Saddle

Conservative bloggers are giddy about the fact that not a single House GOPer voted for the economic stimulus bill. Righty bloggers are heaping praise on House Min. Leader John Boehner (R-OH) and Min. Whip Eric Cantor (R-VA) for keeping the GOP caucus unified; some are promoting a celebatory video from Cantor's office entitled, "The House GOP Is Back". While a few conservative bloggers are expressing qualms about the GOP's approach to the stimulus negotiations, they are clearly outnumbered. The majority of righty bloggers view the GOP's near-unanimous opposition to the stimulus bill as an important first step toward reclaiming the mantle of fiscal conservatism -- which (in their view) bodes well for the party's prospects in the 2010 midterms.

What else is happening in the blogosphere?

• Liberal bloggers (Moulitsas, Hamsher, Marshall) cite recent polling as evidence that the GOP's approach to the stimulus negotiations did nothing to improve their reputation.
• Liberal bloggers (digby, Moulitsas, Bowers) hope that the stimulus saga has convinced Pres. Obama to finally abandon his "obession with bipartisanship."
• Liberal bloggers (Llorens, Benen, Gardner) are criticizing IL Sen. Roland Burris after he acknowledged that the brother of ex-IL Gov. Rod Blagojevich asked him for fundraising help in the weeks before his Senate appointment -- an admission that contradicted Burris's earlier statements. Conservative bloggers (Yousefzadeh, Morrissey) are calling for Burris's expulsion from the Senate.

STIMULUS: The GOP Is Back, B*tches!

Conservative bloggers are praising the House GOP leadership after every single GOPer voted against the stimulus bill:

• RedState's Neil Stevens: "Represenative Eric Cantor therefore deserves our praise and congratulations on the results of the Porkulus bill in the House. Not once, but twice, did he as Whip help ensure that the bill passed the House without a single Republican vote. That's unity, and that kind of unity doesn't happen without at least some effort. Eric Cantor had to step up. Congratulations on that effort. Of course, the whip can only do so much without the Leader there with him, so congratulations to John Boehner for drawing the line on the Porkulus. This is the kind of effective party we need to be if we want to win in 2010."
• Townhall's Amanda Carpenter: "Republican House Minority Whip Eric Cantor (Va.) has helped keep the GOP in line on TWO votes on the stimulus package. Am I the only one who thinks some props are in order for Mr. Cantor?"
• RedState's Jeff Emanuel: "Kudos once again to the House GOP, which held the line in unanimity not once, but twice, against the Democrats' Porkulus charge."
• NRO's Kathryn Jean Lopez: "[T]he likes of Eric Cantor and [WI Rep.] Paul Ryan have long struck me as men who know what they believe and why (and can even explain it). This is the first time they've really had a wheel -- albeit a minority wheel in a town where they are outnumbered. I'm in the mood to encourage them."

Several conservative bloggers are already licking their chops in anticipation of the 2010 midterm elections:

• Townhall's John Hawkins: "[I]t has already become very apparent that if the GOP can hold the line on spending, it will not only fire up our base and be good for the country, it will give us an enormous stick with which to savagely beat the Democrats in the 2010 elections."
• The Next Right's Conn Carroll: "I still think 2010 is too early for the GOP to capitalize on the imminent failure of the Bush/Obama bailout parade, but if the GOP marks a clear break with [George W.] Bush's profligate spending, and the Democrats continue to demonstrate that their economic plan is just Bushonomics on steroids, then we have a real shot of making Obama a one-term president."
• Power Line's John Hinderaker: "...Obama has tied himself irreversibly to the deeply unpopular Congress and will have to live with the consequences of the Reid-Pelosi porkfest, as well as TARP I, TARP II, and whatever additional follies the Democrats may come up with in the months to come. Nothing that reporters and editors can do will protect Obama from the effects of his policies: inflation, unprecedented debt, economic waste and stagnation."

STIMULUS II: ...But Was This The Right Approach?

A few conservative bloggers are criticizing the GOP's approach to the stimulus negotiations:

• NRO's Bruce Bartlett: "[C]ongressional Republicans were never really willing to concede the principle that stimulus was needed. Their tax plan was just a rehash of old hash that was never plausibly linked to the particular economic problems we have today. I disagree about the payroll tax for various reasons, but at least it would have been focused on the reality of the situation, rather than just being a pointless political exercise. [...] An even better approach, in my opinion, would have been to focus on the details of the stimulus plan and argue that its provisions were not very stimulative -- even under Keynesian assumptions. [...] But for Republicans to make that argument they would have had to concede that the basic principle of fiscal stimulus was sound. In the end, Republicans preferred to reject the principle of stimulus, thus taking themselves out of the game. I think that was a mistake, both politically and substantively."
• The New Majority's David Frum: "We in fact have a constructive solution to offer, one that would deliver more jobs faster: the payroll tax holiday, an idea endorsed by almost every reputable right-of-center economist. But that's not the solution being offered by Republicans in Congress. They are offering a clapped-out package of 1980s-vintage solutions, including capital gains tax cuts. Capital gains! Who has any capital gains to be taxed in the first place? [...] If we're to make progress in 2010, we have to look serious. This week we looked not only irrelevant, but clueless and silly."

Most righty bloggers, however, are defending the House GOP's conduct. AmSpec Blog's W. James Antle, III writes: "I can't fault the Republicans' approach to the stimulus too much. [...] A coherent Republican plan for governing isn't going to flow out of the anti-stimulus campaign anymore than the Contract with America was the direct product of the Republicans' unanimous opposition to the [Bill] Clinton tax increase in 1993. But it's a step in a better direction than the party has traveled in recent years."

Meanwhile, NRO's Jonah Goldberg takes the middle ground: "All in all, I think the Congressional GOP did the right thing in voting against the stimulus. Indeed, it was very nice to see them man-up [...]. Nor do I think the GOP should have followed the [Arlen] Specter-route -- a view I made somewhat forcefully here. But Obama's framing of the Republicans as 'do nothing' has teeth, whether it's true or not. If this stimulus proves to be a turkey, it would be useful for the GOP to remind voters 'here's what we wanted to do.' And, if things turn out better than we expect, it would help if the GOP could say 'our plan would have gotten us here cheaper and better.' No one will remember the pork."

STIMULUS III: Look At The Polls Before You Pat Yourselves On The Back, GOPers

Liberal bloggers are buzzing about a new Daily Kos/Research 2000 poll indicating that the net favorability ratings of cong. GOPers have dropped over the past few weeks while the net favorability ratings of cong. Dems have risen. Lefty bloggers see this poll as evidence that the GOP's tactics may have impressed the party's base, but not the country as a whole. Daily Kos' Markos Moulitsas writes:

"The dinosaurs in the GOP may be patting themselves in the back from another round of well-executed obstructionism, but their already-unpopular numbers in Congress are plummeting to newfound lows while they continue to lose ground against the Democrats not just nationally, but even in their last redoubt in the South. So yeah, obstructionism may feel good, but if America wants something else, it does them little long-term good."

Liberal bloggers are also pointing to this poll as evidence that D.C. journalists are disconnected from public opinion:

• TPM's Josh Marshall: "In Washington, it was a battle royale between the new president and an emboldened Republican minority. At times they seemed to have him on the ropes. And yet in the country at large, Obama remains super popular. And the GOP is wildly unpopular."
• The Reality-Based Community's Mark Kleiman: "The stimulus bill and Obama are both quite popular, and the Republicans just the opposite. The public doesn't seem to have had nearly as much trouble as, for example, the editorial page of the Washington Post in figuring out which side is extending the hand of friendship and which side is biting it."
• Firedoglake's Jane Hamsher: "[C]ontrary to beltway opinion, the Republicans are getting hammered. While the Republican Party has only had a net change of -2, those directly involved in the stimulus battle are taking huge hits: [Senate Min. Leader Mitch] McConnell and Boehner at -11, and the Congressional Republicans who are getting such applause from the beltway denizens score a -10. [...] The American public looked at DC, they saw the Democrats trying to do something, and they liked what they saw. People who are deeply worried about staying employed and taking care of their families do not seem to have the universal high regard for House Republicans who stood together to oppose helping them out that the DC establishment do."
• Atrios: "I really do wonder what it would take for the Villagers to realize people don't like Republicans and their stupid shit anymore."

OBAMA: Goodbye Bipartisanship (And Good Riddance!)

Throughout the stimulus negotiations, the netroots frequently complained that Obama was emphasizing bipartisanship at the expense of crafting good policy. Liberal bloggers felt that by making so many public declarations about the importance of winning GOP votes, Obama was giving congressional GOPers too much control over his agenda. It's no surprise, then, that lefty bloggers were pleased to read this weekend's Politico article indicating that Obama "plans to travel more and campaign more in an effort to pressure lawmakers with public support, rather than worrying about whether he can win over Republican votes in Congress":

• digby: "If this article in Politico is correct, it sounds like the White House now recognizes that their fetishizing of bipartisanship actually handed the Republicans a big fat club. All they had to do was say no and Obama had 'failed.'"
• Open Left's Chris Bowers: "Awesome. I am excited about this shift in focus, and eager to engage in the legislative battles that will take place over the coming months. What we need now is a populist, progressive President who offers a clear choice to Americans, and allows his activist supporters to place pressure on fence-sitters. President Obama seems prepared to move in that direction."
• Moulitsas: "Yeah, I know there were those who thought that Obama's obsession with 'bipartisanship' was some sort of clever master plan to outflank Republicans or something, but in reality, the obsession with getting Republican votes ended up detracting from the selling of the stimulus itself to the American people. That apparently won't happen anymore. [...] Obama was elected to find solutions to our nation's pressing problems. Obama and the majority Democrats need to implement the best possible solutions to those problems. If Republicans have genuinely good ideas (i.e., not their tired 'tax cuts!' crap, especially now that Democrats have passed the largest tax cut in American history with zero Republican support), then fantastic. They can bring them to the table for due consideration. Otherwise, they shouldn't get a second thought from the adults actually trying to clean up George W. Bush's messes."
• The Nation's Ari Melber: "Less than a month into his presidency, Barack Obama has found that no one is really buying bipartisanship. His base hates it, as the blogs will tell you. His allies in Congress resent it, as Sen. [Chuck] Schumer signaled on Sunday morning. And while media outlets still prioritize a bipartisan process over actual policy substance, like this weird Washington Post editorial, even centrist pundits are souring on Obama's bipartisan bouquets. Time's Joe Klein, a fan of bipartisanship, has concluded that bipartisanship is currently impossible because there are no good faith partners in Washington. [...] Team Obama is already recalibrating, naturally. [WH CoS] Rahm Emanuel recently noted that an 'insatiable appetite' for bipartisanship made Obama's team 'get ahead' of itself. The President, for his part, clarified that bipartisan outreach does not make him a 'sap.' And throughout his career, Obama has pivoted deftly from the soft touch to knockout blows. [...] It's about time, obviously."

Daily Kos' mcjoan: "[A] healthy economy under a Democratic president is the last thing the retrenched Republicans need going into the next election cycle, and they're going to continue to do everything in their power to sabotage Obama, even if it means fiddling while the country burns. It's good that this was the first lesson Obama got out of the gate. He's a smart man, and unlikely to make the mistake of thinking Republicans and Blue Dog Democrats negotiate with good faith again. That realization is going to be just as important to the impending debates over health care and, inevitably, entitlement reform."

BURRIS: Will Someone Please Primary This Guy?

Liberal bloggers are criticizing Burris after he acknowledged that Blagojevich's brother asked him for fundraising help in the weeks before his Senate appointment -- a revelation that contradicted "Burris's earlier descriptions, including one under oath, of his conversations with those closest to the former governor":

• TalkLeft's Big Tent Democrat: "The Burris appointment always stunk to high heaven. This revelation makes it stink on the other side of the universe."
• Daily Kos' SusanG: "So the newly minted Senator from Illinois lied to an impeachment panel about being shaken down, yes. But he also suddenly remembered that he had, in fact, expressed interest in the seat to a couple of other people he previously forgot to mention, including a guy who was arrested."
• The Washington Monthly's Steve Benen: "What's odd is that Burris probably had no reason to lie about this. By all appearances, the governor's brother sought fundraising help, Burris declined to play along, and Burris got the appointment anyway. There may be details we don't yet know, but so far, it seems Burris didn't have an incentive to hide his three conversations with Robert Blagojevich, but he did anyway."

FiveThirtyEight's Nate Silver: "The fiction that Burris' appointment was a one-off event that could somehow be compartmentalized from Blago's attempts at bribery may have been critical to the Democrats' ability to do the politically expedient thing and allow Burris to take his seat. With this revelation, it's no longer possible for the Democrats to suspend their disbelief."

BURRIS II: Smells Like Perjury

Conservative bloggers are also buzzing about the latest Burris revelation:

• RedState's Moe Lane: "Harry Reid? Yeah, this is why people do that entire 'stick to your guns' thing. Because right now the only thing you've done by seating this guy is do our 2010 campaign ads for us. Whether or not Burris lasts that long. Much obliged!"
• Hot Air's Ed Morrissey: "Burris has arguably committed perjury and failed to report corruption. Will [Dems] wait until he gets charged in the case, or act to remove him and allow new Governor Pat Quinn to appoint someone much less problematic to replace him? If Reid does nothing and allows Burris to occupy the seat, Republicans will have a brand-new case to add to the Democratic 'culture of corruption' that now includes [ex-LA Rep.] William Jefferson, [CT Sen.] Chris Dodd, and [NY Rep.] Charlie Rangel for the midterm elections."
• RedState's Pejman Yousefzadeh: "It is utterly inexcusable that Roland Burris did not reveal earlier that Rod Blagojevich and his minions tried a pay-for-play scheme on the Senator before Burris was named to fill the vacancy left by the President. It is time to consult the wording of Art. I, Sec. 5 of the United States Constitution, and all precedents that attach thereto. By all rights, Roland Burris's tenure in the United States Senate should not last for long. And please, spare me the argument that Governor Pat Quinn is honest and ethical enough to avoid the legal quicksand Burris and Blagojevich have fallen into. [...] The Burris-Blagojevich Shenanigans Project has done enough to damage the cause of good government. It should not be continued by Pat Quinn and it should come to an end with Roland Burris's expulsion and with an election to choose his successor."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: IR Theory For Lovers

Alas, Valentine's Day has come and gone, but in case you're still in a romantic mood, here's an international relations perspective on relationships, courtesy of Harvard prof. Steven Walt (h/t Yglesias):

"To begin with, any romantic partnership is essentially an alliance, and alliances are a core concept on international relations. Alliances bring many benefits to the members (or else why would we form them?) but as we also know, they sometimes reflect irrational passions and inevitably limit each member's autonomy. Many IR theorists believe that institutionalizing an alliance makes it more effective and enduring, but that's also why making a relationship more formal is a significant step that needs to be carefully considered.

Of course, IR theorists have also warned that allies face the twin dangers of abandonment and entrapment: the more we fear that our partners might leave us in the lurch (abandonment), the more likely we are to let them drag us into obligations that we didn't originally foresee (entrapment). When you find yourself gamely attending your partner's high school reunion or traveling to your in-laws for Thanksgiving dinner every single year, you'll know what I mean."

LEST WE FORGET: Obama Debuts Annoying Catchphrase

From The Onion:

"WASHINGTON -- In an unexpected turn of events that even his most ardent supporters are calling extremely ill-advised, President Obama, known for his simple yet stirring slogan 'Yes we can,' debuted a new, extremely annoying catchphrase Monday during an address on proposed economic policy reform, saying, 'It is time for America to move forward, not backward -- and in conclusion, hot diggity ding dang!' The new catchphrase, White House officials announced, will replace the former slogan as the focal point of the president's public image effective immediately, and will be implemented in all appearances, official correspondence, and executive paperwork from now until at least mid-2012. Publicity materials featuring the wince-inducing phrase -- and picturing Obama smiling wildly and giving a double thumbs-up to the camera -- were distributed this week to thousands of media outlets. 'We have no idea why he's chosen to do this,' said former Obama supporter Kyle Hammersley. 'It's unbelievably irritating.' 'Hot diggitty ding dang' was reportedly selected by Obama and his advisers from a final list of potential taglines that also included 'Hanker down -- soup's on!' 'That's what the doctor told me!' and 'Mama mia, where's-a mah pizza?!'"

Posted by Ian Faerstein at 01:24 PM

February 13, 2009

BLOGGER SPOTLIGHT: Ed Morrissey

Today the Blogometer talks to Hot Air's Ed Morrissey.

(If you're looking for Friday's edition of Blogometer, click here).

Where did you grow up?
Cerritos, California, just after it changed its name from Dairy Valley but before the dairies all left for Chino.

Where do you live now?
In the Twin Cities area of Minnesota. We've been here for more than 11 years.

If you have an occupation other than blogging, what is it?
I actually make my living at blogging now, but before then, I managed call centers for alarm companies.

What's on your iPod right now?
iPod? What iPod? If I had one, I'd fill it with 70s music, Cowboy Junkies, and classical. If I had one. ;-)

What book do you think every person should read?
Well, that's tough -- there are so many everyone should read. The Bible, even if just for its philosophy. The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich (Shirer) and A Peace to End All Peace (Fromkin) to understand the world situation today. Bias (Goldberg), to understand the built-in bias in American media. Brave New World (Huxley), Lord of the Rings (Tolkien), Count of Monte Cristo and Three Musketeers (Dumas), Caine Mutiny (Wouk) ... I could go on and on ...

Please finish this sentence: "When I'm not blogging, you'll probably find me..."
Sleeping. Ask my wife. It never ends. Otherwise, I'm spending time with my granddaughters or watching movies.

What has been your favorite blog post, or your favorite story to write about?
My favorite story was the Canadian Adscam scandal in 2005, but I've enjoyed covering the two national conventions, interviews with interesting newsmakers, and so on. The most enjoyable blog posts are the ones where I can have some fun and employ some humor.

Which blogger(s) do you consider indispensable, if any?
Glenn Reynolds, The Corner, Hugh Hewitt. On economics, my friend King Banaian at SCSU Scholars; on religious matters, The Anchoress; on the war, Bill Roggio and Michael Yon.

Who's your favorite non-conservative blogger?
I enjoy a few, mainly at The Moderate Voice and AOL's Political Machine. Joe Gandelman, Jazz Shaw, T-Steel at TMV are terrific reads. At AOL-PM, I really enjoy Tommy Christopher's writing even though we have almost nothing in common politically.

Who's your favorite active politician? Least favorite?
Oh, I try very hard not to have "favorites," because in the end they'll disappoint. I like and respect quite a few, even some with whom I disagree. Least favorite? Depends on the day, I think, although I'd have to put Jimmy Carter on the all-time list.

What would you realistically like to see Republicans accomplish in 2009?
They need to establish some credibility on small-government conservatism and fiscal responsibility. Realistically speaking, they can't affect policy at the moment, especially with Nancy Pelosi locking them out of the negotiations on legislation. Instead, they have to start thinking of themselves as the rational alternative and focus on presenting their own policies and legislation to the American public.

If you could give President Obama some advice, what would it be?
Lead instead of following. He let Nancy Pelosi lead him by the nose on the stimulus package and it spun out of control. He fumbled his Cabinet appointments by not paying attention to detail. He needs to stop campaigning and start acting like the American President rather than the Democratic President. If he can figure out how to do that and get Pelosi and Harry Reid under control, he may succeed.

What keeps you up at night?
What kind of world will my granddaughters live in? Will they have the same standard of living I've had? That's why I do what I do.

Posted by Ian Faerstein at 01:46 PM

2/13: Judd Changes His Mind

Liberal bloggers are blasting Sen. Judd Gregg (R-NH) for abruptly withdrawing his nomination as Commerce Sec., which apparently took Obama by surprise. The netroots see Gregg's move as further evidence that GOPers have no interest in cooperating with Obama, and they're accusing Gregg of engaging in "calculated partisan politics". Lefty bloggers are also urging Obama to choose a Dem to replace Gregg at Commerce.

Conservative bloggers, on the other hand, are praising Gregg for his "act of courage" and are portraying this incident as yet another "embarrassment" for Obama. They're attributing Gregg's decision to the Obama admin.'s attempt to "marginalize" Gregg by reducing the Commerce Dept.'s oversight of the Census Bureau.

What else is happening in the blogosphere?

• Conservative bloggers (Reynolds, Klein, Emanuel, Yousefzadeh, Bluey) are criticizing congressional Dems for giving GOP lawmakers less than 24 hours to review the text of the stimulus bill before voting on it.
• In response to a Politico article suggesting that liberals are giving Obama "unusual room to maneuver on entitlements," the netroots (Black, Yglesias, Hamsher, Bok) are promising to throw a fit if Obama tries to cut Social Security or Medicare benefits.

Finally, check back in an hour for our interview with Hot Air's Ed Morrissey!

GREGG: Obama Reaches Out And Gets His Hand Slapped

Liberal bloggers believe that GOPers like Gregg are deliberately trying to undermine Obama:

• Open Left's Chris Bowers: "The timing of Gregg's withdrawal indicates it is part of the broader Republican attempts to oppose President Obama and the Democratic trifecta at all costs."
• Daily Kos' Jed L: "[A]ll indications are that Judd Gregg didn't even tell the White House that he had decided to withdraw his name from consideration for the cabinet before announcing it publicly. Gregg also released his statement just as President Obama was about to speak at the Caterpillar plant in Peoria, Illinois. [...] All this strongly suggests that Gregg's move was calculated partisan politics, and it underscores this fundamental truth of modern politics: the Republican Party can not, and will not, put partisan politics aside for the good of the country. With near unanimity, they are utterly incapable of compromise."
• AMERICAblog's Joe Sudbay: "[T]his just further proves none of the Republicans really want to be bipartisan."
• The Reality-Based Community's Quincy Adams: "Another Republican bites Obama's outreached hand. [...] When the history of bipartisanship is written, it will be clear who torpedoed it. Hopefully the voters of New Hampshire will remember and elect a Democrat over Gregg at their next opportunity."
• Daily Kos' Dana Houle: "When called to serve his country, Judd Gregg flinched, and revealed himself too beholden to the extremist views of a Republican party controlled by zealots. Bipartisanship can only work when both parties put the national interest before everything. All but a few of the Republicans in Congress put their party before the good of the nation. Judd Gregg's refusal to serve in the Obama cabinet demonstrates' once again that the Republicans would rather obstruct progress than contribute to the good of the nation."
• digby: "The Republican Party was hired by the conservative movement to do its bidding and they aren't going to stand for them trying to get out of that contract. Republican politicians are required to stab Democrats in the back in order to stay in good standing. It's how they organize themselves and prove their loyalty. That's what Gregg did today by making Obama look like a chump by saying that he had 'too many differences' and can't stomach the stimulus. (And the press office was taken by surprise, which means Gregg really wanted to stick the shiv in hard.)"
• The Huffington Post's Jacob Heilbrunn: "Judd Gregg's withdrawal isn't simply a testament to his own political cowardice. It also testified to the moral and intellectual collapse of the GOP. [...] For President Obama this should serve as the final wake-up call about the illusory nature of his repeated calls for bipartisanship. Obama talked in his inaugural speech about meeting foreign powers with an unclenched fist. He didn't think that he was talking about the GOP as well, but it's slapped away his attempt at a handshake. The blunt fact is that he should never have tried to appoint Gregg in the first place. The notion that he can wave a magic wand and elicit cooperation from the GOP has been dispelled by events."

Meanwhile, TPM's David Kurtz posted an email from an anonymous Dem Hill staffer who thinks Gregg acted in bad faith: "It's hard not to think that Gregg's withdrawal, with the grumbling about the census and the stimulus, was not timed to cause the most damage possible to the Obama administration. Releasing the statement just as Obama took the stage in Peoria was clearly designed to undermine the President's event. The fact he scheduled a presser only seems to confirm it. The classy exit would have been to wait til [Friday] afternoon to quietly bow out. Basically Gregg decided not just to politely decline, but rather to blow shit up and burn the bridge behind him. Do not think this portends good things for the wider political climate. If the larger GOP strategy can be describe as putting all of their chips on 'FAIL', this has to be seen as a significant addition to that pile, no?"

The Atlantic's Andrew Sullivan agrees: "The GOP has declared war on Obama. This much is now clear. Their clear and open intent is to do all they can, however they can, to sabotage the new administration (and the economy to boot). They want failure. Even now. Even after the last eight years. Even in a recession as steeply dangerous as this one. There are legitimate debates to be had; and then there is the cynicism and surrealism of total political war. We now should have even less doubt about what kind of people they are. And the mountain of partisan vitriol Obama will have to climb every day of the next four or eight years."

GREGG II: He Shoulda Known What He Was Getting Into

Most liberal bloggers don't buy Gregg's claim that he withdrew his name from consideration due to "irresolvable conflicts" over the stimulus and the census:

• MyDD's Jonathan Singer: "It's hard to believe that the Republican Gregg, who has been in public office for three decades and who is the son of a Governor, didn't know what he was getting himself into by accepting a position in the cabinet of an administration of a Democrat."
• The Washington Monthly's Steve Benen: "I suppose it's possible that Gregg's explanation -- he just changed his mind -- was sincere...but I'm skeptical. A three-term senator and two-term governor -- who's held elected office for more than three decades -- was prepared to give up his career to accept a cabinet position, but he just didn't think it through? The center-right Republican wanted to work for a center-left Democrat until it occurred to him, 'Oh, wait, I don't actually agree with that guy'?"
• Oliver Willis: "His reasoning makes no sense. It's like he's saying (to paraphrase Condi): 'Who could have known that a Democratic president would have Democratic positions on the vital issues of the day?'"

