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 February 19, 2009 12:28 PM