March 2009 Archives

3/31: Dealing With Detroit

Bloggers on the left and right are still debating the Obama admin.'s decision to demand the resignation of General Motors CEO Rick Wagoner. Conservative bloggers are blasting Obama's intervention in GM's management, calling the President "Our Socialist-In-Chief" and warning that Wagoner's firing represents "a major step toward corporatism -- an economic philosophy more reminiscent of Italy in the 1930s than of American free enterprise." Liberal bloggers are defending the move, arguing that the Obama admin. was perfectly justified in "demanding some leadership shake-up" in return for providing GM with bailout funds. However, lefty bloggers continue to complain that the Obama admin. is treating Wall Street differently than Detroit. Jane Hamsher observes:

"It's great to see the administration getting tough with auto industry, forcing Rick Wagoner from GM's helm and demanding that they break their contracts with bond holders. We can only hope that this new forcefulness will manifest itself when dealing with the 'too big to fail banks' now taking enormous risks with taxpayer money because there is no downside."

GENERAL MOTORS: The Road To Serfdom

Conservative bloggers continue to pour criticism on Obama for forcing Wagoner's resignation:

• Glenn Reynolds: "Rick Wagoner was fired not because he did a bad job, but because Obama wanted to look tough. Is that the kind of management that will get us out of this problem?"
• Right Wing News' John Hawkins: "Our Socialist-In-Chief has apparently decided that he has being President down so well that he can handle being the Super-CEO of General Motors at the same time. So, Obama has begun, Hugo Chavez style, to tinker with General Motors. The CEO and the Board? They're out. The business plan? It has to be rewritten to the satisfaction of a guy who has less business experience than the average assistant manager at Burger King or Wal-Mart. This is in addition to borrowing billions more to throw down the GM rathole."
• Power Line's John Hinderaker: "I'm not sure whether Barack Obama ever ran a lemonade stand as a child, but if he did, it would be his most salient business experience. Nevertheless, in his apparently boundless self-confidence, Obama evidently thinks that he knows better how to run an automobile manufacturing company than the management of GM or Chrysler. [...T]his intermingling of the state with private (or formerly private) enterprise is a sad echo of intellectual currents that swept through Europe in the 1930s. Resurrecting this sort of state 'capitalism' can hardly be considered progress."
• NRO's James Capretta: "The president and his team are suffering from the same conceit which has afflicted many other activist governments in many other settings. They believe a central government can find a way to induce reluctant consumers to buy products they don't want from inefficient suppliers without asking anyone, anywhere -- save for corporate hot-shots -- to make an economic sacrifice. Certainly, the unions aren't to blame. Therefore, the problem must be poor 'leadership.' And if the companies can't manage themselves well, then by golly, the government will help them do it."

Hot Air's Ed Morrissey has a different reason for criticizing Obama: "There may have been good reasons to jettison Wagoner. His inexplicable decision to take a private jet to DC in order to beg Congress for a handout would be one of them, certainly, as would the general financial condition of GM. Wagoner's presence hasn't done much to turn around the automaker, and the company may -- or may not -- do better under different leadership. However, by forcing Wagoner out, Obama gets the blame for additional costs that GM would not have had to incur. Rather than demote him, Obama demanded his resignation, triggering his retirement benefits. GM will have to shell out a fortune to Wagoner while negotiating concurrent payments to whomever is foolish enough to follow in Wagoner's footsteps."

Meanwhile, RedState's Francis Cianfrocca thinks the Obama admin.'s plan to deal with GM and Chrysler is too generous: "[T]he deal was for GM to restructure or die by March 31. Obama just gave them a sloppy wet kiss in the form of a 60-day reprieve, and he wants us to think he was being tough. The only cost that he imposed on GM was the dismissal of CEO Wagoner, whose departure has long been only a matter of time. And I'm betting that 60 days from now, there will be another big dollop of taxpayer funding for GM, accompanied by more harsh words."

GENERAL MOTORS II: Getting His Just Desserts

Liberal bloggers are defending the Obama admin.'s decision to demand Wagoner's resignation:

• Balloon Juice's John Cole: "This isn't the government going to Microsoft and telling Bill Gates what to do. This isn't the government coming to your profitable small business and telling you who to hire and fire. Hell, this isn't even the government telling GM what to do in the daily operation of their business. These are companies who have made decades of bad decisions coming to the government for yet another bailout, and as a requirement, the Obama team is demanding some leadership shake-up. Not only does it make sense to get rid of the guy who has been there for the last ten years as things went down the drain, but it would be politically impossible to bail these guys out unless some changes were made. If GM wants Wagoner to stay, they can go without federal money. It is that simple. Hell, if I had my way, we would have leadership turn-over at every bank or institution receiving TARP money."
• Firedoglake's emptywheel: "I'm non-plussed by the call for Rick Wagoner's head. I think Wagoner was making the right moves recently, but he was also responsible for years of inaction. So I'm not sorry to see him gone. In any case, Obama is forcing out the entire board of GM, so Wagoner would have had to go anyway."
• BooMan: "[E]ven though Wagoner won't be receiving the typical golden parachute severance package, the game is so rigged in his favor that his retirement package alone is worth approximately $20 million. I very much doubt that any employees or dealerships are going to be confused or upset that this incompetent just lost his job. Most people will wonder why we can't confiscate his pension and deferred compensation. After all, his company lost over $80 billion over the last four years and plans to fire almost 50,000 employees this year alone."