Meanwhile, liberal bloggers are annoyed that pundits are portraying Gregg's decision as a major setback to Obama:

• Bowers: "How, exactly, is Gregg 'a blow' to President Obama? [...] I have never seen so many Democratic activists so happy about what is apparently a major defeat for Democrats. Every blog post, and virtually every comment I read, is ecstatic. [...] Yes, it is truly awful that one less Republican will be in President Obama's cabinet. It is also 'a blow' to President Obama and Democrats that Judd Gregg is so humiliated by this episode that he won't even seek re-election in 2010. And it is a terrible blow to progressives that the specific policy concerns of the three Congressional minority caucuses have more influence over White House policy than does the press corps' fascination with bipartisanship. I'm devastated. What a huge blow. How will we ever recover from this terrible setback?"
• AMERICAblog's John Aravosis: "[S]omehow, this is a 'blow' to Obama's efforts to be bipartisan -- that Judd Gregg is a spoiled brat, and as a result, President Obama is stuck with 'only' 200% of the normal number of opposition members in his Cabinet. Uh huh."

GREGG III: Can You Please Nominate A Democrat Now, Mr. President?

Liberal bloggers are clearly tired of Obama's efforts at bipartisanship and are urging him to replace Gregg with a Dem:

• Daily Kos' Markos Moulitsas: "I've got an idea about what Obama should do with that [Commerce] post. It's kind of crazy, but keep an open mind and try not to dismiss it out of hand, no matter how unconventional it might be in today's political world: Nominate a fucking Democrat."
• Open Left's David Sirota: "Gregg wants to slash Social Security and is an ardent free-market fundamentalist and would have had control over a large portion of the government's economic enforcement apparatus. He was under the shadow of the Abramoff investigation, and he and the far-right were demanding near-unilateral control over the Census, which will be crucial for the 2010 redistricting battle. [His withdrawal] is fantastic news. Now, can we please get someone at least moderately progressive as a Commerce Secretary nominee?"
• Think Progress' Matthew Yglesias: "It seems like the whole idea of appointing a Commerce Secretary who doesn't support the President's agenda didn't work out so well. A majority of the American public voted for Barack Obama and an even larger majority approves of the job he's doing as President. That creates a pool of well over 100 million Americans from whose ranks Obama could reasonably appoint a Secretary of Commerce."
• Ezra Klein: "Bipartisanship is hard, it turns out. And for a reason. People disagree about stuff, and while civility may render those disagreements more respectful, it doesn't make them go away. Even such a dazzling display of respect as offering Gregg a cabinet post can't overcome the fact that he wants to privatize Social Security and the Obama administration does not."

Marshall: "Why not former FCC Chair Reed Hundt for Commerce Secretary? He's got the chops on all the key Commerce Department issues: trade, Census, broadband, stimulus. He's got better politics than anyone else you're going to get for the job. And he was part of the transition team. Also, not to be overlooked: he's a Democrat, so he might actually pursue sensible policies."

GREGG IV: You Asked For This, Obama

Conservative bloggers are arguing that the Obama admin. pushed Gregg out the door by taking away his control of the Census Bureau:

• RedState's Erick Erickson: "It was pretty obvious the Obama administration intended to marginalize Gregg as Commerce Secretary. Maybe now he'll be pissed off enough to start punching the Democrats."
• Glenn Reynolds: "When they pulled the census from Commerce, they made Gregg's position untenable. Then there's the stimulus chicanery. Locking Republicans out doesn't foster bipartisan moves. But, apparently, they didn't see this coming. Chalk that up to inexperience, I guess."
• RedState's Jeff Emanuel: "Gregg...made the right decision in ultimately rejecting the President's offer to be a token Republican in a cabinet position that was being stripped of its highest-profile responsibility. [...He] should never have accepted President Obama's offer in the first place. Now that this is behind him, perhaps Gregg will be able to once again focus all of his efforts on his Senatorial duties -- including making every effort to stop the incredibly irresponsible $800 billion borrow-and-spend bill currently being considered in Congress."
• Power Line's Scott Johnson: "Gregg himself pointed both to the 'stimulus' bill and the disposition of the Census as the issues that led to his withdrawal. Of the two, it seems far more likely that the Census -- a bureau heretofore under the jurisdiction of Commerce -- had far more to do with his withdrawal than the 'stimulus' bill. Though the story of Gregg's withdrawal will fade, it should increase attention on the power grab behind it."
• AmSpec Blog's Quin Hillyer: "Late yesterday afternoon at the Examiner, we were putting the finishing touches on an editorial whose opening line was that Judd Gregg should withdraw as nominee Commerce Secretary because of the affront to his integrity represented by the White House plan to take the census away from Commerce and politicize it under the White House. Obviously, events overtook us: Gregg moved before we could publish!"

GREGG V: An Act Of Courage?

NRO's Larry Kudlow thinks Gregg should run for President: "Judd Gregg has more backbone than anyone in politics today. He did his best to cross over and help Pres. Obama. But as Gregg and I discussed in a recent CNBC interview, the senator has a long and outstanding record as a tax-cutter, budget-cutter, deficit-cutter, and debt-cutter. All of these principles have been badly violated in the so-called stimulus package. And of course the White House move to steal the Census Bureau during a crucial political-reapportionment period was a low blow. But how many major public figures would have simply drawn a line in the sand and said, No, I simply cannot cross that line? That's what Gregg just did. [...] You know what? He ought to think very seriously about a presidential run. I mean it. This is an act of courage. That's what we need."

Other conservative bloggers believe that Gregg doesn't deserve quite so much praise:

• Michelle Malkin: "Gregg deserves praise for standing on principle, but I wouldn't get carried away and promote him for a presidential run. Remember: He supported TARP I and the release of its second tranche. Many believe his withdrawal was an act of courage. But what choice did he have but to resign in the wake of public humiliation over the Census power grab?"
• NRO's Shannen Coffin: "It is good that [Gregg] saw the light, and his withdrawal further undermines Obama's empty claims of bipartisanship. But let's not go giving awards to Gregg for exercising the common sense he should have used in turning the job down in the first place."
• AmSpec Blog's Philip Klein: "Good for Gregg, but honestly, what took him so long? This conservative Senator just realized that he has too many policy differences with what promises to be one of the most liberal administrations in American history? Did he sleep through the last election?"

GREGG VI: Obama Screws Up Again

Other conservative bloggers are portraying Gregg's decision as the latest blow to a floundering Obama admin.:

• Hinderaker: "Does Obama now hold the record for failed cabinet nominations? Who's keeping track?"
• Townhall's Dwayne Horner: "[Obama's] guys just prove on a daily basis they are in WAY OVER their head. Can you imagine if this incompetence happened in the Bush Administration what the coverage would be, the press would apepleptic over this. The whole thing is a huge mess and the main stream media will not cover it with the same gusto as if it happend to a Republican Administration."
• NRO's Peter Wehner: "It's hard to believe that Barack Obama, who ran a masterful and almost error-free campaign, has been president for all of three weeks and two days and has looked so ragged and undisciplined in his execution. We're now looking for Obama's third secretary of Commerce. It is really quite astonishing. 'I screwed up' may become a bi-weekly confession."
• Hot Air's Ed Morrissey: "Wow. This is an embarrassment for Obama, and might imperil the stimulus package, if Gregg has any influence over the waverers. [...] Barack Obama will take another big hit to his transition, but the man who really deserves the obloquy this time is [WH CoS] Rahm Emanuel. The census ploy was a transparent attempt to hijack the data for political purposes, and pulling that stunt after Gregg's appointment made Gregg look like a political eunuch. It was classic overreach, and it's classic Emanuel. Now he's embarrassed himself, made his boss look impotent, and managed at the same time to damage Obama's most critical piece of domestic policy legislation."

STIMULUS: So Much For Transparency

Conservative bloggers are angry that congressional Dems failed to give GOP lawmakers 48 hours to review the bill before voting on it:

• Reynolds: "So much for that promise to put bills online for 48 hours before voting. If they did that, they'd lose votes on this stinker, and they know it. On the other hand, there's something appropriate about holding this vote on Friday the 13th..."
• Philip Klein: "This is an absolute travesty, and a product of a President who promised the most transparent administration in history."
• RedState's Pejman Yousefzadeh: "It's time to call the Administration on its lack of transparency -- a lack of transparency that explicitly goes against the campaign promises Barack Obama made to the public."
• Emanuel: "Leave aside, for a moment, the fact that the House -- including [House Maj. Leader Steny] Hoyer himself -- unanimously voted in favor of a 48-hour review period for the porkulus before action was taken on it. Is one night really enough time to read for the first time and consider a bill that would borrow and spend an amount of money that, if it were GDP, would make it the fifteenth largest economy in the world? Of course not. Unfortunately, this type of a move from the supposedly transparency-loving Democrats isn't exactly unprecedented."
• The Next Right's Robert Bluey: "Obama promised to 'end the practice of writing legislation behind closed doors' in hopes of restoring trust in government. Despite overwhelming public approval and significant political capital, the president has made clear he's not yet ready to change the ways of Washington. This creates a tremendous opportunity for the minority."

SOCIAL SECURITY: Ben Smith Stirs Up A Hornets' Nest

Liberal bloggers are buzzing about Ben Smith's Politico article claiming that liberals are giving Obama "unusual room to maneuver on entitlements." Several lefty bloggers accused Smith of trying to create a story where there is none:

• Atrios: "I believe [Smith's article] is what we in the professional blogging biz call 'trolling,' but I'll bite. The Left, including yours truly, will create an epic 360 degree shitstorm if Obama and the Dems decide that cutting Social Security benefits is a good idea."
• Daily Kos' Laura Clawson: "Ben Smith alleges that the left would give Obama a pass if he tried to mess with Social Security and Medicare. Who, now? Atrios wouldn't give a pass (and thinks Smith is trolling with this one -- I tend to agree so I'm not going for the link-bait). Yglesias wouldn't give a pass. Daily Kos wouldn't give a pass. And somehow I doubt Talking Points Memo would either, considering their record defending Social Security."

Other liberal bloggers took Smith's claims at face value:

• Yglesias: "I'm not sure what the administration's thinking is, but certainly I wouldn't be silent if he were to propose draconian cutbacks in Social Security and Medicare."
• digby: "If it's true that most people on the left trust Obama to get together with the Blue Dogs and the Republicans and muck around in social security then they are failing to play their proper role. They should agitate to take it completely off the table, whether or not Rahm promised the Blue Dogs the store or Obama thinks he can magically finesse it. It's political dynamite in the middle of a very serious crisis and I can't believe any liberal is playing these kinds of games right now."
• Firedoglake's Jane Hamsher: "Atrios calls [Smith's article] trolling. Perhaps it is, but there have been signs that serious Social Security reform is in the works, and people who have been briefed on the administration's plans indicate that things like raising the retirement age and cutting benefits are under consideration. [...] Obama met with the Blue Dogs Tuesday night. Before the House vote on the stimulus bill, Rahm Emanuel had promised them that they would soon see 'signs of Obama's commitment to fiscal reform,' and according to one Blue Dog, 'Tuesday night was a fulfillment of the commitment Emanuel made that day.' If Blue Dogs like [TN Rep. Jim] Cooper have been emboldened by the idea that the left will quietly accept Social Security reforms that include reductions in benefits because of Obama's popularity, they have sorely deluded themselves. As Atrios notes, it would create 'an epic 360 degree shitstorm.' If people on the left are being quiet, it's not because they don't care...it's because they don't think Obama will ever do it."
• Obsidian Wings' hilzoy: "'Entitlement reform' can mean any of a number of things. On Social Security, it might mean a privatization plan like [George W.] Bush's, or it might mean something like raising the cap on payroll taxes. If Obama plans to try the first, he will not get any silence or benefit of the doubt from me. I thought it was a terrible idea when Bush proposed it, and I think it's a terrible idea today. If he wants to raise the cap on payroll taxes, on the other hand, I don't have a problem with that. [...] In short: once Obama comes out with specific proposals on entitlements, I will say something about them. Until then, my little piece of the Silence of the Left should not be taken to reflect anything more than not knowing what, exactly, he proposes."
• Sirota: "I think this is a potentially dangerous situation in that conservatives may be looking to seduce Obama into an innocuous sounding [fiscal] 'summit' or 'blue-ribbon commission' -- one that tries to lull the country into thinking that entitlement cuts are the only way to go. We know that's the right's objective, of course -- but we also know Obama has made concrete pledges about protecting Social Security and Medicare. So while it's probably not a great idea for the left to simply sit back and trust that Washington will do the right thing, it's also entirely possible that Obama will use his bully pulpit to redefine entitlement 'reform' as making the payroll tax more fair and passing universal health care. If that happens, it would be fantastic."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: What If Nadya Suleman Were Black?

Earlier this week, The Atlantic's Ta-Nehisi Coates addressed the hypothetical of whether Michael Phelps would have suffered worse consequences for his pot use if he were black. Now Coates is speculating about the likely public reaction if octuplet mom Nadya Suleman were black:

"No one cares what would happen if Michael Phelps were black -- which doesn't mean we aren't above racial hypotheticals. [...] So here's a hypothetical for that ass, courtesy of one of my readers:

'I know you're not big on that Michael Phelps thought experiment -- but here's another one for consideration: How much more abuse would that single mom out in California who the octuplets on top of her other six kids be subjected to if she were black?'

The reaction could be summarized in three words -- Get A Rope. But a much more interesting question isn't what she would be subjected to, but what all the rest of us would be subjected to. In other words, the key difference isn't in the treatment this woman has been getting, (all jokes aside, it's tough to imagine it getting much worse than death threats) but in the fact that if she were black, there would almost certainly be a debate about black people [and] our out of control kids. In other words, Nadya Suleman has the privilege of standing as an individual, of not having the burden -- or honor, really -- of having to represent. Indeed, we will know we're in the Promised Land when a black woman can have 8 kids, apply for food stamps, start up a website asking for help, and not be used as a cudgel to bash the rest of us."

LEST WE FORGET: Gold Bracelet Picked Up At Pharmacy

From The Onion:

"ORO VALLEY, AZ -- After spending a full minute holding the bracelet next to a small white bear hugging a jar of Hershey's kisses, James Mendez ultimately selected the $9.89 Rite Aid jewelry item as a Valentine's Day gift for wife Sheila Mendez on Friday. Although he originally entered the drug store to buy saline solution, the 46-year-old bank manager was reminded of the fast-approaching holiday by a display shelf of red and pink candy, and decided to treat his wife to the 14-karat yellow-tone rope-chain bracelet he spotted near the reading glasses. 'We're going to be painting the basement tomorrow, so I probably won't get a chance to run out,' said Mendez, who opted not to further decorate the gift after he was unable to find bows not sold in bulk. 'What woman doesn't like gold?' At press time, it was not clear how the bracelet would affect Mrs. Mendez's plan to lie lifelessly through the couple's semiannual lovemaking session."

Posted by Ian Faerstein at 12:31 PM

February 12, 2009

2/12: The Newest New Deal

While they're disappointed that lawmakers cut various spending provisions, liberal bloggers are generally happy about the final version of the stimulus bill. Lefty bloggers believe that the bill "isn't perfect", but they nevertheless view it as "a major victory for President Obama" and "probably the best piece of legislation to pass Congress in, oh, 15 or 16 years".

Conservative bloggers, of course, feel differently. Most of them are blasting the stimulus bill, calling it "the Generational Theft Act" and "the most hasty and poorly thought-out piece of legislation ever to come out of the US Congress". Some are complaining that GOPers were shut out of conference negotiations, while others are calling for a primary challenge to PA Sen. Arlen Specter (who voted for the bill).

The upside for many bloggers on the right is that Dems (in their view) are damaging themselves politically by passing this bill. Hugh Hewitt declares: "The overreaching is so great, the tax hikes so high and the spending so massive that conservatives should take heart: Rarely have so many masks dropped so quickly in American politics." John Hinderaker makes a similar point: "In my opinion, pretty much everything the Democrats have done or propose to do will hurt the economy...Their future, therefore, is cloudy at best."

STIMULUS: At The End Of The Day, A Win Is A Win

While they're disappointed about the removal of various spending provisions, liberal bloggers are generally happy about the final version of the bill:

• Atrios: "Looks like a win. [...] It certainly isn't perfect, but it is pretty much what Obama wanted."
• TAPPED's Tim Fernholz: "[I]t's hard not to see this as a major victory for President Obama. The bill still reflects the priorities he set out initially, its still more or less on schedule, and the legislation (and Obama personally) still have broad public support. I also expect that this bill will have a net positive effect on the economy, although the scale of that effect remains to be seen."
• Open Left's David Sirota: "I'm not happy that the stimulus bill was made less stimulative by reactionary Republicans and embarrassingly incoherent Democrats. I'm also not happy that direct spending on infrastructure/social programs comprises a miniscule 4.6% of all the government funds spent to deal with this economic crisis. However, considering how far progressives have pushed the debate, I'd say the deal on the economic stimulus package is a huge victory."
• The Washington Monthly's Steve Benen: "While there's some debate about whether the Obama White House scored a big win with this package or not, the administration, a month ago, envisioned a $775 billion plan, with $300 billion in tax cuts. The finished product looks pretty similar. The package should be more aggressive and more ambitious, but 'as a legislative achievement, coming so early in the term, this is astonishing.'"
• Open Left's Chris Bowers: "The deal isn't perfect, but it is still probably the best piece of legislation to pass Congress in, oh, 15 or 16 years. [...] 16 years ago, the last Democratic trifecta managed to pass some good legislation which, despite also being watered down, still had very positive effects for the nation. Hopefully, the same thing will happen this time, but with one big difference. Instead of the political situation deteriorating, and no major progressive legislation following the initial trifecta victories, let's work to make sure that this stimulus package is a starting point from which our legislative and political prospects only improve."

STIMULUS II: Not Everyone's A Happy Camper

Other liberal bloggers were more upset about the compromises that were made:

• MyDD's Todd Beeton: "[T]he pared down size of the new package will make it far more difficult for the bill to have the impact it needs to have and virtually guarantees that Obama is going to have to come back for more, which sort of makes you wonder if that's the whole point."
• Firedoglake's Blue Texan: "Assuming the bill is still about 40% tax cuts, you can see that our priorities as a country are still insane. I don't remember anyone calling this year's over $500B spending on defense 'generational theft'. And keep in mind -- the stimulus bill includes, surprise!, more defense spending. Depressing."
• dday: "The Axis of Centrism sees reducing the effectiveness of the bill as an end in itself. They've already reduced it to a half-measure, and they're coming back for more. Did Obama's early emphasis on post-partisanship rather than browbeating Republicans into acceptance change this reality? I'm not really sure. The moderates seem to be goring this bill and liking it, and no matter Obama's pose he would still be constrained by the essential nature of getting something passed. It's Susan Collins and Ben Nelson's world, we're just living in it."

Meanwhile, Think Progress' Matthew Yglesias is grateful to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi for fighting to keep school renovation funds in the bill: "I think people who saw the Senate's watered-down stimulus as just a clever bit of rope-a-dope to set the 'centrists' up for conference committee hijinks have been debunked. The pivotal Senators -- the Ben Nelsons and Arlen Specters of the world -- in whose hands lie the fate of filibusterable legislation are just genuinely committed to bad public policy. Still, the Senate bill was a lot better than nothing and the conference report is better than the Senate bill, largely thanks to Nancy Pelosi who continues to be the most underrated progressive leader in America."

STIMULUS III: A Looming Disaster?

Most conservative bloggers are pretty upset about the likely passage of the economic stimulus bill. Several are complaining that the bill will lead to a reversal of the '96 welfare reform legislation:

• NRO's Kathryn Jean Lopez: "I miss Bill Clinton. He signed welfare reform! But now Barack Obama is set to sign its undoing."
• AmSpec Blog's Quin Hillyer: "As is pointed out by Katherine Bradley and Robert Rector at the Heritage Foundation, the stimulus package guts the 1996 welfare reform which stands as both the most successful and the most popular federal government policy reform of the past, oh, 40 years or more. [...] Stiumulus opponents should ask a short series of questions to Arlen Specter and [ME Sen.] Olympia Snowe and anybody who was around in 1996. (1) Did you vote for welfare reform in 1996? (2) Do you think it worked? (3) Do you think we should kill something that worked? (4) If so, why? Hundreds of thousands of citizens might be well advised to flood senatorial offices with these questions. They are questions that could be game changers."

Other conservative bloggers are angry at Specter for voting in favor of the bill:

• AmSpec Blog's Jeffrey Lord: "[L]ocal talk radio in the Harrisburg area, (the Bob Durgin Show follows Rush [Limbaugh]) is pounding the daylights out of Specter. The anger is palpable, many citing Rush as their source for news. One topic: health care and any rules in this bill that would have kept Specter from his cancer treatments had he been a private citizen. Resentment, and the certainty that taxpayers are being robbed blind in perpetuity, is running very high."
• RedState's Erick Erickson: "To be sure, if Arlen Specter were to win the GOP nomination in Pennsylvania in 2010, I'd support him. He's still far better than the Democrat alternative and is not a Lincoln Chafee. But...it'd be great to have a strong primary for Specter from Glen Meacham, who'd also be an attractive general election candidate. Specter is a good trench fighter on occasion, but this stimulus vote is unacceptable. Sometimes tough actions must be taken to keep Republican Senators toeing necessary lines. This is one of those times."

STIMULUS IV: Where's The Transparency?

Many conservative bloggers are complaining that congressional Dems shut GOPers out of conference negotiations on the stimulus bill:

• Hinderaker: "Remember when the Democrats pledged to bring openness and transparency to the federal government? No more back-room midnight deals? Yeah, I remember that too, but the Democrats seem to have forgotten."
• Michelle Malkin: "Yes, it's sunlight-evading, earmark-stuffing business as usual there."
• RedState's Pejman Yousefzadeh: "This kind of behavior goes against everything the President promised he would seek to engender in the culture of Washington. George W. Bush got pilloried as a 'divider,' a 'polarizer,' and 'hyperpartisan' for a whole lot less."

Balloon Juice's John Cole doesn't think GOPers have a right to complain about being shut out of negotiations: "I guess next time you want a final say in the shaping of a piece of legislation (and you already had a ginormous say in the current legislation) in the conference committee, you probably should bring more than three votes to the table in both houses. Kind of funny how that works, as all the people who voted for the bill on the GOP side are right there working with the Democrats to finalize the bill. You WATB's demagogued, lied, whined, and had a hissy fit about the bill, then voted against it en masse even though it contained a number of provisions you wanted and you had inserted in the bill, and then took to the air waves pleased as punch with yourselves. The adults watched you and then decided you needed a timeout. This is bad and wrong, why?"

STIMULUS V: Keep Digging, Dems

While most conservative bloggers are outraged about the likely passage of the economic stimulus bill, others are confident that Dems are hurting themselves politically by passing this legislation:

• Hinderaker: "In my opinion, pretty much everything the Democrats have done or propose to do will hurt the economy. We will see unprecedented budget deficits, more wasteful spending than ever, higher taxes, inflation, and a stagnant stock market. I haven't gone back to re-check the numbers, but I'm pretty sure that Jimmy Carter was more popular at this stage of his administration than Obama is now, and I don't think the Carter administration did anything as directly damaging to the economy as what we're seeing now from the Obama administration. So, while it's interesting to follow the immediate political fallout from the Democrats' maneuvering, in the medium or long term, it's pretty much irrelevant. The Democrats, try as they might, can't repeal the laws of economics. Their future, therefore, is cloudy at best."
• Townhall's Hewitt: "The overreaching is so great, the tax hikes so high and the spending so massive that conservatives should take heart: Rarely have so many masks dropped so quickly in American politics. [...] Rarely has a majority party promised so much through its leader only to deliver exactly the opposite once in power. The Congressional GOP just has to make that point again and again, even as it loses battle after battle as various combinations of Senators Collins, Snowe and Specter provide the razor thin margins the Democrats need in the upper chamber."
• RedState's Brian Faughnan: "It's become clear that the voters turned to Democrats because they had forgotten how damaging Democrat economic policies are. And now that they're getting a reminder, buyer's remorse is starting to set in. While they may have hoped for change -- for something other than economic salvation in the form of a big government wish list of spending items that date to the [Dwight] Eisenhower administration -- they're starting to see that Democrats offer nothing more than the tired old statist solutions. [...] And as Democrats continue to deliver more of the same, the voters are going to become more disillusioned."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: The Case For Judicial Term Limits

Yglesias:

"Lifetime tenure for federal judges is a very dumb idea. The fact that anyone supports it is, in my view, just a pure example of status quo bias. If we lived in a country where the nine justices of the Supreme Court were serving staggered eighteen year terms (i.e., one new justice every two years) absolutely nobody would be saying 'if only justices stayed on the bench until death!' The point of life tenure is to give the judges independence from short-term political considerations. But a long fixed term, combined with a reasonable pension, completely meets that goal and avoids the high level of arbitrariness associated with the current system along with the macabre spectacle of wondering when people will die and the goofy incentives to appoint justices who are as young as possible.

But if you're not convinced by me, listen to Sandy Levinson and Scott Lemieux."

LEST WE FORGET: Who Says New Yorkers Are Unhelpful?

From Overheard in New York:

Tourist looking at a subway map, drawing a line with his finger: Where does this train go?
New Yorker: Exactly where you just pointed.

Posted by Ian Faerstein at 12:54 PM

February 11, 2009

2/11: Geithner Strikes Out

Treasury Sec. Tim Geithner's speech about his plan to rescue the financial system did not go over well in the blogosphere. Most liberal bloggers reacted to his speech with confusion, describing it as "a punt" and calling his plan "undefined". Others were even more critical. It's clear that many liberal bloggers simply don't trust Geithner and view him as a Wall Street stooge. Conservative bloggers were also critical of Geithner's speech, decrying its lack of specifics and emphasizing the financial markets' negative reaction to it.

