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."