That said, liberal bloggers continue to push the Obama admin. to be equally hard on the banks:

• Firedoglake's Hamsher: "It's great to see the administration getting tough with auto industry, forcing Rick Wagoner from GM's helm and demanding that they break their contracts with bond holders. We can only hope that this new forcefulness will manifest itself when dealing with the 'too big to fail banks' now taking enormous risks with taxpayer money because there is no downside."
• Mother Jones' Kevin Drum: "[D]on't you wish that Obama were willing to treat bankers the same way he's treating the carmakers? It's pretty much impossible not to compare his tough words this morning with the conciliatory tone and even more conciliatory actions he's taken with the financial industry."
• Daily Kos' Markos Moulitsas: "Detroit is supposed to sacrifice, but Wall Street? It's a question of whether their bonuses should be millions, or MORE millions."

GENERAL MOTORS III: Enough About Wagoner, What About The Rest Of The Plan?

Some liberal bloggers offered cautious praise for the Obama admin.'s plan to deal with GM and Chrysler:

• Drum: "I was surprised and impressed by Barack Obama's auto bailout announcement this morning. He was, appropriately I think, fairly tough. From GM, he insisted that they fire their CEO and submit a tougher restructuring plan. From Chrysler, he insisted that they consummate a deal with Fiat and said flatly that they'd be allowed to go under if they didn't. This is appropriate: a private investor wouldn't treat Chrysler and GM identically, and there's no reason the federal government should either. [...] As for the news that the stock market plunged on the news, spare me. Investors are idiots if they think this is bad news. A tougher restructuring plan is better in the long run for everyone but the auto industry's bondholders, and I'll bet that even most of them have either hedged their positions or else sold off their holdings at 70 cents on the dollar to speculators. Save your tears for someone else."
• Think Progress' Matthew Yglesias: "Long story short, this looks like an economically responsible way to avoid a cataclysmic implosion of these firms at an inopportune moment. But this isn't going to prevent the conditions facing the population of Michigan from further deteriorating. That state more-and-more looks like it's going to be the 21st century version of the Great Depression's Dust Bowl. The most important policy question facing us in this regard thus continues to be what can be done to help the people of the Rust Belt that doesn't just involved indefinitely propping up shrinking firms. The first step is simply to turn around the shrinkage in the larger economy, but the question will remain even if recovery reaches the rest of the country."

Other liberal bloggers were a bit more critical of the administration's proposals:

• Daily Kos' Meteor Blades: "The problem is that administration's Path to Viability for GM and Chrysler that requires aggressive restructuring also may contribute to further pushing the companies to reduce their U.S. manufacturing footprint and increase their outsourcing off-shoring. That would add more losses to the 369,000 jobs already lost in the auto industry and auto parts makers since December 2007. And when recovery does happen, more U.S. auto jobs would be outside the country than ever before."
• emptywheel: "Will Obama recognize the irony of allowing GM to renege on its health care promises to a bunch of line workers, even while Obama demands a national health care plan? Will he recognize that his own plan needs to go further to eliminate the huge competitive disadvantage GM faces in the production of small economic cars (that Japan can make them with labor that gets free healthcare)? Will he allow the insurance companies to prevent a real fix for health care while dismantling the rest of US manufacturing because of health care?"

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: The Right's Current Transformational Moment

The Next Right's Patrick Ruffini:

"Though it has apparently triumphed, this is a dangerous moment for liberalism. Long-planned moves toward redistribution like universal health care or the repeal of the Bush tax cuts are being conflated with and to some extent elbowed aside by emergency nationalizations and [Treasury Sec. Tim] Geithner's experiments. The White House is not selling the de-facto AIG and GM nationalizations as such, because they know the stigma the S-word carries. It becomes harder to sell the long-standing liberal policy agenda as urgent and necessary when the Administration is busy putting out ten different fires first. And after Year One, it becomes exponentially harder for a new President to push wants instead of needs.

Meanwhile, it becomes easy for Republicans to point to real-life consequences of government control to nullify the entire Obama agenda. Screw ups like the AIG bonuses will inevitably happen and be magnified by the fact of government investment, and this will have a chilling effect on the public's view of interventionism more broadly in areas like health care. Barack Obama standing behind your new muffler will not be looked upon with warm and fuzzies in the years to come. The best case for Obama is that this time in history is seen as sober and necessary. But that's not a rallying cry and a movement-builder. The right will be galvanized to action by the theft of the free enterprise system. What will the left be galvanized by?"