What else is happening in the blogosphere?

• Conservative bloggers (Hinderaker, Malkin, Lane) are blasting Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) for claiming that Americans "really don't care" about the various "porky amendments" in the stimulus bill.
• Liberal bloggers (Moulitsas, Sudbay) are criticizing TN Gov. Phil Bredesen for portraying his medical industry ties as an asset while discussing his candidacy for the HHS Sec. position.

GEITHNER: A Man Without A Plan

Geithner's plan to rescue the financial system was met with confusion by many liberal bloggers:

• TPM's Josh Marshall: "[Geithner's speech] was a punt. Perhaps they realized that the situation is too fluid and uncertain to come out with a definitive plan that brings us to the post-Economic Crisis promised land. And they may be right in that regard. But I can't help thinking that this is in some level a punt. Maybe they couldn't actually come to an agreement on what to do. So they came forward with this."
• The Washington Monthly's Steve Benen: "Geithner still hasn't actually outlined a concrete plan. He has some ideas, some beliefs, and a few good things to say about transparency, but the Treasury Secretary's speech was supposed to answer questions. Instead, it raised quite a few."
• The New York Times' Paul Krugman: "An old joke from my younger days: What do you get when you cross a Godfather with a deconstructionist? Someone who makes you an offer you can't understand. I found myself remembering that joke when trying to make sense of the Geithner financial rescue plan. It's really not clear what the plan means; there's an interpretation that makes it not too bad, but it's not clear if that's the right interpretation."
• Think Progress' Matthew Yglesias: "My read of the situation is that this isn't an epistemic problem where we don't know what the real plan is; rather the plan is just undefined. What was announced today leaves the door open to handling this the right way. Unfortunately, it also leaves the money open to the dread zombie bank scenario."

In a separate post, Yglesias wonders if Geithner's plan will lead to bank nationalization: "If I'm reading this correctly, Timothy Geithner's financial rescue plan actually might lead to bank nationalizations after all. [...] There's clearly a desire here to avoid nationalization. A strong desire. But if the situation in the banking sector is as bad as the skeptics tend to think, this plan is going to end up with the government owning a substantial share in at least some large banks."

The Atlantic's Andrew Sullivan: "I found Geithner's remarks unreassuring. If the goal was bold early action to grasp the nettle of the banks' insolvency, and to find a way to expose and control it, then this struck me as more muddling through, with better oversight. The more I read and talk to people who seem to know, the more it appears that we need to do what the Swedes did: take over and restructure the banks."

GEITHNER II: The Netroots Don't Trust Him

Other bloggers were more critical of Geithner's proposals:

• BooMan: "[A]s a public relations move, Geithner's performance yesterday was an epic failure. I think he should have waited until he had more to say before giving a speech and testifying before Congress. Most of all, I don't know anyone that thinks we can, or should, avoid nationalizing the banks. We should just bite the bullet and do it."
• Daily Kos' Markos Moulitsas: "Depressing. Wall Street and their enables in the Obama Administration (i.e. Geithner) are winning the battle to steal more of our money. At least Congress, in a bipartisan fashion, isn't giving the plan any respect. Only question is what they'll do about it."
• Open Left's David Sirota: "How can this be a $1.5 trillion plan, that doesn't ask Congress for any more money? Because the Treasury Secretary is effectively circumventing the legislative branch -- ie. popular democratic channels -- and relying on autocratic means of handing over more cash to Wall Street, most prominently, the Federal Reserve. The reason Geithner has chosen this path is because he knows that Congress would likely reflect the will of a very angry public and either reject or severely reform his bailout plan. So rather than allow public input into the plan via Congress, he's just going around democracy entirely."
• The Huffington Post's Cenk Uygur: "When I read Geithner defend this broken system and beg the companies for their cooperation as he gives them trillions of dollars of our money, I get a clear sign that he is not one of us. He is one of them. This is an inside job."
• dday: "I agree that nobody knows what the banks are worth, and a 'stress test' to see how they'll perform might be a good idea, but only if followed by wiping out those banks that have no chance of making it. But that's not what's happening. Geithner is keeping his friends whole while the rest of the nation starves. And there's not much rhyme or reason to it, either."

GEITHNER III: Wasn't He Supposed To Be Indispensable?

Conservative bloggers are also criticizing Geithner:

• Hot Air's Ed Morrissey: "Geithner stood on his podium and told investors that the federal government would give all of the toxic assets a soft landing. If he had a real plan to do that, investors would have been buoyed by that news and would have been encouraged to buy -- or at least not to sell. But all Geithner had was a bunch of slogans and concepts, and investors realized that The Indispensable Man hasn't got a clue. [...] Time to look for a better Treasury Secretary. Maybe this time, we can find one smart enough to successfully file his income taxes."
• Power Line's John Hinderaker: "The stock market tumbled more than four percent today in response to the perceived vagueness and inadequacy of the financial bailout program unveiled (sort of) by Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner. [...] The one thing we know for sure is that the thirteen-digit cost of TARP II will be borrowed and passed on to our children as part of the most extraordinary deficit spending binge in our history, with consequences that no one can foresee."
• NRO's David Malpass: "Geithner's 11 a.m. speech was unconvincing on the core issue of stopping the momentum-driven drain on bank capital. The plan probably won't cause new capital to move into the banking industry or existing bank stocks to go up (a prerequisite for increased bank lending.) [...] There weren't many specifics in Geithner's speech, nor a sense of urgency. I like the expansion of the Fed's Term Asset-Backed Securities Loan Facility (TALF) to $1 trillion, and the idea of the public-private partnership of up to $1 trillion to buy assets, but Washington is moving too slowly."
• The New Ledger's Francis Cianfrocca: "[I]f Obama's team really believe that this problem is a simple matter of building enough confidence among the world's investors to come back out and play, they're very wrong. And this is why I think Geithner looked and sounded so uncomfortable yesterday. He actually knows quite a bit about how banks and markets operate. And he knew he'd been sent out to sell a case for recovery that was about as compelling as when President Gerald Ford told us all to fight inflation by wearing WIN buttons."

Meanwhile, Michelle Malkin describes Geithner's plan as "socialism."

SCHUMER: Incurring The Rightroots' Wrath

Conservative bloggers are criticizing Schumer for saying that Americans "really don't care" about all of the "little, tiny, yes, porky amendments" in the stimulus bill. Many righty bloggers are urging their readers to call and email Schumer's office and complain about his remarks:

• Hinderaker: "It wouldn't be easy to identify the most overrated member of Congess, but Chuck Schumer probably gets my vote. Here, he admits that his party's 'stimulus' bill includes 'porky amendments,' but says that 'the American people really don't care.' If you do care, you could phone Schumer's office at 202-224-6542 or fax him at 202-228-3027, or email him here."
• Malkin: "Sixteen seconds packed with trademark liberal contempt, self-delusion, and oily arrogance. Easy to claim the American people 'don't care' when your voicemail and e-mailboxes are clogged with messages that will never be heard or read before the next rush to judgment takes place."
• RedState's Moe Lane: "Permit me to correct the Senior Senator for NY, who is, by the way, up for re-election next year: If there is a time where the American people 'really don't care' about pork and corruption, it's when times are good. Times are not good. [...] Not that he'd know. I don't think this guy has actually worked for a living in decades."
• Glenn Reynolds: "Here's Schumer's contact information."

Morrissey: "Schumer says no one cares about pork. The worst part? He's probably right."

BREDESEN: This Probably Isn't The Best Way To Defend Yourself...

Liberal bloggers are criticizing Bredesen for making the following remarks to the Wall Street Journal in defense of his qualifications for HHS Sec.:

"'Anybody who's got some real scars and experience is going to have their detractors,' the governor said [...]. 'People at the White House are smart enough to be able to assess that.' And he took a swipe at his opponents, saying that 'advocacy groups don't matter nearly as much as the pharmaceutical groups, the hospitals, the doctors' groups. There's a lot of very powerful interest groups that will play in this thing.'"

• Daily Kos' Markos Moulitsas: "[T]o Bredesen, patient groups don't matter. It's all about Big Pharma. This from the guy who actually cut health care services to people in his state. The HMOs want him bad -- he's (literally) one of them. Obama should resist."
• AMERICAblog's Joe Sudbay: "With that love of the health care industry (the very people who have created the health care debacle), Bredesen would have been the perfect pick for Secretary of HHS for George Bush, not Barack Obama. Bredesen made his fortune in the health insurance industry. He's an industry guy. [...] According to the WSJ, it sounds like [WH CoS] Rahm Emanuel is being lobbied by health care lobbyists to appoint Bredesen. That alone should end the discussion. If Obama is serious about health care reform -- and he says he is -- Obama has to say NO to Bredesen. And, importantly, Obama should make that clear to Rahm Emanuel."
• Ezra Klein: "Bredesen's chosen defense offers useful insight into his approach to health care issues. [...] This belief that industry support is the highest form of flattery isn't surprising. Bredesen himself comes from a health industry background. And, arguably, that gives him unique insight into their incentives and vulnerabilities. But he's presenting himself as the candidate of the health care industry rather than the candidate of those who think they need a secretary with the credibility to stand against the health care industry."

In a separate post, Klein notes that MoveOn.org has come out against Bredesen: "[I]t's hard not to wonder whether the advocacy isn't so caught up opposing the candidate they don't want that they're missing the opportunity to coalesce around the candidate they do want. In part, that may be because no other HHS candidate has strong or obvious support. Everyone seems to wish for [ex-WH CoS John] Podesta, expect [KS Gov. Kathleen] Sebelius, and be interested in [CT Rep. Rosa] DeLauro. But there's little advocacy around these candidates or discussion around their merits. When [ex-SD Sen. Tom] Daschle withdrew, as I reported at the time, no one had a Plan B. That was understandable. But it's perhaps a credit to his unique set of talents that in the week since, no one has come up with much of a Plan B, either."

Meanwhile, Moulitsas wants ex-DNC Chair Howard Dean as HHS Sec., since he would prefer that Sebelius run for the soon-to-be-vacant KS Senate seat instead of joining Obama's Cabinet.

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: The Same Old Story

The American Scene's Peter Suderman (h/t Ross Douthat):

"...I am worried, to an extent, about the way Hollywood is trending towards recycling its properties. Yes, Tinseltown has been peddling recycled goods for a while now, but increasingly, it seems as if most major projects are sequels, adaptations, or reboots. But I'm genuinely starting to wonder if we aren't headed toward a Hollywood that looks a lot more like the world of comics than the world of novels.

My worry is that rather than storytellers, the big Hollywood studios will become property owners, each with its own stable of recognizable icons, some brought from other mediums, some original to cinema: Transformers, Freddy, Jason, Spider-Man, Batman, James Bond, Jason Bourne, Robocop, Aliens, and on and on and on. My sense is that just as the major comic book publishers have largely spent their time and money recycling the same familiar characters for the last five decades or so, the big movie studios are trending toward a similar model. In the last few years, we've seen Die Hard, Rambo, Rocky, and Indiana Jones revived. We've watched Bond and Batman get total overhauls. A Robocop reboot is in the works. Kids shows from the 1980s seem to be hot properties: Transformers and Ninja Turtles have already made comebacks, G.I. Joe is coming this summer, and He-Man is on its way. And, of course, there's another Friday the 13th film hitting theaters this week.

Now, don't get me wrong. I love comic books, comic-book movies, and serialized genre fiction of all sorts. But it does strike me as sort of a shame that Hollywood, perhaps the greatest outlet for popular storytelling the last 100 years, now seems far less concerned with telling stories and far more concerned with retelling them."

LEST WE FORGET: Report: Guy On Bench Going To Town On Meatball Sub

From The Onion:

"ARLINGTON, VA -- According to witnesses at the scene, a man sitting on a park bench with an empty paper bag lying across his lap is at this moment giving it to a foot-long meatball sub like it's his job. 'God, look at him go,' said Matt Ponce, an Arlington resident who described the man's passion for the half-eaten sandwich as 'awe-inspiring' and 'disgusting.' 'He's practically making love to the thing. Man. Get a room.' As of press time, the man was still sitting on the bench, breathing heavily and staring at the empty space between his hands where the meatball sub could once be found."

Posted by Ian Faerstein at 12:34 PM

February 10, 2009

2/10: Stimulate This

Several conservative bloggers blasted moderate GOPers Arlen Specter (R-PA), Olympia Snowe (R-ME), and Susan Collins (R-ME) for voting to close debate on the economic stimulus bill, calling them "the Turncoat Caucus" and accusing them of having "sold out America". However, the reaction in the righty blogosphere was generally subdued. Most conservative bloggers believe that three GOP votes does not translate into "bipartisan support," and they're convinced that Dems "own" the stimulus bill and will be responsible for its "bad consequences".

Meanwhile, liberal bloggers continue to criticize the coalition of centrist senators for stripping the bill of spending provisions such as state fiscal aid, which they consider "one of its least-controversial and most highly-stimulative provisions." Lefty bloggers are also buzzing about a new Gallup poll indicating that 67% of Americans approve of Pres. Obama's handling of the economic stimulus negotiations, whereas only 31% approve of the conduct of congressional GOPers. Josh Marshall sees these numbers as evidence of "the continuing disconnect between the mood of the capital and that of the country."

What else is happening in the blogosphere?

• Conservative bloggers (Emanuel, Hemingway, Hewitt, Mirengoff) are panning Obama's performance at yesterday's press conference, while liberal bloggers (Marshall, digby, Sudbay) are praising it.
• Liberal bloggers (Greenwald, Drum, Serwer, Bok) were surprised and disappointed when the Obama admin. backed the Bush admin.'s arguments in a lawsuit concerning extraordinary rendition.
• Liberal bloggers (Marshall, Bowers, Welsh, Sirota) are upset that Treasury Sec. Timothy Geithner reportedly succeeded in dissuading the Obama admin. from imposing tougher conditions on banks participating in the TARP bailout.

STIMULUS: The Turncoat Caucus?

Several conservative bloggers blasted Specter, Snowe, and Collins for voting to close debate on the economic stimulus bill:

• Michelle Malkin: "[This was] the Triumph of the Turncoat Caucus."
• RedState's Erick Erickson: "Arlen, Olympia, and Susan sold out America and voted for the stimulus."
• NRO's Stephen Spruiell: "Arlen Specter needs a primary opponent."

Meanwhile, AmSpec Blog's Philip Klein has a question: "Since the Senate bill, despite being larger, eliminates a chunk of spending from the House bill, what do the centrists do if negotiations lead to a final bill that's larger than both current versions?"

Other conservative bloggers aren't particularly upset by yesterday's vote, as they believe that Dems will pay a political price for passing this bill:

• RedState's Moe Lane: "Congratulations, Democrats. [...] The Democratic Party now owns an 800 billion dollar debt plan. They're welcome to it, in fact. So can we get to the final vote and the signing, already? We have midterm elections to plan for."
• Power Line's John Hinderaker: "[I]t seems obvious to me that the Dems' bill will have bad consequences. Not only that, bad consequences for which the Dems will be blamed."
• Right Wing News' John Hawkins: "[T]he Democratic Party is sowing the seeds of their electoral destruction."

STIMULUS II: Centrists Under Fire

Liberal bloggers continue to criticize the centrist senators who stripped about $100B in spending provisions (including $40B in aid to state governments) from the economic stimulus bill:

• Daily Kos' Markos Moulitsas: "I'm so relieved that we have Sens. Claire McCaskill and Ben Nelson in our party protecting us from the tyranny of building and renovating schools. Oh, and life-saving medical care."
• digby: "It's quite interesting that these 'centrists' never seemed to manifest themselves to mitigate the excesses of the Bush administration, even when the Senate was split right down the middle. In fact, if I recall correctly, the last time the 'centrists' flexed their muscles it was to stop the Democrats from filibustering the extremist Federalist Society pets, [John] Roberts and [Samuel] Alito."
• TAPPED's Tim Fernholz: "[The Dem aide I spoke to] was unable to provide a specific economic justification for why the centrists cut all of the flexible state fiscal aid and reduced school construction funding, rural broadband, public health provisions, etc., many of which are considered by economists to be the most effective tools for stimulating aggregate demand. [...] I'd like to see at least a pro forma attempt to justify the decisions in the centrists' amendment."

Think Progress' Matthew Yglesias: "On MSNBC earlier this morning, Senator Ben Nelson (D-Nebraska) was asked to explain his perverse decision to cut state aid money from the stimulus package and explained, 'they're not cuts. These are adjustments downward.' But whatever you call them, the point remains that Nelson and Susan Collins (R-Maine) took a look at a huge bill, and zeroed-in with laser-like efficiency on one of its least-controversial and most highly-stimulative provisions, deciding that that was a good place for 'adjustments downward.' And while doing this, Nelson and Collins left in place the least-stimulative elements of the House package and added new non-stimulative stuff like an AMT patch extension and a tax break for people who buy homes. Consequently, as CAP's Will Straw explains, the Senate 'centrists' managed to come up with a bill that creates fewer jobs while increasing the deficit by a greater amount."

STIMULUS III: See? Obama Has The Public On His Side!

The netroots are buzzing about a new Gallup poll indicating that 67% of Americans approve of Obama's handling of the economic stimulus negotiations, whereas only 31% approve of the conduct of congressional GOPers. Lefty bloggers see this poll as evidence that Obama is winning the stimulus debate, contrary to the arguments of conservatives:

• AMERICAblog's Joe Sudbay: "The talking heads in D.C. are all agog over the Hill Republicans these days, summed up by a front page story in today's Washington Post noting 'the glimmers of rebirth' seen by the Hill Republicans because of their insurgent tactics and the continued domination of Republican members of Congress on cable news. Just shows how far out of touch the corporate political media is, because the American people don't see it that way. Not even close."
• Atrios: "The Villagers, unsurprisingly, have decided that the Republicans have won and Obama has lost the argument. The fact that the American public do not agree matters little."
• TPM's Marshall: "What's most striking about these numbers is the continuing disconnect between the mood of the capital and that of the country. For me, a lot of that is a product of how Washington continues to be wired for Republican control."
• The Washington Monthly's Steve Benen: "I'm a little surprised by these results. Not only have conservative Republicans been dominating the discourse, but the critics' talking points have been largely internalized by journalists covering the debate."
• Moulitsas: "The Administration can't rip cable news enough for being out of touch with America. There is certainly a huge disconnect between this and this."
• MyDD's Jonathan Singer: "Do I believe that these numbers are sufficient, in and of themselves, for President Obama to be able to move forward his agenda? Not likely. Instead, the President will have to campaign for his legislation, which he is indeed doing. But anyone who tells you that the Republicans are winning the public relations battle at present -- regardless of the speed (or lack thereof) with which the stimulus bill is moving through Congress -- simply do not know what they're talking about."

Yglesias thinks the GOP's near-universal opposition to the stimulus bill makes little sense in light of this poll: "It seems that conservative legislators are really excited about their efforts to block efforts at an economic recovery package, [but] the public is less entranced by this behavior. [...] I'm not surprised to see most Republican legislators acting this way. But I really am surprised by how many have been following the [Rush] Limbaugh Line. Barack Obama won the election pretty handily and he's quite popular, meaning that even with Democratic victories in 2006 and 2008 there are still a bunch of GOP legislators representing states or districts where Obama is well-liked. I would have expected more 'running scared' behavior from that sub-set of the GOP."

Ezra Klein disagrees: "[I]f I were a Republican, I wouldn't change my behavior one bit. The question is not whether the stimulus -- or, for that matter, Barack Obama -- is popular now. It's whether it's popular in October of 2010. If it's not, then you want a clear record of opposition. (Message: We told you so.) If it is, then you're screwed no matter how you voted. And that strategy, of course, has proven a far better predictor of Republican behavior than the popularity of the bill."

OBAMA PRESS CONFERENCE: Weak Sauce, Mr. President

Conservative bloggers were not impressed by Obama's performance at yesterday's press conference:

• RedState's Jeff Emanuel: "What we saw tonight in President Obama was a man who, flailing about for words and faiing to form cohesive sentences and responses, turned in a stumbling, meandering performance worthy of the most extreme caricature of George W. Bush."
• Townhall's Carol Platt Liebau: "President Obama's press conference had to be an enormous disappointment to anyone who had really believed his hype about bringing 'hope' and 'change' to Washington. [...] Part of the President's job is to calm fears, not stir them up. If there are real dangers to be confronted, of course it's his job to point them out. But the idea that 'catastrophe' will ensue without immediate passage of a bill that even some Democrats deem a failure is, well, just a joke. And a sad one."
• NRO's Mark Hemingway: "As good as he is delivering a speech, Obama is not a good extemporaneous speaker. [...] The conference was, frankly, boring and long-winded."

Conservative bloggers were particularly incensed by what they perceived to be Obama's mischaracterization of GOP opposition to the stimulus bill:

• Hinderaker: "Obama repeatedly characterized his opponents (the Republicans) as people who want to do nothing about the current economic crisis. [...] This is not just disingenuous; frankly, it's an outright lie. The question is whether it's an effective one. Don't most people who would bother to watch a televised press conference know that the Republicans have made all kinds of alternative proposals? One would think."
• Townhall's Hugh Hewitt: "[W]hen he distorted the GOP opposition as wanting to do nothing he lost the game. The American people are tuned into this debate and know very well that the GOP is committed to a large but balanced stimulus plan that puts tax relief and immediate infrastructure spending to work to immediately surge the economy. They have listened closely to the arguments made on the Senate floor and know that the president's bald mischaracterization of those positions is just false."
• Power Line's Paul Mirengoff: "President Obama's press conference tonight was characterized by the glib dishonesty that is coming to define his presidency. The biggest howller, as John [Hinderaker] notes, was Obama's claim that Republicans want to do nothing to stimulate the economy. Perhaps Obama was thinking of the claim that doing nothing would be better for the economy than adopting the stimulus program he is pushing. But (1) this was the finding of the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office, not congressional Republicans and (2) the fact that the Democratic proposal might well be worse than doing nothing does not mean that we should do nothing; it just means we should reject what the Dems have served up."
• Hot Air's Ed Morrissey: "Republicans in both the House and Senate have offered at least two alternative stimulus packages. None of them demanded that Obama 'do nothing'."

OBAMA PRESS CONFERENCE II: A Refreshing Change

Not surprisingly, liberal bloggers had a more positive impression of Obama's performance:

• Marshall: "You watch this performance and you can see that every day Republicans keep this guy off TV is a win for them. Like every great pol, Obama's a great communicator. And he's making the argument."
• digby: "Can I just say how refreshing it is to have a president who not only speaks the English language and doesn't filibuster with repetitive nonsense, but one who actually understands what he's talking about?"
• Sudbay: "Wow. Barack Obama is smart. Okay, not like I didn't know it, but to watch him in action, answering questions in a smart, sophisticated manner was impressive."

OBAMA: What Happened To Transparency?

Liberal bloggers were surprised and disappointed when the Obama admin. "backed the Bush administration's arguments in a lawsuit involving the practice of seizing terror suspects abroad and sending them to third countries for questioning":

• Salon's Glenn Greenwald: "What makes this particularly appalling and inexcusable is that Senate Democrats had long vehemently opposed the use of the 'state secrets' privilege in exactly the way that the Bush administration used it in this case, even sponsoring legislation to limits its use and scope. Yet here is Obama, the very first chance he gets, invoking exactly this doctrine in its most expansive and abusive form to prevent torture victims even from having their day in court, on the ground that national security will be jeopardized if courts examine the Bush administration's rendition and torture programs -- even though (a) the rendition and torture programs have been written about extensively in the public record; (b) numerous other countries have investigated exactly these allegations; and (c) other countries have provided judicial forums in which these same victims could obtain relief."
• Mother Jones' Kevin Drum: "So Obama is adopting the same expansive interpretation of the privilege as the Bush/Cheney administration, and using it in order to cover up American involvement in torture and rendition programs that have been in the public record already for years and can hardly even be said to be secrets, let alone state secrets that are vital to U.S. national security. This is decidedly not change we can believe in."
• TAPPED's Adam Serwer: "Obviously there are strong international pressures affecting the decision, but it's an ill omen for people expecting Obama to be open to bringing some of the Bush administration's abuses into the sunlight."
• Obsidian Wings' hilzoy: "Obama administration: you screwed this one up in a major, major way. Stop it. Stop it now. Work your hearts out to get the State Secrets Protection Act reintroduced in Congress and passed into law. Try to do right by people like the plaintiffs in this case. Don't just say: it would be a problem for us to let people we shipped off to be tortured have their day in court. Try to make it right. You have it in your power to make me proud of my government again. But this is really, really, really not a very good start."
• digby: "This is really disappointing. And it makes me wonder if I was punk'd after all. [...] For the administration that has made its most fundamental pitch for change on the basis of transparency, this is really quite a blow."
• BooMan: "The Obama administration cannot allow itself to become complicit in the Bush administration's crimes."

The Atlantic's Andrew Sullivan: "The Obama administration will continue the cover-up of the alleged torture of the British resident [Binyam Mohamed]. The argument is that revealing the extent of the man's torture and abuse would reveal state secrets. No shit. This is a depressing sign that the Obama administration will protect the Bush-Cheney torture regime from the light of day. And with each decision to cover for their predecessors, the Obamaites become retroactively complicit in them."

Meanwhile, conservative bloggers are experiencing some schadenfreude.

GEITHNER: A Wall Street Stooge?

Liberal bloggers are upset that Geithner reportedly succeeded in dissuading the Obama admin. from imposing tougher conditions on banks participating in the TARP bailout:

• Marshall: "[This is] bad news."
• Open Left's Chris Bowers: "If the story is correct, it appears the corporatists in the Obama administration have prevailed over the populists/leftists in the administration on most areas of bailout strategy. This includes, most importantly, placing minimum to no conditions on how bailout recipients spend money, and a decision for the government to not take operational control of any banks. The story is also a classic case of exactly why cabinet appointments make a huge difference in determining policy. Rather than all appointees simply following orders from President Obama, they take part in a vigorous debate on policy. In this case, corporatist Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner appears to have won on virtually all counts, even over senior administration advisors such as David Axelrod."
• Firedoglake's Ian Welsh: "In other words, taxpayer money will be used to prop up banks. The same executives who caused the problems will be allowed to continue paying themselves huge bonuses for destroying the economy and bankrupting their banks and they won't be forced to use the money to lend to actual consumers. Nor will shareholders be replaced so that taxpayers investing hundreds of billions and taking on trillions in risk can have all the upside instead of all the upside (yes, they'll probably get some shares. They should get 100% ownership. You should get 100% ownership.It's your money Geithner's spending)."

Open Left's David Sirota: "Interestingly, the divide inside the administration seems to hearken back to a divide discussed very early on in the formation of the administration -- the one whereby progressives were put in strictly political positions, and zombie conservatives were put in the policymaking positions. In this case, more progressive politicos like Axelrod was overruled by corporate cronies like Geithner."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Defining The Stimulus

Ezra Klein:

"No one understands what the stimulus is. In part, that's because it's not any one thing: It's a vast collection of programs connected by nothing but the fact that they all cost money. Maybe for that reason, the Obama team has preferred to define the stimulus in terms of what it will achieve. We've heard a lot about the three million jobs it will create but much less about the nature and composition of the package. The message has been simple. Stimulus: Just do it.

The Republicans, sensibly, stepped into the void and began aggressively defining the package. Suddenly it was pork and STD prevention and mob museums and amusement parks. Rather than the sum of its parts they explained the eccentricities of its margins. But they were essentially alone in giving memorable examples of what exactly the stimulus looked like in practice.

They're still largely alone in that pursuit. But rather than [House GOP Whip] Eric Cantor and [House Min. Leader] John Boehner picking the examples, [PA Sen.] Arlen Specter and [ME Sen.] Susan Collins have taken up the task. Their cuts have elevated another concrete set of the stimulus's component parts. But this time, it's not mob museums and contraceptive funding. Cutting a hundred billion dollars required digging into the meat of the program. And so attention has suddenly focused on a whole other set of stimulus priorities: School construction, education funding, and aid to states. These are, to put it mildly, rather more popular. The [C-SPAN] callers this morning were outraged that these priorities would be cut. Why wouldn't you fast track school construction right now? And if those provisions were considered the bill's least necessary, then presumably the rest of the bill is arguably even worthier. This would seem a great gift to the Democrats who can now campaign for schools and state services -- potholes! -- rather than some $900 billion expenditure hazily-defined as stimulus. The question, I guess, is whether they take advantage of it."

LEST WE FORGET: Ex-Girlfriend Making Huge Mistake

From The Onion:

"CLEVELAND -- Tracy Anderton is making a tremendous mistake by thinking she can find happiness with a successful trial lawyer, ex-boyfriend Jack Colgrave reported Tuesday. 'Since we broke up, Tracy has exhibited some really self-destructive behavior, from losing a dramatic amount of weight, to discarding several old photo albums, to now becoming involved with people who are clearly wrong for her,' Colgrave said. 'If this doesn't stop soon, I worry she'll end up doing something really drastic -- like moving in with this new guy, or worse, not answering any more of my telephone calls.' As of press time, Anderton has continued to ignore pleas to stop and think for a second, look at what she's doing for Christ's sake, and not throw everything away because of some stupid other woman."

Posted by Ian Faerstein at 12:49 PM

February 09, 2009

2/9: Nice Job, Centrists!

Liberal bloggers are furiously denouncing the Senate version of the economic stimulus bill, which was reached in an agreement between Dems and three moderate GOPers. Lefty bloggers think the list of cuts proposed by the centrist senators makes little sense; Josh Marshall complains that the cuts "build up the least effective parts of the package at the expense of the most." The netroots are particularly incensed by the proposal to cut $40B from proposed aid to states, which they're describing as "crazy" and "perverse". Liberal bloggers believe that giving money to state governments is necessary to prevent further budget cuts and job losses, and they hope that state aid is restored when lawmakers reconcile the House and Senate bills in conference.

Meanwhile, several conservative bloggers are blasting the three GOP moderates for "betraying" their party and compromising with Dems. Michelle Malkin is urging her readers to contact the offices of ME Sens. Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe and "protest [their] collusion in this act of generational theft." Other righty bloggers are less upset by the actions of Collins, Snowe, and Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA), as they believe that "Barack Obama and the Democrats own this bill, and they will own the consequences that almost certainly will result: delayed recovery [...], unprecedented deficits, tax increases and inflation."

STIMULUS: What The Centrists Have Wrought

Liberal bloggers are overwhelmingly opposed to the compromise forged by the group of centrist senators:

• The New York Times' Paul Krugman: "[T]o appease the centrists, a plan that was already too small and too focused on ineffective tax cuts has been made significantly smaller, and even more focused on tax cuts. [...] My first cut says that the changes to the Senate bill will ensure that we have at least 600,000 fewer Americans employed over the next two years."
• TAPPED's Tim Fernholz: "The decision to [cut] $40 billion in state aid, another $20 billion in school construction, $2 billion for rural broandband access in favor of $30 billion in tax rebates for people who buy homes and cars is a travesty; the former option is more stimulative to the overall economy and targets needed investments, while the latter has a small stimluative value, is regressive and would be a step towards puffing the housing bubble up again."
• Open Left's Chris Bowers: "I've heard that you are supposed to get more conservative when you get older. The older I get, the more I am convinced that 'moderates' like Susan Collins and [NE Sen.] Ben Nelson -- so beloved by the media -- are simply rich corporate hacks who seek to destroy the American middle class by subtler means than the likes of [George W.] Bush."
• MyDD's desmoinesdem: "In the name of bipartisanship and compromise, Democrats in the Senate may approve a stimulus bill that won't work. That will do more to revive the Republican Party than the think tank [RNC Chair] Michael Steele axed. Even if a handful of Senate Republicans vote for the stimulus, Barack Obama and Congressional Democrats will pay the price if the economy continues to decline."

digby: "Hardball is reporting that the new bill is 42% tax cuts now and 58% spending, which is considered a big win for Republicans. And they are still fighting it. And when it finally comes to the floor, they won't vote for it anyway. That's how a truly ruthless opposition party works. They ruin the legislation, are lauded as winners for ruining the legislation and then vote against the legislation that they ruined. Awesome. [...] It also occurs to me that it's just accepted as fact that the Republicans will filibuster this bill if they can. In the middle of a national emergency. Why is that ok but filibustering a supreme court justice nomination was a crime against the constitution?"

STIMULUS II: Where's The Logic In This?

Many liberal bloggers are complaining that there's no rhyme or reason to the list of cuts proposed by Sens. Nelson and Collins:

• TPM's Marshall: "[T]he list of cuts they've pushed through follow no coherent approach to the package -- and build up the least effective parts of the package at the expense of the most. They follow a logic of political grandstanding."
• Think Progress' Matthew Yglesias: "I'm really shocked by the extent to which the architects of the Senate cuts to the recovery package aren't being made to offer any kind of justification for their actions. And in the absence of pressure, they certainly aren't doing it of their own accord."
• Obsidian Wings' publius: "[W]hat exactly were Nelson and Collins trying to accomplish? The whole thing seemed like a bad black comedy. The negotiators seemed to be pushing for cuts, not because the cuts achieve any substantive policy objective, but just because the Senators had an ideological aversion to 'bigness.' Or something. It's all incredibly frustrating -- it would be one thing if the Nelson/Collins crew cut measures that actually had no (or very limited) stimulus benefits. But that's not at all what they did -- in fact, there seems to be little coherence to what they cut. From what I can gather, they wanted to cut some stuff just to say that they had cut some stuff."
• Ezra Klein: "There are two basic arguments you heard coming from the Collins-Nelson crew. The first was that the stimulus was too big. [...] The second was that the particular programs weren't justifiable within the 'stimulus' rubric. [...] But the gang of job-cutters -- to steal Dean Baker's elegant formulation -- hasn't justified their cuts on grounds of either size or efficacy. Why is $900 billion a stimulus package they would have to oppose, but $800 billion is a stimulus package they can support? There's been no explanation for the superiority of $800 billion against $600 billion, or even against $1.2 trillion. Nelson has not argued that the likely output gap over the next two years has been overstated in CBO estimates -- and way overstated by Goldman-Sachs' estimates -- and thus the stimulus is too large for our purposes. Nor have they argued that the $40 billion in state aid and $20 billion in school construction will be less stimulative than the $70 billion Alternative Minimum Tax patch, of which exactly 0.5% goes towards the bottom 60 percent of the income distribution (which are, of course, the folks most in need of relief, and most likely to spend it quickly). In fact, they haven't really argued anything at all. Rather, it's been a dazzling display of the most analytically bankrupt strain of centrism: The belief that the right answer lies, by definition, somewhere between the answers that are already on the table."

STIMULUS III: They Want To Cut State Aid?!?

Liberal bloggers are especially outraged by the proposal to cut $40B in aid to states:

• Yglesias: "The single most perverse thing about the Senate version of the stimulus package is that it made big reductions in federal aid to the states. In economic terms, this was just about the least-controversial idea you could put in a stimulus package."
• Mother Jones' Kevin Drum: "State aid was cut? That's crazy. Even many of the conservatives I read agree that preventing huge state cutbacks is one of the quickest and most efficient forms of fiscal stimulus. And most of the rest of the spending on this list is infrastructure spending, exactly the thing that conservatives were complaining there was too little of. Granted, neither laws nor sausages bear close scrutiny, but trading this stuff for a bunch of idiotic car and homebuying subsidies strikes me as unusually mindless, even by U.S. Senate standards. This is not exactly centrism's finest hour."
• dday: "The $40 billion [cut] for state aid is astounding. You're not going to see an economic recovery if the states are having to cut budgets at the same time the feds expand them. They'll cancel each other out."
• The Washington Monthly's Steve Benen: "Cutting state aid from the stimulus bill is a very bad idea. Congress can get the money to states quickly, and give states a much needed boost at exactly the right time. I don't know what Collins & Co. are thinking, but they need to think again."
• Balloon Juice's John Cole: "[T]he craziest thing about the centrist compromise over the stimulus bill is that for whatever reason, they stripped out a ton of aid that would go directly to the states, create immediate jobs. At a time when the economy is shedding 600k jobs a month, not firing a police officer is almost as good as hiring a new one."
• publius: "[S]tate budget aid is an important stimulus. It should not be cut. Let's hope [House Speaker Nancy] Pelosi hangs tough on this."

STIMULUS IV: The Last Resort

Disgusted by the compromise currently being forged in the Senate, several liberal bloggers are hoping that lawmakers improve the bill when the Senate conferences with the House:

• Fernholz: "The only light at the end of the tunnel is the conference committee, when a select group of senators and representatives will get together to iron out the differences between the two houses' versions of the bill. It's possible that conference will be a venue to improve the bill, and once it is brought back for a vote -- no amendments allowed -- Obama's national tour next week will have brought enough pressure to bear that a chagrined Republican or two will cross party lines for the bill."
• dday: "If you want more jobs, you have to eliminate the AMT patch, which can be reconciled through a regular process with offsets, and add back the spending to the states, school construction, and more, which will probably add a million more jobs. Otherwise, you're going to see cops, firefighters, nurses and teachers out on the street. [...] Will the House force the moderates in the Senate to eat a shit sandwich? Will the moderates do it, or will they vote against the bill and sink the economy? There can be no amendments to a conference report, but the bill will need a 3/5 vote."
• Firedoglake's Christy Hardin Smith: "Children don't vote. Which means that programs which benefit them far too often end up on the funding chopping block. So who will pushback on their behalf for the upcoming conference negotiations on this bill? I know I will be. And I hope you will, too. Why? Because without a public push, the likelihood of any of this funding being restored is nil -- and the most vulnerable members of our society will be shoved aside. Again. At a time when their need is increasingly desperate."

STIMULUS V: Thanks A Lot, RINOs!

Many conservative bloggers criticized the centrist GOP senators who were involved in forging the compromise:

• Malkin: "Details of GOP Sen. Susan Collins' 'compromise' 'stimulus' proposal are coming out. This is a Mt. Kilimanjaro-sized crock of you know what. Total cost of this 'pared down' bill is $1.175 trillion. Let me repeat that: $1.175 trillion. [...] So in the name of fiscal responsibility, Collins and the B.O. Republican contingent are selling out America with a plan that costs $7 billion more than the House Crap Sandwich Supreme. Are we ready to say the F-word* yet? (*Filibuster)"
• RedState's Jeff Emanuel: "Multiple sources are reporting that Republican Senators Arlen Specter, Olympia Snowe, and Susan Collins have reached an agreement with Democrats on a final $780 billion version of the so-called 'stimulus' package. Way to sell out your team, folks. [...] I hope you enjoy the short-lived feather in your cap this compromise will be, Senators. All you've done is pave the way for this bill to get far enough along in the process to have everything you negotiated out put right back in -- and at that point there'll be nothing you can do to stop it."
• Right Wing News' John Hawkins: "When people like David Frum, Kathleen Parker, David Brooks, etc., say that they want a 'more moderate' Republican Party, in real world terms, what they want is for the GOP in DC to be more like Susan Collins, Olympia Snowe, and Arlen Specter -- the Republicans who appear likely to cave on this stimulus package. Does anyone really think the Republican Party can succeed like that? For that matter, does anyone think the country can thrive with a Republican Party made up of people like that?"

Power Line's John Hinderaker isn't too upset by the actions of the three GOP moderates, as he thinks Dems will ultimately "own this bill": "The important thing, I think, is that Barack Obama and the Democrats own this bill, and they will own the consequences that almost certainly will result: delayed recovery (although this will be impossible to prove), unprecedented deficits, tax increases and inflation."

STIMULUS VI: A Disaster In The Making

Needless to say, conservative bloggers aren't any less opposed to the stimulus bill now that centrist senators have removed some of the spending provisions:

• Hawkins: "This stimulus bill is huge, so disastrous, and so harmful to our country that even though Obama has been in office for less than a month, I think it's already fair to label him as one of the worst Presidents in American history."
• RedState's Pejman Yousefzadeh: "I do not know how anyone can deny anymore the fact that the stimulus package is a public policy disaster waiting to be implemented."
• Townhall's Hugh Hewitt: "Throughout the next few days of debate, the conference and the final votes in the House and Senate, every Republican Representative and Senator should warn of the risks of spending this much money on giveaways. This kind of spending unconnected to the productivity unleashed by tax cuts brings on inflation and low if any real economic growth -- Carterism, in other words. [...] Repetition, repetition, repetition: It is a teaching moment that the votes of Senators Collins, Snowe and Specter cannot in any way obscure. This sort of fiscal policy cannot work and never has. The Democrats know this but prefer the short-term political benefits of paying off their constituencies over the opportunity before them to redraw the political map by embracing centrist, common-sense economics as Clinton did post 1994."

Malkin encourages her readers to keep calling Congress: "Thanks to all of you who have melted the phones to stop passage of this Mt. Kilimanjaro-sized, gold-plated pile of crapola. The voicemail and e-mail boxes of the U.S. Senate are completely filled. You can find local district phone and contact information for every U.S. senator here. Don't stop."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: The Trouble With Centrism

The Atlantic's Ross Douthat:

"The liberals are angry, and not without reason. You can imagine a world in which 'centrist' Senators used their awesome deal-making powers to forge compromises that incorporate ideas from the left and right alike. [...] But that's not the world we live in. In this world, centrist Senators exist to take politics as usual -- whether it's tax cuts in Republican eras, or spending splurges in Democratic ones -- and make it ever so slightly more fiscally responsible. So if the GOP wants, say, $500 billion in tax cuts, the country clearly needs $400 billion in tax cuts -- but not a penny more! And if the Democrats want $900 billion in stimulus, then the best possible policy outcome must be ... $800 billion in stimulus! To read this Arlen Specter op-ed, justifying both the stimulus package and the cuts the 'gang of moderates' have attempted to impose, is to encounter a mind incapable of thinking about policy in any terms save these: Take what the party in power wants, subtract as much money as you can without infuriating them, vote yes, and declare victory.

Now fiscal responsibility is generally a good thing, and so a centrism mindlessly focused on tweaking legislation away from deficit spending has its uses. But what Nelson, Collins, Specter and Co. have done isn't a new kind of politics. It's the definition of politics as usual. And in this particular case, there's a reasonable argument that it's actively pernicious -- that if you can't shrink the stimulus package much more substantially than the centrists have done, you shouldn't shrink it at all. There's a case to be made for a stimulus that's radically different than the one we have now; there's a case to be made for a stimulus that's like the one we have now, but a great deal smaller and more targeted; and there's a case to be made for a stimulus that's absolutely gargantuan. But thanks to the centrists, we're getting the cheapskate version of the gargantuan version: They've done absolutely nothing to widen the terms of debate about what should go into the bill, and they've shaved off just enough money to reduce its effectiveness if Paul Krugman is right -- but not nearly enough to make it fiscally prudent if the stimulus skeptics are right."

LEST WE FORGET: Dorks On Parade

Wonkette's Sara K. Smith is underwhelmed by Annie Leibovitz's portraits of various members of Obama's team:

"Annie Liebovitz will photograph literally anyone, as long as they are marginally famous. Ever since Watergate she has taken portraits of schlubby double-chinned Administration staffers, so as to glorify the current President and reassure the nation that, while power changes hands occasionally, it transfers cleanly from one self-satisfied bureaucrat to the next.

Her latest series on key Obama administration figures raises a very important question: Do we really need to see what any of these dorks look like? And more importantly, why would any of these dorks assume we want to look at them? They obligingly stood for their portraits in the New York Times Sunday magazine a few weeks back, and far be it from any of them to turn down a session with the Great Annie Liebovitz, but jesus christ. America is interested in precisely four (4) people involved in the Obama administration: Barack, Michelle, and their kids. That is all. The halo of glamour does not extend to Steven Chu."

Posted by Ian Faerstein at 01:16 PM

February 06, 2009

2/6: Stimulus Wars

The economic stimulus bill continues to dominate the conversation in the political blogosphere. Conservative bloggers are urging their readers to call their GOP senators and tell them to "kill the bill", not amend it. Righty bloggers are convinced that the bill will fail to achieve its goal of stimulating the economy, and they believe that GOPers have no reason to "protect [Dems] from the wrath of the voters" by helping them pass it.

Liberal bloggers, meanwhile, are nervous about reports that a group of centrist Senators led by Ben Nelson (D-NE) and Susan Collins (R-ME) has been trying to slash $100B worth of programs from the stimulus bill. While lefty bloggers concede that "avoiding a filibuster is necessary," they believe that stripping the bill of things like state money for education will weaken its stimulative effect. Steve Benen complains that "the Nelson/Collins group isn't just holding the president hostage, it's holding the economy hostage."

What else is happening in the blogosphere?

• Liberal bloggers (Marshall, Sudbay, Benen) are pointing to the fact that 36 out of the 41 GOP senators voted for SC Sen. Jim DeMint's amendment (which would have replaced all of the gov't spending measures with tax cuts) as evidence that GOPers do not accept the stimulus bill's central premise and therefore cannot be negotiated with.
• Liberal bloggers (Marshall, Lemos, digby, publius) are praising Pres. Obama for giving a partisan speech to House Dems in which he criticized GOP opponents of his stimulus bill. Conservative bloggers (Lopez, Klein, Carroll) are criticizing the speech.
• Conservative bloggers (Malkin, Erickson, Kirsanow, Reynolds) are buzzing about the news that the husband of Obama's Labor Sec. nominee, Rep. Hilda Solis (D-CA), failed to pay $6,400 in business taxes. On the other hand, liberal bloggers (Beeton, Drum, McIntyre, Sudbay) believe that GOP senators are holding up Holis's confirmation because of her support of organized labor (and specifically the Employee Free Choice Act).

STIMULUS: Kill The Bill!

Conservative bloggers continue to urge GOP senators to "kill the bill," not amend it:

• Michelle Malkin: "Call the GOP wobblers. Tell 'em to slam the brakes. Kill the bill. Stab it. Stick a fork in it. Then start from scratch."
• RedState's Erick Erickson: "Call your Senator again today at 202-224-3121. Tell him not to vote for the stimulus plan. If your Senator is a Republican -- even if in name only -- remind him that when this passes, the GOP will not get credit anyway. And when it passes, it will hurt more than help. Your Senator shouldn't want to be connected with it. The Democrats don't need any help to own this thing. Let's not given them any."
• Power Line's John Hinderaker: "The biggest danger at this point is that moderate Republicans will collaborate with the Democrats in making immaterial changes in the bill that will give Obama and the Democrats a veneer of 'bipartisanship' and thereby protect them from the wrath of the voters. [...T]he Democrats' terrible bill must be defeated. Republicans should hold firm and not settle for the stripping out of a few of the bill's most egregious pork projects. If they do, it is quite possible that the bill may not pass. If it does, the Democrats will have to take responsibility for the consequences. Senate Republicans should not take them off the hook."

On the other hand, The Atlantic's Andrew Sullivan thinks GOPers should be "a little more gracious": "The GOP has every right to resist; but they should surely understand that they lost the last election; that they have no credibility on fiscal discipline; and that, when push comes to shove, it may be the responsible thing in a crisis like this to be a little more gracious in setting aside hardball partisanship."

STIMULUS II: Please Save Us From The "Centrists"

Liberal bloggers were upset to learn that a group of centrist Senators led by Sen. Nelson and Sen. Collins was trying to slash $100B worth of programs from the stimulus package (including state money for education):

• TAPPED's Tim Fernholz: "While avoiding a filibuster is necessary -- and it remains unclear if [Senate Maj. Leader Harry] Reid has the votes without these cuts -- I'm not sure that this is the right the way to do it; the bill may be passable without subtracting things like $24.8 billion in state stabilization money for education. State aid is absolutely critical to the overarching purpose of this bill -- stimulating the economy -- because it will prevent state governments, which cannot deficit spend, from cutting services and jobs. There are some spending initiatives that represent good public policy goals, like cyber security research, that could be cut from the bill in order to gain votes without compromising its purpose. It's not clear to me whether the Collins-Nelson crew is making these distinctions or just looking for programs that lack a strong constituency."
• The Washington Monthly's Benen: "The Nelson/Collins group, to make the package 'palatable,' isn't eyeing the tax breaks that aren't stimulative, they're eyeing about $100 billion in spending that is stimulative. In other words, to get this thing passed, there will be less funding for cash-strapped states, schools, and energy, which needs to go to make room for tax cuts that no one seriously believes will spur growth. [...] The Nelson/Collins group isn't just holding the president hostage, it's holding the economy hostage."
• Open Left's Paul Rosenberg: "It's ironic that the self-described 'fiscally responsible' centrist 'grownups' would be the authors of such an incredibly ill-informed, destructive attack on state governments and schoolchildren. But, then, that's what bipartisans do: support [George W.] Bush's war, give massive bailouts to Wall Street, ignore global warming and take money away from schools. [...] Collins-Nelson's cuts severely damage the effort to create an effective stimulus..."
• Atrios: "'The Centrists.' They're gonna help to destroy the country, but at least they're very serious and hate hippies."

Daily Kos' Meteor Blades: "[M]uch of money already extracted and proposed for elimination will have a disproportionate impact on women and children. [...] The Jobs Bill arrived on Capitol Hill last month in a pre-compromised state that set many progressives' teeth on edge from the get-go. How much worse will it have to be made before it can get the 60 votes needed to send it to a House-Senate Conference Committee where it can be mucked up some more?"

STIMULUS III: You Can't Negotiate With People Like This

Liberal bloggers are pointing to the fact that 36 out of the 41 GOP senators voted for DeMint's amendment (which would have replaced all of the gov't spending with tax cuts) as evidence that GOPers cannot be negotiated with:

• TPM's Elana Schor: "To emphasize the point, that means all but four GOPers were perfectly happy with scrapping the core assumption of the president's plan."
• TPM's Josh Marshall: "There were 36 out of 41 Republican senators who voted to scrap all spending in the Stimulus Bill. All of it. This approaches flat earth territory in terms of where the economy is right now and what conventional macroeconomics suggests about how to combat the problem."
• AMERICAblog's Joe Sudbay: "[T]he GOP Senators showed their true intentions on Wednesday night when 36 of them voted to remove ALL spending from the stimulus. No stimulus spending when the economy is collapsing. That's the real GOP plan. And, yet, Obama is supposed to deal with those clowns in good faith? Just not possible. If any media types were actually paying attention, the DeMint vote would tell them all they need to know about the Republicans interest in saving our economy."
• Benen: "Frankly, if 90% of Senate Republicans want to be the 'Neanderthal Party,' they're entitled. [...] If today's GOP sincerely believes, reality notwithstanding, that it's better to cut taxes yet again than inject capital into the economy, then yesterday's vote was wholly consistent with the party's policy vision. The next question, though, is why anyone would bother negotiating with 36 senators who believe up is down and black is white."
• Obsidian Wings' publius: "You might think the DeMint bill is a parody at first -- the proposal of someone consciously trying to get chased out of office (think The Producers applied to politics). Indeed, in a more rational world, the DeMint proposal would be the story of the day -- and an object of national ridicule. [...T]he reality is that virtually the entire Republican Party is on record voting solely for massive tax cuts for the wealthy in the face of the worst economic crisis in our lifetime."
• Balloon Juice's John Cole: "Tax cuts are, to Republicans, secular creationism. [...They are] crazy people."
• dday: "These people are nuts."

OBAMA: Getting His Mojo Back

Liberal bloggers are praising Obama for giving a "pointedly partisan speech" to House Dems in which he criticized GOP opponents of his stimulus bill:

• Marshall: "President Obama gave a great speech defending the Stimulus Bill today at the House Dems retreat. Exactly the case he needs to be making on TV and in some events around the country."
• digby: "Good on him. [...] Hopefully, he will never, ever take fatous Republican assurances of support at face value again."
• Open Left's David Sirota: "[Obama]'s on his game -- and he's finally thrown the Church of Broderism overboard. It's pretty badass."
• MyDD's Charles Lemos: "[Obama's] brilliance tonight was his embrace of the partisan. He attacked the Republicans for the 'gift' of the ten trillion dollar debt that doubled on their watch. And he warned of the same old 'false theories of the past.' [...] Frankly, this was the speech that we have been awaiting with growing anxiety. Tonight he delivered a slam dunk."
• publius: "Obama is starting to get his second wind -- for the first time, he's making aggressive and even openly partisan attacks against the stimulus opponents. To which I say -- it's about time. The Obama team has a tendency to be a few days late on tactics, but they're pretty good when they finally get the ball rolling."

OBAMA II: What Happened To Bipartisanship?

Unsurprisingly, conservative bloggers are criticizing Obama's speech to House Dems:

• NRO's Byron York: "Do you believe Barack Obama is open to a bipartisan approach on the stimulus bill? Then you should take a look at the president's speech last night to the House Democratic Issues Caucus in Williamsburg."
• NRO's Kathryn Jean Lopez: "I realize Obama was speaking to Democrats, but that really sounded like an angry Democratic convention speech. It's not Obama at his most attractive. And it certainly doesn't sound like 'change.' It actually sounds a bit like MSNBC."
• AmSpec Blog's Philip Klein: "You know President Obama is getting frustrated when he's forced to fall back on tired old campaign lines to try and rally support for the stimulus package (yes, even 'Fired up? Ready to go' made a comeback). [...I]n other words, Obama welcomes a bipartisan debate, but only if Republicans reject their own policies in favor of his spending priorities, only if that debate doesn't delay passage of the bill that he wants, and as long as cable news shows don't scrutinize what is actually in the legislation he's proposing."

The Heritage Foundation's Conn Carroll criticizes Obama's advocacy of federal spending: "[I]n 2000 the federal government spent just $1.8 trillion. Now the CBO estimates that the feds will spend almost double that, $3.5 trillion, in 2009 (and that does not include Obama's Trillion Dollar Debt Plan). Combining the increased $400 billion in revenue with with the $1.7 trillion increase in spending, we see that the mountains of debt Obama is whining about inheriting all came from massive increases in federal spending. It was borrowing and spending that got us into this mess. Obama's Trillion Dollar Debt Plan is not a 'change' from Bush, it is Bushonomics on steroids. [...] Last night Obama told Democrats, 'If you're headed for a cliff, you have to change direction.' That's a decent analogy, but the problem is his Trillion Dollar Debt Plan is not a change in direction. It is a foot on the accelerator. Instead, the Senators voting today should take another saying to heart: 'When you find yourself in a hole, stop digging.'"

SOLIS: It Never Ends

Liberal bloggers are upset that the Senate delayed a confirmation hearing for Rep. Solis after it was reported that Solis's husband had failed to pay $6,400 in business taxes:

• Benen: "If Hilda Solis' husband had been nominated for the cabinet, this delay might make sense. But as it stands, this is completely unjustified."
• Brian Beutler: "I didn't realize her husband was going to be labor secretary. And what of the wives of...well, any cabinet member? Solis got the nod on December 18th. So it's been, what, seven weeks? Elaine Chao got confirmed in about two. But, of course, her husband is [Senate Min. Leader] Mitch McConnell, and he surely has no skeletons in his closet."

Conservative bloggers, on the other hand, are making hay of Solis's husband's tax issues:

• Malkin: "This administration has no shame. No shame at all."
• Hot Air's Ed Morrissey: "How embarrassing has Obama become? [...] Have we had a more incompetent vetting process in the White House over such a short period of time? When we criticized Barack Obama's lack of executive experience, even we didn't think it was going to be this bad."
• Erickson: "Obama likes tax cheats like Bill Clinton likes Big Macs and loose women. [...] What is it with these people? Are there any Democrats who pay taxes? Bueller? Bueller?"
• NRO's Peter Kirsanow: "[This] confirms that there's an inexplicable, widespread problem in the Obama vetting process (as if [Timothy] Geithner, [Tom] Daschle, [Bill] Richardson, [Nancy] Killefer, et al hadn't already demonstrated that)."
• Reynolds: "Two thoughts: (1) Don't any of these people pay their taxes? And (2) Is this, like, some kind of karmic payback for all the Joe-the-plumber tax business?"
• AmSpec Blog's Doug Bandow: "Democrats get to raise taxes. Republicans get to pay them. That seens like a fair apportionment of responsibilities!"

SOLIS II: A Labor Secretary Who Supports Labor?

Liberal bloggers believe that Senate GOPers are trying to hold up Holis's nomination because of her support of organized labor:

• MyDD's Todd Beeton: "The fact is that Republicans are intent on blocking Solis because of her support and advocacy for The Employee Free Choice Act."
• Mother Jones' Kevin Drum: "I see that Senate Republicans are continuing to throw up roadblocks in front of Hilda Solis, Obama's nominee for Labor Secretary. This is pretty odd. I mean, what's their beef? That she's pro-labor and pro-EFCA? That can hardly be a surprise, since Obama himself is pro-labor and pro-EFCA. [...] I guess it's yet another indication that of all the things that drive Republicans crackers, labor tops the list. Even more than taxes, they just go completely nuts when they're faced with the prospect of unions gaining a bit of power. The result is a temper tantrum over Solis even though they know perfectly well they can't stop her nomination."
• Daily Kos' Trapper John: "Solis's opponents are arguing that the US Secretary of Labor should recuse herself from advocating for passage of the most important labor law reform measure facing the United States. Needless to say this is completely insane -- it's akin to saying that the HHS Secretary shouldn't be involved in the health care debate, or that the Defense Secretary shouldn't talk about Iraq. But it's indicative of just how completely scared the Republican Party and its corporate masters are about the workplace democracy promised by the Employee Free Choice Act. No cabinet appointee other than Solis has been subject to such an assault, and it's because Solis is guilty of the GOP's unforgivable sin -- supporting the right of working people to join together and fight for their share of this country's wealth."
• Sudbay: "Apparently, Republican Senators want to establish a new standard for the Secretary of Labor: Stay out of pro-worker legislation. Wonkette captures the situation perfectly in the post titled, 'Labor Nomination Held Up Due To Nominee's Support Of Labor.'"

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: A Majority Party With A Minority Mindset

Conservative blogger Jeff Emanuel makes a variation of an argument that many liberal bloggers have been making:

"With over 250 votes in the House (nearly 60% of the total), Speaker [Nancy] Pelosi is demanding Republican support for legislation she, had she the slightest bit of competence and political acumen, could ram through without broaching the least bit of dissent (witness the pork barrel bill's passage despite 11 Democrats and 100% of Republicans opposing it). With nearly 60 D/I votes in the Senate, a handful of liberal Republicans just itching to work with him, and the GOP's strength being taken down yet another notch with the departure of Judd Gregg to fill a ceremonial role at best in President Obama's cabinet, Harry Reid could push through anything he wanted with little time spared for needless debate or discussion. With the power of the bully pulpit and both houses of Congress on his side of the partisan divide, President Obama could push nearly anything he wanted through the legislature, demanding votes first and questions/discussion/reading later.

Unfortunately for Democrats, none of the Big Three, nor apparently anybody else in the party or caucus, actually wants to act like they won the 2008 election. Rather than taking advantage of the sole proprietorship Washington has become and using those near-supermajorities, combined with the message-amplifying power of a sympathetic media, to impose agenda item after agenda item on America, Obama, Reid, Pelosi, et al are still trying to push off responsibility for governing -- for bill passage and failure, for the economy, for international crises, etc. -- on everybody else, including the near-powerless and effectively silenced minority. The American electorate provided the Democratic party with a two-year window -- 2009-10 -- to make all of its campaign rhetoric into reality, with no opposition and the sheer numbers to do whatever it wants. Unfortunately, the Democrats in the White House, the Senate, and the House of Representatives simply don't know what to do with this sudden power, nor with the responsibility that comes along with it."

LEST WE FORGET: Ken Whisenhunt: 'A Lot Of People Said We Couldn't Come In Here And Win, And They Were Correct'

From The Onion:

"TAMPA BAY, FL -- After losing 27-23 to the Steelers in a hard-fought Super Bowl, Arizona coach Ken Whisenhunt boldly addressed the Cardinals' detractors, lauding them for a correct prediction of a Steeler win. 'They said our defense couldn't come through in a big spot, that we were too inexperienced, that [running back] Edge [Edgerrin James] was finished: right, right, and right. I only wish I had listened to them and not gotten my hopes up so high,' said Whisenhunt, expressing satisfaction in proving doubters 'right, but barely.' 'We heard all week about how there was no way we'd come out of there with a win, and then that's the way it happened. Bottom line, they were right and I was wrong.' Whisenhunt then addressed those die-hard Cardinal fans who believed in the team all along, calling them 'delusional' and 'misguided.'"

Posted by Ian Faerstein at 01:02 PM

February 05, 2009

BLOGGER SPOTLIGHT: David Sirota

Today we're reintroducing an old Blogometer feature called "Blogger Spotlight," in which we interview various bloggers from across the political spectrum. Our first interview is David Sirota, who recently became a full-time blogger at Open Left.

(If you're looking for Thursday's edition of Blogometer, click here).

Where did you grow up?
Huntingdon Valley, Pennsylvania

Where do you live now?
Denver, CO

If you have an occupation other than blogging, what is it?
Syndicated columnist/author

What's on your iPod right now?
Nick Drake -- lots of it

What's the last book you read?
The Amazing Adventures of Kavalier and Clay

When did you start blogging and why?
March 2004 -- the Democratic primary was just ending and I wanted an outlet to do some unvarnished, from-the-gut writing.

What has been your favorite blog post, or your favorite story to write about?
I like to write about the economic issues that the media and blogosphere sometimes forget -- trade, globalization, wages, etc. They are the kitchen table issues that aren't all that "sexy" but which are the actual issues that impact our economy the most.

Which blogger(s) do you consider indispensable, if any?
Glenn Greenwald for his take-no-prisoners brilliance, Duncan Black for his biting sarcasm

Who's your favorite non-liberal blogger?
I don't know if they are liberal or conservative (or neither) but I love MTV's movie blog: http://moviesblog.mtv.com

Who's your favorite active politician?
Favorite is my first political boss, [VT Sen.] Bernie Sanders.

What would you realistically like to see Democrats accomplish in 2009?
I'd like to see them pass a progressive economic stimulus bill, some trade reforms, and an expansion of health care in the direction of universal health care. I think that's entirely realistic, if not the absolute minimum that they can/should do.

What issue keeps you up at night?
Death, a bad stomach and the prospect of one day waking up and having no job and being foreclosed on.

Posted by Ian Faerstein at 03:16 PM

2/5: The Limits Of Bipartisanship

Lately there has been a palpable sense of frustration in the liberal blogosphere concerning the economic stimulus bill. Lefty bloggers believe (with good reason) that Dems have lost control of the stimulus debate, and they think there are several reasons why. First of all, they believe that liberals aren't making enough appearances on cable news programs and are allowing conservatives to dominate the airwaves. Second, they believe that the media is doing a poor job of correcting "myths and falsehoods" surrounding the stimulus. Third -- and most importantly -- they believe that Pres. Obama has made a critical error by emphasizing bipartisanship instead of forcefully defending his bill. Lefty bloggers believe that by trying so hard to win GOP votes, Obama has allowed GOPers "to turn the haggling over the stimulus package into a decidedly stale, Republican-style debate over pork, waste and overspending." Harvard Prof. Theda Skocpol echoes the sentiments of many liberal bloggers when she complains: "Obama is, sadly, much to blame for giving the Republicans so much leverage. He defined the challenge as bipartisanship [instead of] saving the U.S. economy."

What else is happening in the blogosphere?

• Conservative bloggers (Ruffini, Hinderaker, Yousefzadeh, Painter) are buzzing about the new Rasmussen poll indicating that support for the stimulus bill is dropping. Most righty bloggers (Reynolds, Malkin) are urging GOP senators to "kill the bill," not amend it.
• Conservative bloggers (Malkin, Morrissey, Klein, Andersen) are accusing Obama of engaging in "fear-mongering" in today's Washington Post op-ed. On the other hand, liberal bloggers (Marshall, Silver) believe that Obama needs to do more to sell his bill to the public.
• Liberal bloggers (Moulitsas, Klein, Beutler, Orton) are annoyed that Obama's Commerce Sec. nominee, Sen. Judd Gregg (R-NH), will recuse himself from voting on the stimulus bill, as they believe that Gregg would have been "a gettable GOP vote."
• Most conservative bloggers (Klein, Huston, Liebau, Hinderaker) are critical of the Obama admin.'s plans to impose a $500K salary cap on executives at companies that receive bailout funds.

Please check back later today as we reintroduce an old Blogometer feature called "Blogger Spotlight," in which we interview bloggers from across the political spectrum. Our first interview will be Open Left's David Sirota.

STIMULUS: How Obama Messed Up

In one of those rare instances when a mainstream pundit perfectly articulates netroots sentiment, liberal bloggers are praising Newsweek's Michael Hirsh's analysis of why Obama "has all but lost control of the agenda in Washington":

"Obama's desire to begin a 'post-partisan' era may have backfired. In his eagerness to accommodate Republicans and listen to their ideas over the past week, he has allowed the GOP to turn the haggling over the stimulus package into a decidedly stale, Republican-style debate over pork, waste and overspending. This makes very little economic sense when you are in a major recession that only gets worse day by day. Yes, there are still some very legitimate issues with a bill that's supposed to be 'temporary' and 'targeted' -- among them, large increases in permanent entitlement spending, and a paucity of tax cuts requiring immediate spending. Even so, Obama has allowed Congress to grow embroiled in nitpicking over efficiency when the central debate should be about whether the package is big enough. When you are dealing with a stimulus of this size, there are going to be wasteful expenditures and boondoggles. There's no way anyone can spend $800 to $900 billion quickly without waste and boondoggles. It comes with the Keynesian territory. This is an emergency; the normal rules do not apply."

• dday: "I think Michael Hirsh nailed the dynamic in Washington right now better than anyone. It seems to me that the Obama team let their foot off of the accelerator. There was a lot of talk during the transition about how economists and elites of all political ideologies knew something major had to be done, and they must have thought they would just coast to a quick victory on this plan. But that's not what's happening, as the conservative noise machine forced an argument about small particulars rather than the need to have a massive job creation program as soon as possible to stave off disaster. [...] Their goal is to muck up the bill enough to discredit it and make it functionally inoperable, purely for reasons of party and not country."
• Ezra Klein: "The debate is truly off-course when [ME Sen.] Olympia Snowe and [NE Sen.] Ben Nelson are talking about cutting the stimulus by $200 billion and the conversation is focused on individual programs rather than the macroeconomic effect. Hirsh doesn't really offer a way to change course. But it would seem that Obama, Rahm [Emanuel], and the Senate leadership need to exert enough control over their 58 Democrats that the question becomes how long the Republicans can let their moderates hold out. And this remains a new and a popular administration. Surely these senators are going to want their legislative and political support in the coming months. It's time to use some capital. Isn't that what Rahm is there for?"
• digby: "I think the administration thought they could be mediators between the two parties rather than leaders of the Democratic party. That just won't work, particularly when the Democrats aren't very good at battling the Republicans in close combat and the Republicans can make those who stay above the fray seem lightweight and insubstantial, which is what they've managed to do. They've showed they don't respect Obama and are unimpressed with his mandate -- the administration needs to accept that and strategize with that in mind."

Most liberal bloggers agree with digby that Obama's "post-partisan" strategy has backfired:

• Daily Kos' Markos Moulitsas: "What have we seen the last few weeks? Democrats caving to GOP demands and inserting useless tax cut provisions to appease them. Then they vote en masse against the stimulus in the House. [...] During the Bush years, the best interests of our country took a back seat to the GOP's failed ideology. Right now, it looks like the best interests of our country are taking a back seat to the failed ideology of 'bipartisanship'. It would be nice if, for once, people actually looked at what was best for our country."
• Ryan Avent: "A changed tone in Washington, if costless, would be a wonderful thing. But voters put Obama and Democratic majorities into office in order to get results. If Obama chooses to embrace Republicans even as they actively work against the interests of the vast majority of Americans, then we have to question his judgment. It takes two to change the tone. Republicans aren't interested, and they're using his overtures to undermine the American economy and the Obama presidency. Obama's mandate is his to deploy or squander, and the speed with which he has lost control of the storyline on stimulus suggests that he has miscalculated in figuring how much magnanimity that mandate affords him."

STIMULUS II: Trying To Compromise Is Pointless

Many liberal bloggers believe that it's useless and self-defeating to try to reconcile Dems' economic views with those of GOPers:

• The New York Times' Paul Krugman: "This isn't a brainstorming session -- it's a collision of fundamentally incompatible world views. If one thing is clear from the stimulus debate, it's that the two parties have utterly different economic doctrines. Democrats believe in something more or less like standard textbook macroeconomics; Republicans believe in a doctrine under which tax cuts are the universal elixir, and government spending is almost always bad. Obama may be able to get a few Republican Senators to go along with his plan; or he can get a lot of Republican votes by, in effect, becoming a Republican. There is no middle ground."
• Atrios: "These Things I Know To Be True: (1.) Republicans will scream until they get their way and then still not vote for it. (2.) People who listen to Rush Limbaugh and then call Democratic offices to scream at them will never vote for a Democrat. (3.) Without a good stimulus bill, we're pretty fucked. (4.) Unless Dems make a relatively forceful and united case, they're pretty fucked."

TPM's Josh Marshall thinks GOPers are opposing the stimulus bill for political reasons: "[W]hy would Republicans be trying to drive the country off a cliff? Well, not pretty to say, but they see it in their political interests. Yes, the [Jim] DeMints and [Tom] Coburns just don't believe in government at all or have genuinely held if crankish economic views. But a successful Stimulus Bill would be devastating politically for the Republican party. And they know it. If the GOP successfully bottles this up or kills it with a death of a thousand cuts, Democrats will have a good argument amongst themselves that Republicans were responsible for creating the carnage that followed. But the satisfaction will have to be amongst themselves since as a political matter it will be irrelevant. The public will be entirely within its rights to blame Democrats for any failure of government action that happened while Democrats held the White House and sizable majorities in both houses of Congress."

Meanwhile, Ezra Klein is disgusted by what he perceives to be the capitulation of Senate Dems: "Republicans know full well that they won't actually be forced to publicly filibuster the bill and defend their obstructionism while Democrats fan out across the news shows to warn of the economic dangers. Instead, [Senate Maj. Leader] Harry Reid will ask how the bill can be made smaller and leaner and more Republican. And maybe, for this, he'll get the crucial two votes assuring passage of an insufficient measure, the failure of which Republicans will run against in 2010."

STIMULUS III: To The Barricades, Dems!

Many liberal bloggers are blaming the stimulus bill's declining popularity on the relative paucity of Dems on the cable news channels:

• Balloon Juice's John Cole: "No one is selling [the bill]. The Democrats are simply AWOL. All I see on my tv are Republicans talking about wasteful spending, as if they have any credibility on that topic. I would pay to see [MA Rep.] Barney Frank matched up against a Republican opposed to the stimulus bill, because every Democrat has an easy retort -- 'If you have so many good economic ideas, how come you never passed any of them along to the last President?' It isn't so much that Obama is losing control in the debate. The Democrats just aren't participating, and this isn't so much a debate as a Republican monologue. We all know, given our 'liberal' media, how that is going to play out in the long run."
• Balloon Juice's Tim F.: "Why won't Democrats defend their own damn bill? Even if the Dems have some intricate strategy they still lose when Republicans run all over then in the media space. If public relations is such an important part of saving the effing country from complete economic collapse then it makes no goddamn sense to let Republicans set the terms by which the public discusses the bill. Don't just wring your stupid hands when Republicans dominate the cable shows. You have the big mic now. Use it."

Liberal bloggers are also concerned that the progressive grassroots is being outworked by the conservative grassroots, since calls to Congress are reportedly running at 100-to-1 against the stimulus bill:

• Firedoglake's Ian Welsh: "It's time to hit the phones for the stimulus bill. Calls are running at 100:1 against. Yes, it's not that good a stimulus bill, I've said so myself, but it's not a case of scrapping it and starting over, what looks likely to happen is that it gets badly watered down with bribes to Republicans and 'moderate' Democrats like Ben Nelson to get it through."
• MyDD's Todd Beeton: "Grassroots action from the left is crucial. [...] Go HERE for instructions on calling your Senator in support of the stimulus package and to report how the call went."
• The Washington Monthly's Art Levine: "[T]he oft-touted grassroots army that was supposed to help push the Obama agenda seems to be Missing in Action. [...T]he huge 13-million-plus Obama network, under the direction of the new Organizing for America organization, is sending emails through the barackobama.com website asking people to attend house parties to learn more about the stimulus package, but hasn't called yet for lobbying Congress. Will they act in time?"

Meanwhile, conservative bloggers are urging their readers to keep calling Senators and telling them to oppose the bill.

STIMULUS IV: Conservatives On The March

Conservative bloggers are buzzing about the new Rasmussen poll indicating that support for the stimulus bill is dropping:

• The Next Right's Patrick Ruffini: "The stimulus is now officially unpopular, with 37% supporting passage in its current form, reminiscent of the plummeting support [for Bill] Clinton's early economic initiatives. In two weeks the GOP has been transformed from the party of Bush to the party of sensible, bipartisan opposition to fiscal insanity. It's amazing what a change in the underlying political dynamic in the form of a new President will do in so short a time."
• Power Line's John Hinderaker: "People are catching on to what the bill actually does, and support seems certain to decline further. The Republicans have a winning issue here, one that can take them a long way toward reclaiming their brand. The biggest danger is an untimely collapse by Republican moderates in the Senate who are not in touch with the mood of the voters."
• RedState's Pejman Yousefzadeh: "Support for the stimulus package has plummeted. And not-coincidentally, the Senate is feeling the heat. Maybe we will avoid repeating past Keynesian follies. Now, how about some real stimulus, like tax cuts, free trade and giving monetary policy a chance to work?"
• RedState's Josh Painter: "Opposition has risen from 34% two weeks ago to 39% last week and 43% today. This public trend should encourage Senate Republicans who oppose the stimulus, and it should be food for thought for those GOP Senators who want something from President Obama in exchange for going along with this terrible excuse for a shot in the economy's arm. [...] It appears that voters may be experiencing buyers remorse over their election season embrace of government as a problem solver. Forty-six percent (46%) of them fear that the government will overreach in trying to fix the country's economic problems."

Glenn Reynolds: "I think the stimulus bill is a bad one, and I'm glad to see the Republicans trying to kill it rather than -- as I had feared -- just holding out for some payola before going along and providing bipartisan cover for a massive looting operation. Let's see if they can hold things together and not screw it up."

Michelle Malkin: "If Senate Republicans can hold the line, they can avoid the same head-long rush toward repeat failure that led to bailout-mania and stimulus-palooza last year. It's a big 'If.' Do your part. Make a call: 202-224-3121. [...] Kill the bill. Stab it. Stick a fork in it. Then start over from scratch."

OBAMA: This Bill Ain't Gonna Sell Itself, Mr. President

Liberal bloggers don't understand why Obama hasn't been using his bully pulpit to sell the stimulus bill:

• Harvard Univ.'s Theda Skocpol: "Obama is, sadly, much to blame for giving the Republicans so much leverage. He defined the challenge as bipartisanship [instead of] saving the U.S. economy. Right now, he has only one chance to re-set this deteriorating debate: He needs to give a major speech on the economy, explain to Americans what is happening and what must be done. People will, as of now, still listen to him -- and what else is his political capital for?"
• Marshall: "I have been surprised that [Obama] has not chosen yet to play more to, and get out among, his real constituency -- particularly on this bill -- the people. This is about them. 10 or 15 thousand people are losing their jobs every day at the moment. Half a million people a month. It would not be hard to find -- and I can't believe they're not thinking about it already -- lots of communities around the country where some version of this bill would provide critical, immediate and sustained relief to lots of people. [...] When political battles are entirely bounded by Pennsylvania Avenue, back and forths between the White House and the Hill, presidents can become just one player among many, cut off from their real source of power. And the whole nature of the debates can get rapidly disconnected from the realities actually people are experiencing in the country. Presidents are powerful when they have a national constituency behind them. Washington is a dark place, eager to trip all this up."
• FiveThirtyEight's Nate Silver: "If the Washington Post is correct that the stimulus bill is going to be significantly pared down in the Senate -- possibly deducting about $200 billion from its total and making the ratio of spending programs to tax cuts closer to 1:1 -- this will be viewed as a moral victory for the Republicans. I think that's a fair assessment. [...I]n essentially passing off both narrative and literal control of the contents of the package to the Congressional Democrats, the Obama administration may have played it too cute by half. Obama is popular; [House Speaker] Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid aren't. The trajectory of the bill might have been different if Obama had devoted a prime time speech toward selling it, with graphs and pie charts and the like. But there hasn't been a Big Obama Moment like that -- a show of force -- something that really resonated outside the Beltway. [...] If Obama is not ready to use his political capital for fear that he'll lose it, then what good does it do him in the first place?"
• Obsidian Wings' publius: "[T]he Obama camp underestimated how much daily effort would be needed to sell this thing. The stimulus is a necessary and noble effort -- but it won't sell itself. You have to go out and make the case for it aggressively each day -- each news cycle."

OBAMA II: Now That's What I'm Talkin' About

After criticizing Obama's bipartisan approach to passing the stimulus bill, liberal bloggers praised him after he used last night's S-CHIP signing ceremony as an opportunity to change tactics and put the heat on GOP opponents of the stimulus bill:

"In the past few days, I've heard criticisms of this plan that frankly echo the very same failed theories that helped lead us into this crisis in the first place -- the notion that tax cuts alone will solve all our problems, that we can address this enormous crisis with half steps and piecemeal measures and tinkering around the edges, that we can ignore fundamental challenges, like the high cost of healthcare, and still expect our economy and our country to thrive. I reject these theories. And, by the way, so did the American people when they went to the polls in November and voted resoundingly for change."

• Open Left's David Sirota: "Finally, at his press conference today, President Obama begins to rise above the Church of Broderism that fetishizes bipartisanship for bipartisanship's sake, and instead offer up a little bit of good old fashioned commonsense. [...] More like this, please."
• dday: "This is what needs to be said today, tomorrow, and every 10 minutes in the ear of everyone in Washington until a real and effective jobs bill passes. [...] If these right-wing lies aren't answered forcefully every single day, they become embedded. During the campaign they were rejected but within a matter of weeks they've sprouted again."
• Daily Kos' Jed L: "The President's remarks were more of a warning than open political warfare, but he did remind GOPers that the economic theories they are fighting for have been tested over the last eight years, and that they have failed. President Obama reminded Republicans that it wasn't just his opinion that their ideas have failed -- it was also the opinion of the American public, who on November 4th soundly rejected the conservative dogma. It was the first time that President Obama invoked the results of the election in a public setting, and it was clearly intended as a reminder to Republican obstructionists that when they block progress on economic recovery, they are not only are they playing with the nation's welfare, they are also toying with their own political welfare."

Benen: "I can only assume that Obama's entirely accurate remarks will be met with a new round of media complaints that the president isn't being nearly 'bipartisan' enough."

OBAMA III: Quit Trying To Scare Us

Conservative bloggers are criticizing Obama's Washington Post op-ed urging Congress to pass his stimulus bill. Righty bloggers are accusing Obama of trying to scare people into supporting his bill:

• Malkin: "President Obama is losing the stimulus battle. Fiscal conservatives are winning the message war on the Generational Theft Act of 2009. Flailing and desperate, he has resorted to the very 'politics of fear' he ran against during the campaign. In a WaPo op-ed this morning, he invokes Chicken Little tactics to scare Washington into ramming his massive, ineffective, debt-stimulating plan through Congress."
• Hot Air's Ed Morrissey: "[I]n reading Obama's column in today's Washington Post, all I see is empty sloganeering and cheap fear-mongering instead of substantive cases for the myriad of spending projects in his stimulus bill."
• AmSpec Blog's Philip Klein: "So in other words, if we don't enact the exact policies that President Obama advocates, then we will face dire consequences. Isn't that what candidate Obama used to call the 'politics of fear'?"
• Townhall's Ericka Andersen: "While he implements words like 'crisis', 'catastrophic', and 'dire', never missing an opportunity to reference the Great Depression, where is the emphasis on reviving ourselves, as well? That should be a major component of his message but I have yet to hear of anything more than how government is going to save the day."

NRO's Yuval Levin: "President Obama's op-ed in today's Washington Post is a very peculiar move by the White House. It makes a case for refusing to compromise on the stimulus bill that Obama is clearly about to compromise on, and it makes the argument of his opponents: that the bill is not really emergency legislation to give the economy a short-term boost but an ambitious move to enact a much larger long-term liberal agenda in one fell swoop rather than working through the normal legislative and budget process. Why not wait a day or two for a compromise measure to emerge in the Senate and then make a case for why it's better than the original bill and how it reflects your bipartisan outreach and whatnot? Instead we have a collection of campaign talking points that don't make much sense when you're the guy running the show, and that will make you look weak when you accept a different bill later this month."

GREGG: Wow, Being Bipartisan Sure Is Paying Off, Isn't It, Obama?

Liberal bloggers are annoyed that Sen. Gregg will recuse himself from voting on the stimulus bill, as they believe that Gregg would have been "a gettable GOP vote." TPM's Elana Schor complains:

"It sounds like a harmless announcement -- but what this effectively does is deny Senate Democrats a gettable GOP vote in favor of Obama's stimulus bill at a time when they're desperately in need of one. It would have been entirely conceivable for Gregg to follow Sen. Hillary Clinton's (D-NY) example and show up for Senate votes while his nomination was being considered by the chamber. Quite a disappointing move."

• Daily Kos' Markos Moulitsas: "With Gregg recusing himself from the stimulus vote, and with his seat staying in strong Republican hands, I'm sure glad Obama stuck him in his cabinet. Republicans deserve to be rewarded for their warm bipartisanship, and the crazy anti-government guy who voted to dissolve Commerce a few years ago will be great running the department!"
• Klein: "One of the upsides to nominating Judd Gregg for Treasury, we were told, was that it would mean another vote for Obama's stimulus package in the Senate. Gregg couldn't very well oppose the administration's central initiative than ascend to head its Department of Commerce. But Gregg -- who'd already demonstrated his respect for the administration's agenda by insisting he be replaced by another Republican -- found a different solution: He's recusing himself from the vote. This outcome is no better than a 'no' vote. [...] Daschle withdraws his nomination. Gregg won't vote for stimulus. Whatever the optical benefits of the heightened sense of propriety Obama is bringing to Washington, it doesn't seem to be of much use in passing an agenda."
• Brian Beutler: "Things would be different if [Gregg] had, for instance, resigned in anticipation of his confirmation. But a cloture vote only succeeds if at least three-fifths of all duly elected and serving members of the Senate vote 'yes'. With Gregg still seated, the Democrats need 60 votes to end debate, even if he votes 'present'. If all caucus members vote yes, they have 58. They need two. Gregg could have been one of those two. But of course, Gregg has nothing but the utmost respect his soon-to-be boss -- who has, of course, committed to changing Washington -- and to vote the way Obama wants him to would appear unseemly."
• MyDD's Josh Orton: "As Brian Beutler points out, if Gregg really has deep concerns about some optics problem, he could have simply resigned his seat in anticipation of confirmation (although he'd run the risk of unemployment if a skeleton come out). So instead we get nothing. Zero. A theme developing?"

EXEC PAY: Creeping Socialism?

Conservative bloggers continue to criticize the Obama admin.'s plans to impose a $500K salary cap on top executives at companies that receive bailout funds:

• Philip Klein: "The idea that the President of the United States is calling for a maximum wage of $500,000 for top executives in private companies is a disturbing development for those of us who still believe in a free market economy. [...] This is how creeping socialism happens. Once the government comes to the rescue of the private market under the guise that it's merely an emergency, it opens the door for all sorts of new and unprecedented intrusions into the free market."
• RedState's Warner Todd Huston: "Obama's populist gobbeldegook has nothing at all to do with the right thing, here. It all has to do with giving Obama a soapbox upon which to stand so that he can vent his faux outrage and give the people that warm feeling that daddy is looking out for them. It's class warfare, plain and simple."
• Townhall's Carol Platt Liebau: "[It's] silly to argue that the government should be setting pay limits for CEO's of companies who are accepting the government bailouts -- especially when it's a prospective measure that wouldn't impact the livelihoods of those who actually got the companies into trouble. [...] If someone argued for a cap on teachers' salaries, the (quite sensible and correct) argument would be: We don't want to discourage the best minds from going into teaching. Well, the same goes for serving as the CEO of a large business."
• Hinderaker: "I have a couple of specific objections. First, a number of banks were forced by the federal government to accept TARP funds that they didn't want. I don't think the government, having bullied those banks into taking unwanted money, should now be in a position to dictate compensation decisions. Second, while $500,000 may sound like a lot of money, the idea that you can find an executive who will competently run a multi-billion dollar enterprise for that salary is a joke. A car dealership in a mid-sized city, yes; Citigroup, no. So Obama's decree is basically grandstanding: it will work only if attractive stock option packages supplement the cash salary."

While most righty bloggers oppose the Obama admin.'s limits on executive compensation, there are a few (such as Jim Manzi and Burton W. Folsom Jr.) who support it.

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Just Win, Baby

Ruffini sees "plenty of opportunities" for the GOP:

"Nothing will do more to build passion and confidence and activism at the grassroots level than winning elections again. [Michael] Steele at the RNC was a big step in regaining that lost confidence. And now we have a chance to prove we can win again by taking back NY-20, and the statehouses in Virginia and New Jersey. Our 1993 wins were a precursor to our 1994 success, not just in these two Governors' races, but in obscure municipal races in places like Jersey City, New Jersey that hadn't elected a Republican in decades.

In a thumbnail way, things have already started to move in our direction. The Fairfax County, Virginia supervisor election Soren [Dayton] and I have written about ended in a 1-point victory for the Democrat in a county Obama won by 21 points and [VA Sen.] Mark Warner won by 37 points. There was no particular reason for it to be so close -- [Rep.] Gerry Connolly was just elected to Congress after all. I think mostly this is a sign that Republicans are becoming fired up about voting again, and along with GA-SEN Obama's coalition is not recreatable downticket, a problem for any Democrat on the ballot in 2010. Not to mention the fact that we currently lead in New Jersey (!) and the Democrats will probably nominate crazy [Rep.] Jim Moran's brother for VA-GOV (more on that later).

Jon [Henke] is right that the deck is stacked heavily against us in D.C. right now -- which is all the more reason to focus on elections and on battles in the states. But this need not mean our atttiude should be glum or defeatist. There are plenty of opportunities for morale-boosting wins if we know where to look."

LEST WE FORGET: Those Super Bowl Ads

ESPN's Bill Simmons offers his take on some of the Super Bowl commercials:

• John Turturro for Heineken. Any time you can lock up the fifth lead in 'Rounders' for a beer commercial that costs $3 million for 30 seconds, you gotta do it.
• Hey, remember that fantastic Coke ad with Mean Joe Greene and the little kid from the '70s? If I told you that Coke planned on bringing them back as Coke Zero ads with Troy Polamalu, Polamalu's hair and an annoying little kid, you'd say, "That's a hideous idea; we should talk them out of it." Right? Well...
• Good news: Taco Bell is now offering a spicy enchilada platter, which gets the bronze behind Domino's new oven-baked sandwiches (silver) and Pizza Hut's new lasagna (gold) in the "We're Finding New Ways To Make America Fat" Olympics.
• Well, MacGruber changed his name to "Pepsuber" and did a Super Bowl ad for Pepsi with the real MacGyver. And I enjoyed it. I continue to hate myself.

Posted by Ian Faerstein at 01:00 PM

February 04, 2009

2/4: Daschle Goes Down

Most liberal bloggers welcomed ex-SD Sen. Tom Daschle's decision to withdraw his nomination as HHS Sec., calling it "the right thing to do". However, other lefty bloggers were saddened by the news, as they believe that Daschle's departure has damaged the long-term prospects of health care reform. Ex-DNC Chair Howard Dean appears to be the netroots' favorite choice to replace Daschle, but some think that Pres. Obama is unlikely to nominate Dean.

Conservative bloggers, meanwhile, are blasting Obama for "sacrific[ing] his principles" and nominating Daschle. Righty bloggers clearly smell blood in the water; they're describing Obama's first two weeks as a "disastrous start" and a "fiasco". Several conservative bloggers are calling on Treasury Sec. Timothy Geithner to resign, now that tax problems have sunk Daschle's and Nancy Killefer's nominations.

What else is happening in the blogosphere?

• Liberal bloggers (Houle, Giordano, Dayden, Benen) are pleased that the Obama admin. is reportedly planning to impose a $500K salary cap on top execs at companies that receive bailout funds. Conservative bloggers (Malkin, Hawkins) are less enthusiastic about the idea.
• Liberal bloggers (Moulitsas, Clawson, Beutler) are complaining about the conservative views of incoming Commerce Sec. Judd Gregg.

DASCHLE: Good Riddance!

Most liberal bloggers welcomed Daschle's decision to withdraw his nomination as HHS Sec.:

• MyDD's Jonathan Singer: "I applaud Daschle for putting the new president's reputation and the future of healthcare reform ahead of his own ambitions."
• Firedoglake's Jane Hamsher: "[This] was the right thing to do. And it speaks really well of Obama that he didn't put personal loyalty above principle."
• BooMan: "Good. It's embarrassing for Obama but he'll be better off in the long-run."
• Brian Beutler: "I think this is probably for the best as far as Barack Obama's lasting credibility -- and therefore effectiveness -- goes."
• Firedoglake's Eli: "My first reaction upon hearing that Daschle had dropped out as HHS nominee: relief. Yeah, it's a setback and an embarrassment for Obama and all that, but it's not my fault his vetting staff can't do a better job than John 'It's a Google' McCain's. I know I'm supposed to be disappointed the Republicans got this great big win, but I'm just not feeling it."
• Obsidian Wings' hilzoy: "I think this is a good thing. I think Daschle would have been an immense asset in trying to get health care passed, and I do not take that lightly. Nonetheless, I do not think that he is irreplaceable. And the combination of his tax problems and his ties to the health care industry were, I think, a very serious problem."

DASCHLE II: A Blow To Health Care Reform?

Other liberal bloggers worry that Daschle's departure has damaged the prospects of health care reform in 2009:

• Ezra Klein: "This is good for the cause of ethics in government. Senators and Congressmen who look forward to an executive branch appointment someday will now be much more wary of immense consulting gigs and highly paid speeches to industry stakeholders. But this whole debacle has been very bad for health reform. Put aside Daschle's unique advantages -- his knowledge of the Senate, his relationships with legislators, his direct line to Obama. The administration will now spend time finding a new nominee, vetting him or her, waiting while they build trust and relationships in the administration and on the Hill, and so forth. I'd say the chances of health reform happening in 2009 -- and thus at all -- are lower now than a week ago. This also makes it more likely that the process is Congress-driven as opposed to White House driven."
• The Washington Monthly's Steve Benen: "The good news is, the scope and seriousness of the questions surrounding Daschle had become both distracting and embarrassing. By cutting Daschle loose, the president is, albeit reluctantly, able to distance himself from the kind of political 'business as usual' he's always opposed. The bad news is, the United States really needs to tackle healthcare reform, sooner rather than later. Daschle was well positioned to help advance the White House agenda through Congress, and had already done quite a bit of work in advance of his expected confirmation. Now that the tax controversy has forced Daschle out, the administration has lost time and momentum on the issue, and the likelihood of an ambitious push this year is probably lower today that it was a week ago."
• MyDD's Charles Lemos: "His loss is not just a loss for the Obama Administration but a loss for the country. [...W]hatever Mr. Daschle's shortcomings, the fact remains that he was rather uniquely qualified to lead the charge on reforming a broken health care system."

The Washington Post's Greg Sargent looks on the bright side: "Many thought Tom Daschle would be indispensable for moving Obama's health care reform agenda through Congress, but even with Daschle out, a number of his deputies remain deeply embedded within the Obama administration. And that's very good news indeed for reform advocates."

DASCHLE III: Don't You Ever For A Second Get To Thinking You're Irreplaceable

Among the netroots, Dean is a popular choice to replace Daschle:

• Firedoglake's emptywheel: "Why not Howard Dean?"
• TPM's Josh Marshall: "[A]t least among emailers there's a groundswell for Howard Dean."
• The Huffington Post's Cenk Uygur: "At this point, if Howard Dean is not selected for at least one of these positions [HHS Sec. or Health Czar], it is a clear snub. But not just to Dean, but to all like-minded progressives. There's no way that [WH CoS] Rahm Emanuel's animosity toward Dean can be explained away if they pass over him again, especially given his tremendous success at the DNC. That success is not a claim he holds over the Democratic Party, it is a testament to his ability to get things done."
• MyDD's Jerome Armstrong: "There's no surprise at where the enthusiasm among Democrats on MyDD stands, for Daschle's replacement. [...] Is anyone listening? Do the netroots get a seat at Obama's table?"

Klein doesn't think Dean will get the job: "Dean and Obama have a poor relationship. Obama didn't keep Dean at the DNC, and he didn't even put Dean on the stage when he announced Gov. Tim Kaine to replace him. I'm not entirely sure where the distaste comes from, but it's there. And you really don't want the lead health reformer to suffer from a chilly relationship with the president."

In a separate post, Klein makes a list of potential replacements for Daschle, which includes ex-WH CoS John Podesta, PA Gov. Ed Rendell, KS Gov. Kathleen Sebelius, ex-OR Gov. John Kitzhaber, various Senators (John Kerry, Tom Harkin, Ron Wyden, Dick Durbin, ex-Sen. Bob Graham), and Jeanne Lambrew (Deputy Dir. of the WH Office of Health Care Reform).

Meanwhile, conservative blogger Paul Mirengoff thinks Obama should replace Daschle with a GOPer: "Maybe President Obama should do what he did following [NM Gov.] Bill Richardson's withdrawal as the Commerce Secretary nominee -- look to a Republican. There's a better chance of avoiding an ethics problem that way."

OBAMA: Finally, A President Who Admits Mistakes!

Liberal bloggers are praising Obama for telling NBC's Brian Williams "I screwed up" on the Daschle nomination:

• Daily Kos' DarkSyde: "It's been a long time since I've heard these words from any politican, much less from a President. [...] I'll happily support a President with enough basic respect for We the People to look us in the eye and own up. We'd almost forgotten what honesty looks like. It looks like change."
• Oliver Willis: "Remember that press conference when President [George W.] Bush couldn't think of a single mistake he had made? There's a new sheriff in town."
• Benen: "[I]t's refreshing to see a president own up to a mistake, candidly and unequivocally, telling the nation that if we're looking for someone to blame for an error, the buck stops with him."
• AMERICAblog's Joe Sudbay: "What a concept. Responsibility and accountability. That's got to have the heads of the press corps spinning. They won't know what to do when an administration is honest with them."

The Atlantic's Andrew Sullivan: "It has taken Obama two weeks to say something that George W. Bush couldn't manage to say in eight years: 'I screwed up.' This is change we can really believe in."

OBAMA II: A Colossal Screw-Up

Conservative bloggers, on the other hand, are blasting Obama for nominating Daschle:

• Michelle Malkin: "Screw up, move up, no consequences for the Screwer-Upper-In-Chief. Cue 'I'm Sorry' and let's talk about my glistening pecs again, shall we?"
• Pajamas Media's Jennifer Rubin: "It was never realistic to expect President Obama would reinvent politics, but it would have been nice had he not sacrificed his principles quite so quickly. It has not earned him any brownie points. Instead, conservatives are revived, liberals are dismayed, and the general public is left wondering: Didn't we vote for something better than this?"
• Power Line's John Hinderaker: "The Obama administration is off to a surprisingly rocky start. They ran a great campaign, but after only two weeks in office the wheels are starting to come off. Nothing that can't be remedied -- yet -- but it's going to be a long four years if Team Obama doesn't get its act together."
• RedState's Jeff Emanuel: "In a city legendary for overpromising and underperforming, the Obama administration is setting itself up to reach a new high in terms of inflated expectations and flat delivery."

NRO's Victor Davis Hanson warns that we are on the brink of an "Obama Meltdown": "We are quite literally after two weeks teetering on an Obama implosion -- and with no Dick Morris to bail him out -- brought on by messianic delusions of grandeur, hubris, and a strange naivete that soaring rhetoric and a multiracial profile can add requisite cover to good old-fashioned Chicago politicking. [...] This is quite serious. I can't recall a similarly disastrous start in a half-century (far worse than Bill Clinton's initial slips)."

Hinderaker (mostly) agrees: "I think Hanson overstates the case slightly; in my view Obama's administration so far has been a fiasco, not a disaster, because nothing has happened that can't be remedied. But Hanson is correct that if Obama doesn't change course quickly, the country's security will be imperiled."

Glenn Reynolds, on the other hand, thinks Hanson is going too far: "[Obama]'s had some bad appointments, and he's being tested by the Russians, et al., but isn't it a bit early to declare him a failure?"

GEITHNER: Now It's His Turn To Go

Now that Daschle and Killefer have withdrawn their nominations due to tax issues, several conservative bloggers are calling on Geithner to do the same:

• AmSpec Blog's Wlady Pleszczynski: "With today's Daschle and Killefer withdrawals, the principle has been established that tax cheats have no business serving in a presidential administration. Timothy Geithner may have snuck through, but he is now permanently damaged. There's only one honorable thing for him to do -- resign."
• NRO's Larry Kudlow: "For all of Mr. Geithner's apparent skills and knowledge and other professional qualifications, he still has a tremendous ethical problem. Pres. Obama has made much of the need for a new era of responsibility and ethics. Obama is right. But Mr. Geithner is wrong. He should follow Daschle and Killefer by submitting his resignation."
• Hot Air's Ed Morrissey: "Obama erred in making his apology too expansive, as the double standard argument applies most to Geithner. After all, neither Daschle nor Killefer would collect taxes from Americans, as Geithner will do, with the IRS reporting to him as Treasury Secretary. Geithner's presence will affront Americans who endure audits over the next few years and get adjudicated to their detriment."
• RedState's Dan Spencer: "Obama is still sending the wrong signal about tax cheats. Even though Tom Daschle and Nancy Killefer were thrown under the bus for their tax issues, tax cheat Timothy Geithner is still Treasury Secretary."

EXEC PAY: "$500,000 Is Not A Lot Of Money"

Liberal bloggers are pleased that the Obama admin. is reportedly planning to impose a salary cap of $500K for top execs at companies that receive bailout funds. They're also mocking a businessman who's quoted in the article as saying, "$500,000 is not a lot of money, particularly if there is no bonus."

• Daily Kos' DHinMI: "Congratulations to the Obama administration for fixing one of the glaring shortcomings of the original TARP program. Keep it up."
• Al Giordano: "Oh, man, they're gonna squeal like pigs in the stockyard and scream bloody socialism. But this is necessary medicine. And the louder they yelp, the more the public is going to like it. And bless [MO Sen.] Claire McCaskill for standing up and telling it like it is."
• dday: "Sorry, Masters of the Universe. It's a new era of responsibility out here."
• Benen: "I suspect there are plenty of sharp people in the business world, anxious to make a name for themselves, would who love the opportunity to get $500,000 to turn around a company facing collapse, with the possibility of a huge pay day down the road if they succeed."

Naturally, conservative bloggers feel differently:

• Malkin: "In theory, I have no problem with limiting the executive pay and bonuses of corporations that take billions in taxpayer-funded bailout money. [...] But the first question is: Where are the limits on Fannie and Freddie corruptocrats' executive pay? Have those been passed yet? Are they equal to the limits on private executives' pay? And the second question is: Where will it stop? [MA Rep.] Barney Frank has no intention of restraining his grubby government paws."
• Right Wing News' John Hawkins: "Now the socialists in the Obama administration are moving to actually micromanage what people can be paid, it would be easy to point out that different professions received different levels of compensation and that $500,000 really isn't that much for someone who runs a major bank. [...] Moreover, while this may be viewed as a 'punishment' on the banks, what it's really doing is guaranteeing that they won't be able to attract the top talent in the industry -- you know, exactly the sort of people who could turn those banks around in a hurry."

GREGG: Taking Over A Department He Wanted To Abolish

Liberal bloggers are upset that someone with Gregg's conservative views is taking over the Commerce Dept.:

• Daily Kos' Markos Moulitsas: "Yeay! We have Judd Gregg at commerce! He's a rabid Right winger who voted to abolish the Commerce Department a few years ago as part of his anti-government agenda, but let's put the guy in charge so Obama can continue to give Republicans presents for spitting in his face. Just as it has been the last 20 years, bipartisanship means giving everything to Republicans and getting nothing back in return. Feel the change!"
• Daily Kos' MissLaura: "The strategic wisdom of appointing Gregg is a reasonable debate, as long as you have no illusions about Republican commitment to bipartisanship being any more real than the tooth fairy. The moral wisdom of appointing someone so viciously opposed to the interests of working people is not up for debate -- it's entirely lacking."
• Beutler: "Maybe this is a very wise move, and I'll come to my senses once I see the 'pro quo'. In the meantime, though, I'm just left with this thought: We're finally in an era where decent government is a real possibility. Whereas Bush appointed [Spencer] Abraham to run the DOE, Obama chose Nobel Prize winning physicist, and experienced administrator Steven Chu. Our new Treasury Secretary, for all his flaws, is a renowned economist, and our Attorney General is a well respected attorney, and by and large that pattern holds...except for the fact that Obama wants to put this one agency in the hands of Judd Gregg, who doesn't think the agency ought to exist."

CA Rep. Barbara Lee makes a similar argument in a Huffington Post diary: "Two of the most important responsibilities of the Commerce Department are to ensure that minority-owned businesses are fully integrated in our nation's economic recovery and to conduct the decennial census. In this light, Sen. Gregg's record of previously voting to abolish the Commerce Department and his attempts to block President Bill Clinton's efforts to secure adequate funding for the 2000 census raise troubling concerns."

On the right side of the blogosphere, Morrissey is sad to see Gregg give up his Senate seat: "[T]his is still a net loss for Republicans and fiscal conservatives. Gregg would probably have won re-election in 2010, especially if this stimulus bill performs as badly as most economists expect. Instead, Democrats will probably get an easy pickup, unless a high-profile Republican starts working immediately on a campaign."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Daschle Postmortem

Beutler:

"Whether Barack Obama actually pushed Daschle out behind the scenes or not, what you witnessed yesterday was a genuine manifestation of the idea that words matter. Obama promised change*, and just hoped everybody would ignore the giant asterisk. He set up two different definitions of vetting: One for people outside the family, who had to be squeaky clean, and one for people inside the family and people he was stuck with (Hillary [Clinton]), who didn't. For the latter group, vetting meant digging up the embarrassing details of their pasts and then cooking up talking points in the event that the press sniffed some of it out. And that wasn't going to fly forever.

Which isn't to say Obama's a huge hypocrite or just another corrupt hack. I think he was up against an extremely difficult task and began to feel the tension between setting up a working administration quickly and smoothly, and making sure all of its members met a standard of ethics that's difficult to obtain in politics. He promised both, though, and so he had to deliver both -- or at least appear to be trying to deliver both. Daschle made it look like he wasn't even trying."

LEST WE FORGET: Liberal Journalists In Liberal Administration Jobs: Totally Non-Partisan

Gawker's Hamilton Nolan criticizes Joe Biden spokesperson/ex-Time reporter Jay Carney for saying, "I don't see this as a partisan job at all":

"Journalists tend to be liberals because they tend to be educated but not wealthy, and haughty smartasses. So it's no surprise ex-journalists are pouring into Obama administration jobs. Why can't they just admit their fandom? [...] Jesus Christ Carney you're the spokesman for the Democratic VP. It is a partisan fucking job. Be proud of what you believe, for once! Douglas Frantz, former managing editor of the LA Times and investigative reporter, is now an investigator for John Kerry and the Foreign Relations Committee. 'Pursuing the truth is apolitical,' he says.

Sure it is, but figuring out which version of 'the truth' wins is what politics is all about. Amazing how all these political reporters find that politics cease to exist once they get administration jobs! Dudes, the fact that you have opinions does not invalidate everything you ever did as a journalist. This angle of attack is tedious. Maybe, like David Brooks says, they're all secretly trying to get in there and make life hard for the really rich people, out of jealousy over the fact that even fancy reporters and government officials don't make enough to hire more than one live-in maid. Or maybe all these guys who have been 'framing' the political debate for the whole country for years and years really don't know what politics is all about.

Or, most likely, they're still scared of the 'media liberal' tag, that was once a solid debate-ender. Well it's a new day, people. Everything is different now. You reporters are the lucky ones! You have jobs. You can revel in your liberalness. You're not some conservative hack like Rich Lowry or Tony Snow or Bill Kristol."

Posted by Ian Faerstein at 01:02 PM

February 03, 2009

2/3: But Why Gregg?

Liberal bloggers were initially excited about the news that Barack Obama was thinking about nominating Sen. Judd Gregg (R-NH) as Commerce Sec., since Gregg's replacement could potentially give Dems 60 seats in the Senate. However, following reports that NH's Dem Gov. John Lynch plans to appoint a GOPer to Gregg's Senate seat, lefty bloggers don't understand Obama's thinking. "What makes Gregg so indispensable as Commerce Secretary I can't say," Jane Hamsher writes. Moreover, several liberal bloggers have expressed concerns about the fact that Gregg -- who opposed Obama's economic stimulus bill in the Senate Appropriations Cmte -- will be in charge of one of the federal departments overseeing the economy. "Essentially, we are handing over an entire federal department to a right-wing conservative in exchange for the possibility of an election victory in 2010 and one more vote on a few pieces of legislation in 2009-2010," Chris Bowers complains.

Meanwhile, most conservative bloggers remain strongly opposed to ex-SD Sen. Tom Daschle's nomination as HHS Sec., while a few argue that GOP senators are better off confirming Daschle because "he is the most centrist nominee America is likely to get."

UPDATE, 12:55 PM: Daschle has withdrawn his nomination.

GREGG: What's The Point?

The netroots don't understand why Obama nominated Gregg as Commerce Sec. if Gov. Lynch plans to appoint a GOPer to his Senate seat:

• Firedoglake's Hamsher: "What makes Gregg so indispensable as Commerce Secretary I can't say."
• AMERICAblog's John Aravosis: "There's clearly some grand plan here -- by both Obama and Gregg (though each may have a separate plan) -- but I'm not sure I see it yet."
• BooMan: "Because I don't know what is going on in the backrooms, I cannot really judge the intelligence of the appointment of Gregg to Commerce. What I do know is that it would be stupid to appoint Gregg if there is nothing of considerable value to be gained in return. I don't think it is enough to get credit for bipartisanship..."
• TAPPED's Mori Dinauer: "Perhaps the calculation is that another moderate Republican vote in the 111th Congress is just as good as another Democratic vote. But by that logic, why not just appoint a Democrat in the first place?"
• Obsidian Wings' publius: "I see that New Hampshire's Governor Lynch has promised to appoint a Republican to replace Gregg. To me, this promise makes the Gregg appointment seem a lot more risky. In fact, a placeholder Republican could be far worse than Gregg himself. Here's why -- Gregg was facing a very tough re-election campaign in increasingly hostile territory. For that reason, he would have probably voted with Obama a lot [...] A placeholder Republican, by contrast, wouldn't feel any of these pressures. If he or she sees it as a temporary two-year spot, what incentives are there to vote with Obama?"
• Senate Guru: "Not only is our Democratic President willing to put another Republican in his Cabinet (making three, along with Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood and Defense Secretary Robert Gates -- I recall hearing today, but I have not confirmed, that three members of the opposing Party in the Cabinet at the same time is the most since FDR's first term!), but the Democratic Governor is willing to meet the demand of the Republican Senator that he be succeeded by a Republican, despite the fact that the President, the Governor, and the clear political trend in New Hampshire is Democratic. Democrats are bending over backwards to embody the spirit of bipartisanship to which Republicans in the Senate only exploit and pay lip-service."
• Daily Kos' brownsox: "The administration, and Senate leadership, should be able to pressure Lynch to nominate a Republican who will act as a placeholder, opening the seat up in two years' time (possibly for a run by Rep. Paul Hodes). If they can't do that, this will be quite the fiasco for the party. [...This] does raise the question, though, of why President Obama wanted Gregg in the first place, since it was clearly never about getting the 60th Senate seat. Obama is evidently well aware that Gregg won't take the job if it means his seat goes to a Democrat, and it seems that Gregg is his guy anyway."

GREGG II: Great, The New Commerce Secretary Is Opposed To Obama's Stimulus Bill

Several liberal bloggers are questioning Gregg's loyalty to Obama's economic agenda:

• Brian Beutler: "Surely Gregg's desire to replace himself with somebody who will often oppose his new boss's agenda is evidence of his deep commitment to the administration, the cabinet, and the agency he appears poised to head."
• Think Progress' Matthew Yglesias: "If I were a Republican United States Senator who was supportive of Barack Obama's economic recovery agenda at a time when the vast majority of my colleagues seem inclined to obstruct it, I would feel that the U.S. Senate was a promising venue from which to advance that agenda. And if I wasn't supportive of said agenda, I don't think I would be inclined to serve in Obama's cabinet."
• Open Left's Bowers: "So, for some reason, in the wake of total Republican intransigence on the stimulus bill, the Obama administration will respond by putting a Republican in charge of one the federal departments overseeing the economy. Judd Gregg himself has said he will oppose the stimulus package. That is certainly an, um, interesting way for the Obama administration to incentivize Republican opposition. Oppose President Obama, and he will reward you by giving you a cabinet position."

In a separate post, Bowers complains: "Gregg's lifetime Progressive Punch rating of 10.08 out of 100.00, and 6.91 'when the chips are down,' should make him a much needed right-wing champion for the Commerce Department. [...] Essentially, we are handing over an entire federal department to a right-wing conservative in exchange for the possibility of an election victory in 2010 and one more vote on a few pieces of legislation in 2009-2010. So, we get possibilities, while a right-wing Republican gets a federal department. That's a pretty crappy deal. Our ability to win elections in 2010 will be dependant on how effectively we govern in 2009-2010. If we govern like conservative Republicans, which we will now be doing in the Commerce department, we will probably get booted out of office, just like they were. And, when they get back in power, liberal Democrats won't be running the Departments of Defense, Commerce and Tranportation."

On the right side of the blogosphere, Larry Kudlow gives voice to Bowers' worst fears: "The fact that Pres. Obama put Gregg in his cabinet speaks well of the president. [...] Commerce secretary is generally regarded as a lesser post, but if Gregg is invited to the economic policy meetings, as I suspect he will be, then he will be a strong voice at the table -- in part because of his own stature and in part because Obama has put him there. So if the administration wants to go off on a class-warfare binge -- jacking up taxes on successful earners and investors -- you can bet Judd Gregg will argue strongly against it. In fact, you can bet that Judd Gregg doesn't like the Pelosi-Reid stimulus package one bit, and that he will argue against it in various administration meetings. [...] Judd Gregg is also someone who wants to reform the big entitlement programs, like Social Security and Medicare, which is something Pres. Obama also wants. Here, too, Gregg could be a go-between for bipartisanship."

On the other hand, Michelle Malkin distrusts Gregg because of his support of the TARP program: "Gregg championed the Crap Sandwich and regurgitated every Chicken Little talking point and fiscal myth to sell it. Gregg then crusaded to release the second half of the Crap Sandwich despite the Treasury Department's obstinate lack of disclosure and miserable bungling of its ever-evolving objective. And he calls himself a 'fiscal conservative?' What we have here is a perfect fit."

DASCHLE: Confirm Another Tax Cheat? Heck No!

Most (but not all) conservative bloggers believe that Daschle should not be confirmed as HHS Sec.:

• Power Line's John Hinderaker: "In my view, Daschle has been a borderline crook through most if not all of his Senate career. [...A]ppointing Tom Daschle to a Cabinet position doesn't constitute 'reform.' Obama promised 'change,' but increasingly, that 'change' looks like more shameless graft, corruption and cronyism than ever took place when the Republicans were in charge."
• Commentary's Jennifer Rubin: "Tom Daschle racks up a repulsive record of tax avoidance and feeding at the trough of the special interests he will oversee. Among the tidbits -- he earns $2.1M from some private equity fund which throws in a car and driver he never reported as income. It was, he thought, a gift. (A gift??) As one keen observer put it, he monitized his senate career in two short years to the tune of over $5M. He apologizes. And the Senate seems to be marching right along. [...] At some point the average voter looks at this and wonders: have they no shame?"
• Hot Air's Ed Morrissey: "Considering Daschle's close ties to health-care contractors and the myriad tax failures surrounding that relationship, Daschle's apology should not keep the Senate from giving him the [John] Tower treatment."

Many conservative bloggers are declaring that the Dem Party as a whole is corrupt:

• Right Wing News' John Hawkins: "[T]he Democratic Party is incessantly calling for taxes on the American people even as some of its highest ranking members have cheated on their taxes. [...] The Clintonesque idea that 'character doesn't matter' has obviously permeated the Democratic Party from top to bottom, which is no surprise when the guy at the top of the party habitually lies, laughs off campaign promises, and knowingly appoints people who don't even follow the laws they're in charge of enforcing."
• Hinderaker: "The New York Times says that the story of Daschle's sudden wealth...'offers a new window into how Washington works.' I'd say it's more of an old window, actually; Democratic Party corruption has been with us for a long time."
• Morrissey: "[F]our looks less like coincidence and more like a pattern of people who want to jack up taxes while doing their best to keep from paying them."

DASCHLE II: The Alternative Could Be Worse, GOPers

A few conservative bloggers are urging GOP senators to vote to confirm Daschle in spite of his tax failings -- in large part because they believe that he is "the most centrist nominee America is likely to get":

• Townhall's Hugh Hewitt: "My two cents on the latest confirmation dance is sure to disappoint my most partisan listeners: Tom Daschle should be confirmed quickly because (1) his biggest error it looks to me to be the sort of error that a former senior elected official used to riding around in government cars could easily make, while the others look like the screw-ups that a suddenly wealthy former senator could easily make, (2) he wouldn't have endangered his political career and ambitions for this amount of money given the huge income he had coming in, and (3) we absolutely have to fix the confirmation mess or more and more people will flee public service at the highest levels. [...A] double dose of restraint when presented with the opportunity to slice and dice a nominee make the GOP's policy objections much more potent, and no matter how much you disagree with him -- and I worked pretty hard for [SD Sen.] John Thune, twice, because I disagreed with Daschle a lot -- he is a good man and a smart one, and I'd rather have a center-left pro running DHS who will at least be open to the arguments of the big medical groups/hospitals/insurers than an ideologue from the university world."
• Townhall's Carol Platt Liebau: "In the end, Republicans should support Daschle's nomination. Lest, however, they be seen by voters as nothing more than Beltway insiders excusing their former leader's behavior, they need to employ a simple, three-step explanation -- and offer it loudly, clearly and repeatedly, perhaps in some shape resembling the following: (1) What Daschle did was wrong -- and if he were the nominee of a Republican president, we would likely demand that his nomination be withdrawn. [...] (2) However, this is not a Republican presidency, and we understand that big decisions and important issues confront us. We are concerned that if Daschle's nomination goes down in flames, his replacement will be even more extreme -- even more likely to try to 'reform' our health care system by putting the government in control of it. [...] (3) In the spirit of bipartisan cooperation and commitment to free market principles when it comes to health care, we will not obstruct Tom Daschle's nomination, despite our clear disapprobation of his conduct with regard to his taxes. President Obama apparently believes that Daschle is the best man for the job, and we believe he is the most centrist nominee America is likely to get."

Meanwhile, liberal blogger Glenn Greenwald -- who blasted Daschle yesterday -- expects the Senate to confirm him: "Just to be clear: I didn't write about Tom Daschle's sleazy history in order to initiate a crusade to defeat his nomination. I wrote about Daschle because the ways in which he is sleazy are illustrative of how the Washington establishment generally works. [...] It doesn't really matter how slimy Daschle is or what revelations emerge about what he has done. The last thing that is disqualifying in Washington is an eagerness to profit off of one's political connections. [...] Daschle is going to be confirmed no matter what is discovered about him."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: What Roe Means To Pro-Lifers

The Atlantic's Ross Douthat tries to explain how pro-lifers feel about Roe v. Wade:

"...It's hard to come up with a parallel case that isn't hopelessly imperfect and/or loaded, but I think that liberals interested in imagining their way into the pro-life psyche might start with the kind of alienation that many of them experienced during the [George W.] Bush years ... then imagine a Supreme Court ruling that wrote a blank check for interrogation into the U.S. Constitution, so that no act of Congress could touch the President's right to torture ... and then further imagine that waterboarding and worse things became a routine, rather than extraordinary, aspect of American counterterrorism and law enforcement efforts over subsequent years and decades.

Allowing, again, for the immense imperfection of the analogy (yes, the government performs torture and merely allows abortion; yes, the number of waterboardings would never, ever approach the number of abortions; and so forth) this is roughly the kind of landscape that pro-lifers have inhabited for thirty-five years: Not only is the law of the land hostile to our convictions, but those convictions are officially deemed beyond the constitutional pale and thus essentially un-American. Symbolically alone, this would be a galvanizing force for any political movement. But the constitutionalization of abortion policy makes a substantive difference, too, or so pro-lifers believe: When you actually poll Americans, or contrast our abortion laws with those on the books in countries that are in other respects more socially liberal than we are, the most plausible 'compromise' on the issue absent Roe looks substantially closer to the pro-life position than the legal regime we have now. Which leaves pro-lifers convinced that the Supreme Court's jurisprudence has done to abortion policy what liberals think [ex-Dick Cheney CoS] David Addington and company tried to do with the President's power to order torture -- it's taken a distinctly minority opinion about a fraught issue and insisted that it's the only position the American government is allowed to take."

LEST WE FORGET: Phelps Congratulates Cardinals on Super Bowl Win

The Huffington Post's Andy Borowitz:

"Olympic champion Michael Phelps weighed in today on last night's Super Bowl, congratulating the Arizona Cardinals on their 'awesome victory.'

'The Cardinals really tore it up last night,' said Mr. Phelps, who said he saw almost the entire game until he got 'a wicked attack of the munchies' late in the fourth quarter.

'Maybe it was the Doritos commercial, I don't know, but suddenly I got unbelievably hungry,' said Mr. Phelps, giggling uncontrollably. 'I was like, man, I have got to get me some chips, stat!' [...]

Mr. Phelps said he celebrated the Cardinals' victory by eating four bags of Doritos and swimming a victory lap on his living room rug."

Posted by Ian Faerstein at 12:53 PM

February 02, 2009

2/2: First Geithner, Now Daschle?

Liberal bloggers were outraged by the news that Barack Obama's nominee for HHS Sec., ex-Sen. Tom Daschle (D-SD), failed to pay more than $128K in taxes. Lefty bloggers are complaining that Daschle "embodies everything that is sleazy, sickly, and soul-less about Washington" and are describing his actions as "impossible to defend." A number of liberal bloggers are calling on Obama to withdraw Daschle's nomination, and some are floating ex-DNC Chair Howard Dean's name as a potential replacement. However, others argue that Dean would not be an adequate replacement for Daschle, who they believe is uniquely suited to lead Obama's health reform effort.

Conservative bloggers are accusing Daschle -- and Dems in general -- of being shameless hypocrites. Some are calling on Obama to withdraw Daschle's nomination, while others are urging the Senate not to confirm their former colleague. Moe Lane summarizes the general sentiment in the conservative blogosphere when he asks: "Does any Democratic politician pay his or her taxes properly, and on time?"

In non-Daschle news, righty bloggers are congratulating ex-MD LG Michael Steele on his victory in the RNC chairman race. However, they're also urging him to reach out to conservative bloggers and warning him not to move away from the GOP's "conservative roots."

DASCHLE: Indefensible

Liberal bloggers were outraged by the news that Daschle failed to pay more than $128K in taxes:

• Salon's Glenn Greenwald: "Obama supporters argue that Obama needs someone like Daschle, with credibility within the health care industry, in order to achieve real reform. That's the standard explanation for most of what Obama does (he's only courting the establishment in order to change it), and though highly skeptical, I'm personally willing to withhold judgment until the actual evidence is available regarding what Obama actually does. But there's no need to withhold judgment on Daschle himself. He embodies everything that is sleazy, sickly, and soul-less about Washington. It's probably impossible for Obama to fill his cabinet with individuals entirely free of Beltway filth -- it's extremely rare to get anywhere near that system without being infected by it -- but Daschle oozes Beltway slime from every pore."
• BooMan: "Tom Daschle's tax issues are an embarrassment that we don't need or deserve. I applauded his nomination to be Secretary of Health & Human Services because I thought (and still do) that his good relations on the Hill would make it much easier to usher through Obama's health care package. But, in these difficult economic times, it's impossible to defend someone that piles up hundreds of thousands of dollars in unpaid taxes while he is tooled around in limousines. Daschle has no excuse, and none of us should be put in the position of trying to defend his actions."
• Obsidian Wings' hilzoy: "I don't understand why people in public life don't just recognize that they should report anything that might even conceivably count as income, and do things right the first time. [...] Part of what bothers me about this is the sense of entitlement: the sense that having a car and driver is just one of those ordinary things that happen to a person, not worth noticing or thinking of as compensation or a gift. I think Obama should ditch him."
• TalkLeft's Big Tent Democrat: "[W]hy in heaven's name should President Obama lift a finger for a guy who basically did not tell him the truth? [...] In my view, that should disqualify [Daschle] from holding a post in the Obama Administration."
• Mark Kleiman: "It's too bad, but I agree with Hilzoy: Tom Daschle has to go. [...] Look, the guy was making a ton of money and could easily afford to pay his taxes. And of all the possible excuses, 'I thought having a personal car and driver was so ordinary that it never occurred to me that it might be a taxable perk' has to be about the worst."
• Sadly, No!'s Brad: "I am sick to death of rich assholes who cheat the system and don't pay their goddamn taxes. Screw Daschle. I hope his nomination goes down in flames."

DASCHLE: Creating An Opening For Dr. Dean?

After Daschle's tax problems were first reported, several liberal bloggers began pushing for Obama to nominate Dean instead:

• MyDD's Jerome Armstrong: "If [Daschle] does step out, Howard Dean should be the HHS Secretary, but that's just me."
• Daily Kos' Markos Moulitsas: "I bet Howard Dean isn't a tax cheat..."
• BooMan: "Howard Dean might not have equivalent connections and political savvy, but he does understand health care and he does deserve a job in the Obama administration. I say that the Obama administration should withdraw Daschle's nomination and replace him with Howard Dean."

Other liberal bloggers don't think Dean would be an adequate replacement:

• MyDD's desmoinesdem: "A lot of liberal bloggers are now calling for Obama to withdraw Daschle's nomination and appoint Howard Dean to run HHS instead. As much as I like Dean, I do not think he's the person to shepherd health care reform through Congress. But I agree that Obama needs to find a replacement for Daschle -- the sooner, the better. If Obama stands by Daschle, I suspect the Senate insiders' club would confirm him, but let's hope it doesn't come to that."
• Daily Kos' DemFromCT: "Even if Daschle shoots himself in some part of his anatomy, that doesn't make Dean next on the list. Dean would not be an ideal HHS head. It's a sprawling agency with huge administrative duties. Dean's an ex-gov and that's far more important than his MD, which is nearly irrelevant, but HHS, with CDC and NIH, is a lot more complex than running VT. [...] In addition to that, HHS needs someone who is really good at political infighting -- as good as Robert Gates at Defense (and Janet Napolitano at DHS), because that's who HHS has to fight for money and influence. [...] I don't know how long the list is of policy wonks who are also good political infighters, get along with Congress, and who have the same vision on health reform as Obama, but that list can't be infinitely long. [...] For those reasons, Tom Daschle would be an ideal choice for HHS, at least as far as experience, but that's only if he survives this and gets past committee [...]. And for those same reasons, another wonk with similar policy credentials to Daschle's would need to be a second choice."

Ezra Klein has concerns about Daschle's relationship with the health care industry, but he still believes Daschle is the best man to lead Obama's health reform effort: "No one has sketched a plausible future in which Daschle's tax problems don't disrupt his confirmation but do poison the administration's health reform effort six months down the line. Indeed, watching his Senate colleagues rally around him actually underscores Daschle's fitness for the job. Daschle is uniquely respected by this former colleagues and appears able to ensure himself a more than fair hearing even under less than ideal circumstances. Watching Daschle's former colleagues leap to his defense and attest to his integrity and fairness, it's hard to argue that this isn't the guy you want convincing and cajoling and reassuring nervous senators when health reform turns hard. You want the guy who gets the benefit of the doubt. You want the guy they viscerally trust, the guy they believe even when the obvious political move is to discount his testimony. This whole thing speaks rather poorly of Tom Daschle but rather well of his skills for this job."

DASCHLE III: Another Tax Cheat In Obama's Cabinet?

Conservative bloggers are blasting Daschle for his tax failures:

• RedState's Pejman Yousefzadeh: "This is embarrassing. Not only should Daschle not be the HHS Secretary, he should not have a job as the director of the White House's Office of Health Reform. [...W]hy, despite their joint tax cheat status, does the President insist on giving people like [Treasury Sec. Timothy] Geithner and Daschle jobs?"
• NRO's Jim Geraghty: "A request of our friends on the Democratic side of the aisle -- could they please specify when a cabinet nominee's failure to pay his taxes disqualifies him from the office he seeks? What amount? What expenses? How long ago? [...] Because $146,000 over the past three years seems like a lot."
• AmSpec Blog's Doug Bandow: "Why do the folks who want to raise our taxes seem to have such a hard time paying their own?"
• RedState's Moe Lane: "Does any Democratic politician pay his or her taxes properly, and on time? Do any of them know how to, even? It's a heck of a thing to ask, but circumstances kind of require it right now."
• NRO's Ed Whelan: "If President Obama were really serious about ending business as usual, he would immediately withdraw the nomination of someone who was cheating big-time on his taxes and who didn't level with Obama about the problem at the outset."
• NRO's Victor Davis Hanson: "Tom Daschle is a three-fer: (a) he makes a mockery of a new administration pledge to free itself from lobbyists since he and his wife are, well, power lobbyists incarnate. (b) he makes a mockery of past Democratic praise of taxes as patriotic given his own tax cheating and his own former invective about those who do what he did; (c) he makes a mockery of the old Democratic populist creed. Like [CT Sen.] Chris Dodd and [MA Rep.] Barney Frank, he rails about corporate greed and Wall Street perks while he too is deep at the trough."
• Power Line's John Hinderaker: "Is Tom Daschle a crook, or is it fairer to think of him as a low-level tool of various big-time crooks who play the Washington game by the corrupt rules of the Democratic Party? Either way, it is hard to think of a worse person to put in charge of 'reforming' the nation's health care system. Still, there is always a silver lining. One good thing about electing a Democrat as President is that, as he nominates fellow Democrats to senior positions in the Executive Branch, millions of dollars in unpaid tax liabilities come to light and are belatedly paid to the IRS, with interest. It is, perhaps, the most tangible advantage of electing Democrats to office."

Lefty bloggers are pushing back against the efforts of some righty bloggers (such as Hinderaker) to portray Daschle's tax failings as a Dem problem:

• Firedoglake's Jane Hamsher: "I'm not going to defend Daschle on the tax front, no self-respecting liberal would. [...] But Jack Abramoff associate Todd Boulonger just pled guilty, and a lecture on 'corruption' from John Hinderaker is about as welcome as a disquisition on birth control from Nadya Suleman."
• dday: "I'd be willing to bet that practically everyone of means in Capitol Hill has cheated on their taxes in one way or another. They're the Masters of the Universe and they see it as their due. If Republicans have gotten religion and suddenly want to end the practice, sounds good to me. [...] But don't tell me that this is an issue of party in any way. This is a class issue."

DASCHLE IV: The Ball's In Your Court, Senators

RedState's Erick Erickson urges his readers to call their senators and tell them to oppose Daschle's confirmation: "Barack Obama has nominated another tax cheat. With Tim Geithner we were told he was the indispensable man during the economic crisis. What about Tom Daschle? What makes him special? In truth -- nothing makes Daschle special other than he's one of Barack Obama's friends. One tax cheat is enough. Call 202-224-3121. Tell your Senator to vote no on Tom Daschle."

Michelle Malkin thinks certain GOP senators painted themselves into a corner by voting to confirm Geithner: "Daschle's 'naive' mistakes make him more qualified to hold a Cabinet position, remember? That's the reasoning embraced by the Lindsay Graham wing of the Republican Party. Now, the B.O. Republicans will have to 1) twist themselves in pretzels to find a logical explanation for opposing this new tax cheat with liabilities three times Geithner's; or 2) assume the downward dog yoga position, approve yet another corrupted Obama nominee, and meekly dub him indispensible and 'uniquely qualified' to raise the taxes of other Americans after failing to pay his own. Screw up, move up. It's the bipartisan Washington way."

STEELE: A Warm Welcome From The Rightroots

Although few conservative bloggers supported Steele's bid for RNC Chairman, most of them praised the ex-MD LG following his victory:

• Townhall's Hugh Hewitt: "Obviously I think highly of Michael Steele -- he's been one of my favorite guest hosts when we have been able to schedule his sitting in for me while I am on the road. He will be a tremendous chairman, and his extraordinary communication abilities will serve the GOP very very well."
• Hot Air's Ed Morrissey: "[T]he RNC had to find a national chair who could provide a recognizable face and be at ease in the role of party spokesperson. Of all the candidates, Steele alone fills that bill -- and does so naturally. He will provide an eloquent and welcoming presence in the national media for Republicans at a time when they need both to rebuild their strength as a big-tent party."
• Townhall's Amanda Carpenter: "It's remarkable how much strife Steele has tolerated in his political career. A lot of other people would have called it quits. Not this guy. He's had Oreos thrown at him, been called Sambo and endured all kinds of hateful, racist attacks for having the nerve to be black and Republican. These are things I have known for awhile, but I am guessing the liberal left who already has an eye on destroying this guy, well, they have no idea what he is made of."
• Geraghty: "What will Republicans be getting in Steele? Maybe the ideal television presence, a dynamic and energetic speaker who cheerfully brings a Republican message to communities that aren't always initially receptive. The contrast with [Mike] Duncan's seemingly invisible media presence will be clear. But Steele's bid was hindered by questions about whether he would excel as much at the parts of the job that aren't in front of the cameras—the day-to-day management and fundraising. In the coming year, Republicans will learn one way or the other."
• AmSpec Blog's Quin Hillyer: "My hopes for him are much higher than my doubts."

Other conservative bloggers are pushing back against the CW that Steele is a moderate:

• Right Wing News' John Hawkins: "I think Steele 'gets it' and am not concerned about his veering off to the left as Party chairman. I have seen enough of him to feel comfortable that he knows where the GOP's bread is buttered."
• AmSpec Blog's Robert Stacy McCain: "You knew the contest to become chairman of the Republican National Committee was getting ugly when they started throwing around nasty slurs like 'moderate.' Michael Steele got tagged with the dreaded M-word as part of a vicious guilt-by-association smear. [...] In truth, Steele is a committed pro-life Catholic who proudly calls himself a 'Reagan Republican,' and ideological differences had relatively little impact on the RNC's choice."
• The Next Right's Patrick Ruffini: "It's true that a handful of bloggers -- most of whom have worked in and around the conservative establishment -- voiced concerns about Steele, while touting Blackwell. [...] I think this highlights a very real disconnect between the leaders of the conservative establishment in D.C. and the conservative movement in the heartland. Rank-and-file Republican activists had no real problems with Steele -- with his membership in the RLC belied by his strong pro-life stance running in midnight blue Maryland."

Townhall's Matt Lewis -- who supported Blackwell in the RNC Chair race -- thinks Steele's victory sends a positive message: "Regardless of what you think about Michael Steele, it is clear that his election sends a message that the GOP is, at least, serious about change. In my estimation, after eight years of George W. Bush, that is an important first step. Early news coverage has been very positive. Of course, his long-term effectiveness as a leader will be the true test. But there is no doubt the GOP has symbolicly turned the page."

STEELE II: Don't Forget The Base, Chairman!

Although they congratulated Steele on his victory, several conservative bloggers urged him not to forget the GOP base as he seeks to broaden the party's appeal:

• RedState's Directors: "[Steele] was not our first choice for this spot, given our concern that he was not the most conservative choice in the race. But he is an eloquent and persuasive spokesman for the party and an impressive man, and we wish him well. The Republican Party needs to do two contradictory things in the years to come: return to the party's conservative roots and sell the party's message to voters who are not base conservatives. Chairman Steele has promised an aggressive outreach to do the latter; we urge him, in that effort, not to neglect the former. We can't sell a message based on our principles if we don't have principles."
• Lewis: "[W]hile Steele clearly didn't need the support of bloggers to become RNC chairman, he certainly can not afford to alienate them if he hopes to be deemed a successful chairman (where the support of 168 insiders will matter much less than the support of bloggers). [...] When Barack Obama was about to become president, he shrewdly met with columnists and opinion leaders on his left and right. It will be interesting to see whether or not a 'Steele curtain' will descend around the RNC, shutting our dissent and bloggers who opposed Steele -- or if, instead, Steele extends a similar olive branch to conservative bloggers. My own unsolicited advice, of course, is to hold a meeting asap. CPAC is just around the corner..."

Power Line's Paul Mirengoff still has some concerns about Steele: "...I'm confident that Steele is not a moderate Republican. However, I do question just how resolutely conservative Steele is. My concern stems mainly from an interview Steele gave to a group of political reporters, including Dana Millbank, in July 2006 during his Senate campaign. At that time, Steele complained about how tough it was to run as a Republican, and took some shots at President Bush. [...] One common thread in Steele's July 2006 interview and his recent support of [AG nominee Eric] Holder may be that Steele is, to some extent, a creature of Washington. The reporters in whom Steele confided in 2006 were Washington-based, and Holder is very popular in D.C."

Meanwhile, Erickson and Ruffini are offering Steele advice on how to organize the RNC.

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: The Danger For Dems

The Atlantic's Ross Douthat:

"This is the basic liberal calculus at the moment: The stimulus bill is thick with non-stimulative spending increases because it's a chance to, well, pass spending increases that Democrats think are worthy. Which is fair enough; they did, after all, thump the GOP two election cycles in a row. But surely even the most deficit-happy liberal ought to worry a little about how all of this is going to be paid for -- and by extension, whether a spending binge on existing programs today will make it harder to pass, say, an expensive overhaul of the health care system tomorrow. At some point, barring an economic miracle, the GOP will be able to get at least some traction by playing Ross Perot and arguing against out-of-control spending. Maybe the whole liberal wish list will be passed into law before that happens: As [Matthew] Yglesias says in a subsequent post, it's possible that at a time like this there's no 'fixed sum of political capital' for liberals to spend down, and so the thing to do is go for broke, quite literally, instead of trying to prioritize health care reform over Pell Grants, or climate change legislation over Head Start. But there's also a chance that the Democrats will look back on the stimulus bill as an instance where they gained ground in the short run, but at the expense of their longer-term ambitions."

LEST WE FORGET: Breaking: Michael Phelps Is A 23-Year-Old!

The Atlantic's Andrew Sullivan criticizes the media frenzy that ensued after a British tabloid published a photo of Olympic swimming champion Michael Phelps smoking marijuana at a party:

"Yes, Michael Phelps took a few hits from a bong at a party. He also threw back a great deal of alcohol, maybe made a few passes at a few girls and bonded with a few dudes. This is news? And yet this absurd ritual takes place in which Phelps has to pretend he did something dreadful and we all have to tut-tut and frown and furrow our brows, and the sponsors cluck and the press preens -- while the only conceivable news is that a 23 year-old had a good time at a party, breaking no professional rules since he was not competing when he was goofing off. And, seriously, does anyone think that smoking pot would give him an unfair advantage in the pool? Please. When on earth are we going to grow up as a culture?"

Posted by Ian Faerstein at 01:03 PM

2/2: First Geithner, Now Daschle?

Liberal bloggers were outraged by the news that Barack Obama's nominee for HHS Sec., ex-Sen. Tom Daschle (D-SD), failed to pay more than $128K in taxes. Lefty bloggers are complaining that Daschle "embodies everything that is sleazy, sickly, and soul-less about Washington" and are describing his actions as "impossible to defend." A number of liberal bloggers are calling on Obama to withdraw Daschle's nomination, and some are floating ex-DNC Chair Howard Dean's name as a potential replacement. However, others argue that Dean would not be an adequate replacement for Daschle, who they believe is uniquely suited to lead Obama's health reform effort.

Conservative bloggers are accusing Daschle -- and Dems in general -- of being shameless hypocrites. Some are calling on Obama to withdraw Daschle's nomination, while others are urging the Senate not to confirm their former colleague. Moe Lane summarizes the general sentiment in the conservative blogosphere when he asks: "Does any Democratic politician pay his or her taxes properly, and on time?"

In non-Daschle news, righty bloggers are congratulating ex-MD LG Michael Steele on his victory in the RNC chairman race. However, they're also urging him to reach out to conservative bloggers and warning him not to move away from the GOP's "conservative roots."

DASCHLE: Indefensible

Liberal bloggers were outraged by the news that Daschle failed to pay more than $128K in taxes:

• Salon's Glenn Greenwald: "Obama supporters argue that Obama needs someone like Daschle, with credibility within the health care industry, in order to achieve real reform. That's the standard explanation for most of what Obama does (he's only courting the establishment in order to change it), and though highly skeptical, I'm personally willing to withhold judgment until the actual evidence is available regarding what Obama actually does. But there's no need to withhold judgment on Daschle himself. He embodies everything that is sleazy, sickly, and soul-less about Washington. It's probably impossible for Obama to fill his cabinet with individuals entirely free of Beltway filth -- it's extremely rare to get anywhere near that system without being infected by it -- but Daschle oozes Beltway slime from every pore."
• BooMan: "Tom Daschle's tax issues are an embarrassment that we don't need or deserve. I applauded his nomination to be Secretary of Health & Human Services because I thought (and still do) that his good relations on the Hill would make it much easier to usher through Obama's health care package. But, in these difficult economic times, it's impossible to defend someone that piles up hundreds of thousands of dollars in unpaid taxes while he is tooled around in limousines. Daschle has no excuse, and none of us should be put in the position of trying to defend his actions."
• Obsidian Wings' hilzoy: "I don't understand why people in public life don't just recognize that they should report anything that might even conceivably count as income, and do things right the first time. [...] Part of what bothers me about this is the sense of entitlement: the sense that having a car and driver is just one of those ordinary things that happen to a person, not worth noticing or thinking of as compensation or a gift. I think Obama should ditch him."
• TalkLeft's Big Tent Democrat: "[W]hy in heaven's name should President Obama lift a finger for a guy who basically did not tell him the truth? [...] In my view, that should disqualify [Daschle] from holding a post in the Obama Administration."
• Mark Kleiman: "It's too bad, but I agree with Hilzoy: Tom Daschle has to go. [...] Look, the guy was making a ton of money and could easily afford to pay his taxes. And of all the possible excuses, 'I thought having a personal car and driver was so ordinary that it never occurred to me that it might be a taxable perk' has to be about the worst."
• Sadly, No!'s Brad: "I am sick to death of rich assholes who cheat the system and don't pay their goddamn taxes. Screw Daschle. I hope his nomination goes down in flames."

DASCHLE II: Creating An Opening For Dr. Dean?

After Daschle's tax problems were first reported, several liberal bloggers began pushing for Obama to nominate Dean instead:

• MyDD's Jerome Armstrong: "If [Daschle] does step out, Howard Dean should be the HHS Secretary, but that's just me."
• Daily Kos' Markos Moulitsas: "I bet Howard Dean isn't a tax cheat..."
• BooMan: "Howard Dean might not have equivalent connections and political savvy, but he does understand health care and he does deserve a job in the Obama administration. I say that the Obama administration should withdraw Daschle's nomination and replace him with Howard Dean."

Other liberal bloggers don't think Dean would be an adequate replacement:

• MyDD's desmoinesdem: "A lot of liberal bloggers are now calling for Obama to withdraw Daschle's nomination and appoint Howard Dean to run HHS instead. As much as I like Dean, I do not think he's the person to shepherd health care reform through Congress. But I agree that Obama needs to find a replacement for Daschle -- the sooner, the better. If Obama stands by Daschle, I suspect the Senate insiders' club would confirm him, but let's hope it doesn't come to that."
• Daily Kos' DemFromCT: "Even if Daschle shoots himself in some part of his anatomy, that doesn't make Dean next on the list. Dean would not be an ideal HHS head. It's a sprawling agency with huge administrative duties. Dean's an ex-gov and that's far more important than his MD, which is nearly irrelevant, but HHS, with CDC and NIH, is a lot more complex than running VT. [...] In addition to that, HHS needs someone who is really good at political infighting -- as good as Robert Gates at Defense (and Janet Napolitano at DHS), because that's who HHS has to fight for money and influence. [...] I don't know how long the list is of policy wonks who are also good political infighters, get along with Congress, and who have the same vision on health reform as Obama, but that list can't be infinitely long. [...] For those reasons, Tom Daschle would be an ideal choice for HHS, at least as far as experience, but that's only if he survives this and gets past committee [...]. And for those same reasons, another wonk with similar policy credentials to Daschle's would need to be a second choice."

Ezra Klein has concerns about Daschle's relationship with the health care industry, but he still believes Daschle is the best man to lead Obama's health reform effort: "No one has sketched a plausible future in which Daschle's tax problems don't disrupt his confirmation but do poison the administration's health reform effort six months down the line. Indeed, watching his Senate colleagues rally around him actually underscores Daschle's fitness for the job. Daschle is uniquely respected by this former colleagues and appears able to ensure himself a more than fair hearing even under less than ideal circumstances. Watching Daschle's former colleagues leap to his defense and attest to his integrity and fairness, it's hard to argue that this isn't the guy you want convincing and cajoling and reassuring nervous senators when health reform turns hard. You want the guy who gets the benefit of the doubt. You want the guy they viscerally trust, the guy they believe even when the obvious political move is to discount his testimony. This whole thing speaks rather poorly of Tom Daschle but rather well of his skills for this job."

DASCHLE III: Another Tax Cheat In Obama's Cabinet?

Conservative bloggers are blasting Daschle for his tax failures:

• RedState's Pejman Yousefzadeh: "This is embarrassing. Not only should Daschle not be the HHS Secretary, he should not have a job as the director of the White House's Office of Health Reform. [...W]hy, despite their joint tax cheat status, does the President insist on giving people like [Treasury Sec. Timothy] Geithner and Daschle jobs?"
• NRO's Jim Geraghty: "A request of our friends on the Democratic side of the aisle -- could they please specify when a cabinet nominee's failure to pay his taxes disqualifies him from the office he seeks? What amount? What expenses? How long ago? [...] Because $146,000 over the past three years seems like a lot."
• AmSpec Blog's Doug Bandow: "Why do the folks who want to raise our taxes seem to have such a hard time paying their own?"
• RedState's Moe Lane: "Does any Democratic politician pay his or her taxes properly, and on time? Do any of them know how to, even? It's a heck of a thing to ask, but circumstances kind of require it right now."
• NRO's Ed Whelan: "If President Obama were really serious about ending business as usual, he would immediately withdraw the nomination of someone who was cheating big-time on his taxes and who didn't level with Obama about the problem at the outset."
• NRO's Victor Davis Hanson: "Tom Daschle is a three-fer: (a) he makes a mockery of a new administration pledge to free itself from lobbyists since he and his wife are, well, power lobbyists incarnate. (b) he makes a mockery of past Democratic praise of taxes as patriotic given his own tax cheating and his own former invective about those who do what he did; (c) he makes a mockery of the old Democratic populist creed. Like [CT Sen.] Chris Dodd and [MA Rep.] Barney Frank, he rails about corporate greed and Wall Street perks while he too is deep at the trough."
• Power Line's John Hinderaker: "Is Tom Daschle a crook, or is it fairer to think of him as a low-level tool of various big-time crooks who play the Washington game by the corrupt rules of the Democratic Party? Either way, it is hard to think of a worse person to put in charge of 'reforming' the nation's health care system. Still, there is always a silver lining. One good thing about electing a Democrat as President is that, as he nominates fellow Democrats to senior positions in the Executive Branch, millions of dollars in unpaid tax liabilities come to light and are belatedly paid to the IRS, with interest. It is, perhaps, the most tangible advantage of electing Democrats to office."

Lefty bloggers are pushing back against the efforts of some righty bloggers (such as Hinderaker) to portray Daschle's tax failings as a Dem problem:

• Firedoglake's Jane Hamsher: "I'm not going to defend Daschle on the tax front, no self-respecting liberal would. [...] But Jack Abramoff associate Todd Boulonger just pled guilty, and a lecture on 'corruption' from John Hinderaker is about as welcome as a disquisition on birth control from Nadya Suleman."
• dday: "I'd be willing to bet that practically everyone of means in Capitol Hill has cheated on their taxes in one way or another. They're the Masters of the Universe and they see it as their due. If Republicans have gotten religion and suddenly want to end the practice, sounds good to me. [...] But don't tell me that this is an issue of party in any way. This is a class issue."

DASCHLE IV: The Ball's In Your Court, Senators

RedState's Erick Erickson urges his readers to call their senators and tell them to oppose Daschle's confirmation: "Barack Obama has nominated another tax cheat. With Tim Geithner we were told he was the indispensable man during the economic crisis. What about Tom Daschle? What makes him special? In truth -- nothing makes Daschle special other than he's one of Barack Obama's friends. One tax cheat is enough. Call 202-224-3121. Tell your Senator to vote no on Tom Daschle."

Michelle Malkin thinks certain GOP senators painted themselves into a corner by voting to confirm Geithner: "Daschle's 'naive' mistakes make him more qualified to hold a Cabinet position, remember? That's the reasoning embraced by the Lindsay Graham wing of the Republican Party. Now, the B.O. Republicans will have to 1) twist themselves in pretzels to find a logical explanation for opposing this new tax cheat with liabilities three times Geithner's; or 2) assume the downward dog yoga position, approve yet another corrupted Obama nominee, and meekly dub him indispensible and 'uniquely qualified' to raise the taxes of other Americans after failing to pay his own. Screw up, move up. It's the bipartisan Washington way."

STEELE: A Warm Welcome From The Rightroots

Although few conservative bloggers supported Steele's bid for RNC Chairman, most of them praised the ex-MD LG following his victory:

• Townhall's Hugh Hewitt: "Obviously I think highly of Michael Steele -- he's been one of my favorite guest hosts when we have been able to schedule his sitting in for me while I am on the road. He will be a tremendous chairman, and his extraordinary communication abilities will serve the GOP very very well."
• Hot Air's Ed Morrissey: "[T]he RNC had to find a national chair who could provide a recognizable face and be at ease in the role of party spokesperson. Of all the candidates, Steele alone fills that bill -- and does so naturally. He will provide an eloquent and welcoming presence in the national media for Republicans at a time when they need both to rebuild their strength as a big-tent party."
• Townhall's Amanda Carpenter: "It's remarkable how much strife Steele has tolerated in his political career. A lot of other people would have called it quits. Not this guy. He's had Oreos thrown at him, been called Sambo and endured all kinds of hateful, racist attacks for having the nerve to be black and Republican. These are things I have known for awhile, but I am guessing the liberal left who already has an eye on destroying this guy, well, they have no idea what he is made of."
• Geraghty: "What will Republicans be getting in Steele? Maybe the ideal television presence, a dynamic and energetic speaker who cheerfully brings a Republican message to communities that aren't always initially receptive. The contrast with [Mike] Duncan's seemingly invisible media presence will be clear. But Steele's bid was hindered by questions about whether he would excel as much at the parts of the job that aren't in front of the cameras—the day-to-day management and fundraising. In the coming year, Republicans will learn one way or the other."
• AmSpec Blog's Quin Hillyer: "My hopes for him are much higher than my doubts."

Other conservative bloggers are pushing back against the CW that Steele is a moderate:

• Right Wing News' John Hawkins: "I think Steele 'gets it' and am not concerned about his veering off to the left as Party chairman. I have seen enough of him to feel comfortable that he knows where the GOP's bread is buttered."
• AmSpec Blog's Robert Stacy McCain: "You knew the contest to become chairman of the Republican National Committee was getting ugly when they started throwing around nasty slurs like 'moderate.' Michael Steele got tagged with the dreaded M-word as part of a vicious guilt-by-association smear. [...] In truth, Steele is a committed pro-life Catholic who proudly calls himself a 'Reagan Republican,' and ideological differences had relatively little impact on the RNC's choice."
• The Next Right's Patrick Ruffini: "It's true that a handful of bloggers -- most of whom have worked in and around the conservative establishment -- voiced concerns about Steele, while touting Blackwell. [...] I think this highlights a very real disconnect between the leaders of the conservative establishment in D.C. and the conservative movement in the heartland. Rank-and-file Republican activists had no real problems with Steele -- with his membership in the RLC belied by his strong pro-life stance running in midnight blue Maryland."

Townhall's Matt Lewis -- who supported Blackwell in the RNC Chair race -- thinks Steele's victory sends a positive message: "Regardless of what you think about Michael Steele, it is clear that his election sends a message that the GOP is, at least, serious about change. In my estimation, after eight years of George W. Bush, that is an important first step. Early news coverage has been very positive. Of course, his long-term effectiveness as a leader will be the true test. But there is no doubt the GOP has symbolicly turned the page."

STEELE II: Don't Forget The Base, Chairman!

Although they congratulated Steele on his victory, several conservative bloggers urged him not to forget the GOP base as he seeks to broaden the party's appeal:

• RedState's Directors: "[Steele] was not our first choice for this spot, given our concern that he was not the most conservative choice in the race. But he is an eloquent and persuasive spokesman for the party and an impressive man, and we wish him well. The Republican Party needs to do two contradictory things in the years to come: return to the party's conservative roots and sell the party's message to voters who are not base conservatives. Chairman Steele has promised an aggressive outreach to do the latter; we urge him, in that effort, not to neglect the former. We can't sell a message based on our principles if we don't have principles."
• Lewis: "[W]hile Steele clearly didn't need the support of bloggers to become RNC chairman, he certainly can not afford to alienate them if he hopes to be deemed a successful chairman (where the support of 168 insiders will matter much less than the support of bloggers). [...] When Barack Obama was about to become president, he shrewdly met with columnists and opinion leaders on his left and right. It will be interesting to see whether or not a 'Steele curtain' will descend around the RNC, shutting our dissent and bloggers who opposed Steele -- or if, instead, Steele extends a similar olive branch to conservative bloggers. My own unsolicited advice, of course, is to hold a meeting asap. CPAC is just around the corner..."

Power Line's Paul Mirengoff still has some concerns about Steele: "...I'm confident that Steele is not a moderate Republican. However, I do question just how resolutely conservative Steele is. My concern stems mainly from an interview Steele gave to a group of political reporters, including Dana Millbank, in July 2006 during his Senate campaign. At that time, Steele complained about how tough it was to run as a Republican, and took some shots at President Bush. [...] One common thread in Steele's July 2006 interview and his recent support of [AG nominee Eric] Holder may be that Steele is, to some extent, a creature of Washington. The reporters in whom Steele confided in 2006 were Washington-based, and Holder is very popular in D.C."

Meanwhile, Erickson and Ruffini are offering Steele advice on how to organize the RNC.

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: The Danger For Dems

The Atlantic's Ross Douthat:

"This is the basic liberal calculus at the moment: The stimulus bill is thick with non-stimulative spending increases because it's a chance to, well, pass spending increases that Democrats think are worthy. Which is fair enough; they did, after all, thump the GOP two election cycles in a row. But surely even the most deficit-happy liberal ought to worry a little about how all of this is going to be paid for -- and by extension, whether a spending binge on existing programs today will make it harder to pass, say, an expensive overhaul of the health care system tomorrow. At some point, barring an economic miracle, the GOP will be able to get at least some traction by playing Ross Perot and arguing against out-of-control spending. Maybe the whole liberal wish list will be passed into law before that happens: As [Matthew] Yglesias says in a subsequent post, it's possible that at a time like this there's no 'fixed sum of political capital' for liberals to spend down, and so the thing to do is go for broke, quite literally, instead of trying to prioritize health care reform over Pell Grants, or climate change legislation over Head Start. But there's also a chance that the Democrats will look back on the stimulus bill as an instance where they gained ground in the short run, but at the expense of their longer-term ambitions."

LEST WE FORGET: Breaking: Michael Phelps Is A 23-Year-Old!

The Atlantic's Andrew Sullivan criticizes the media frenzy that ensued after a British tabloid published a photo of Olympic swimming champion Michael Phelps smoking marijuana at a party:

"Yes, Michael Phelps took a few hits from a bong at a party. He also threw back a great deal of alcohol, maybe made a few passes at a few girls and bonded with a few dudes. This is news? And yet this absurd ritual takes place in which Phelps has to pretend he did something dreadful and we all have to tut-tut and frown and furrow our brows, and the sponsors cluck and the pres