LEST WE FORGET: One Of These Days...

From Overheard in the Office:

Frustrated coworker: Every time I get mad at Sue, I keep telling myself "what would Jesus do?" but one of these days, Jesus is going to yell at her!

3/30: Wagoner Is A Goner

The big story in the blogosphere is the news that the Obama admin. has forced General Motors CEO Rick Wagoner to resign, which the Washington Post describes as "an extraordinary intervention of the federal government into the management of a private company." Conservative bloggers are blasting the move, warning that it will lead to "Mussolini-style corporatism" and "long-term Continental-style economic stagnation". Many righty bloggers are arguing that the Obama admin. isn't qualified to judge what's best for GM; Francis Cianfrocca asks: "Since when does an urban agitator and small-time legislator with a law degree think he can run an enterprise with 100,000 employees, thousands of vendors, millions of customers, and operations in every part of the world?" Meanwhile, liberal bloggers think Obama is being tougher on the automakers than he is on the banks. David Sirota complains: "[H]ow is it that the White House is requesting the resignation of GM's CEO while not doing the same of, say, Bank of America's CEO?"

What else is happening in the blogosphere?

• Liberal bloggers (BooMan, Boehlert, Atrios, Dayden, DougJ) are buzzing about Newsweek's cover story about New York Times columnist Paul Krugman's emergence as "Obama's toughest liberal critic."
• Conservative bloggers (Morrissey, Hinderaker, Fiano) are accusing Sec/State Hillary Clinton of making an embarrassing gaffe while visiting the Basilica of Our Lady of Guadalupe in Mexico City.
• Liberal bloggers (Dayden, Yglesias, McCarter) are pleased that a Spanish court is considering "opening a criminal investigation into allegations that six former high-level Bush administration officials violated international law" by authorizing torture at Guantanamo Bay.

GENERAL MOTORS: So Long, Capitalism!

Conservative bloggers are criticizing the Obama admin. for forcing the GM CEO to resign:

• Michelle Malkin: "Barack Obama rose from community organizer to auto company usurper -- only in America."
• RedState's Cianfrocca: "Since when does an urban agitator and small-time legislator with a law degree think he can run an enterprise with 100,000 employees, thousands of vendors, millions of customers, and operations in every part of the world? Well, that's one of those questions you'll just have to ask the people who voted for him last November."
• Townhall's Dwayne Horner: "Barack Obama is not only President but apparently he is America's Chairman of the Board as he has forced GM Chairman Rick Wagoner to resign in advance of Monday's announcement on another Auto Industry bailout. [...] Just one more step towards the Government being in complete control and removing all signs of what made America: rugged individualism and free markets."
• AmSpec Blog's Matthew Vadum: "There is a whiff of Fascism emanating from the Obama White House. [...] Although there have been some incidents of government exercising minor control over industry during wartime, this aggressive assault on American capitalism is unprecedented and should give all Americans who care about freedom pause. Strict government control over businesses is the essence of Fascism, or more precisely, Mussolini-style corporatism."
• Glenn Reynolds: "What do you call it when the private companies are nominally independent, but do whatever the government wants? Not capitalism, anyway. And doesn't this make Obama responsible for what happens to GM now?"
• AmSpec Blog's Philip Klein: "It's rather disturbing that the President of the United States is the one pressuring an executive to step down. In this case, it's hard to argue that General Motors chairman and CEO Richard Wagoner Jr. has performed well, but at the same time, Obama's reasons for dismissal seem more cosmetic than anything else. [...] Whatever Wagoner's faults, it doesn't make sense to change management just for the sake of it, unless you have a replacement in mind who you think will be able to do better."
• NRO's Mark Steyn: "[T]his GM/Chrysler thing is bad. Really bad. The descent into corporatism will doom America: The government is not competent to pick winners and losers, and will mire us in long-term Continental-style economic stagnation if it persists. [...] The Obama economy is shaping up not just as a Carteresque decline but a global tragedy."

NRO's Jonah Goldberg: "GM is now Obama's company. If it closes, it will be on his say-so. But Obama is a politician, not a CEO. So his first concern is to avoid bad political fallout, which means he will prop up the company for as long as it takes, regardless of what makes economic sense. This, in turn, will likely make the company either less economically sound or, it will rebound -- but only by getting special breaks other companies won't get. Either way, bad practices will be rewarded and/or good practices will be punished. More firms will see that gaming Washington pays off and the cycle will continue."

GENERAL MOTORS II: Why The Inconsistency?

Liberal bloggers don't mind that the Obama admin. forced Wagoner to resign, but they're wondering why the Obama admin. hasn't also forced the executives of insolvent banks to resign:

• TPM's Josh Marshall: "Why is Rick Wagoner getting the boot while the management of the big banks remains in place? [...A]fter that meeting of the major bank CEOs at the White House last week, it's hard for me not to think that, for all that has happened, their clout in Washington is just on a scale where they are accepted as peers of the realm. And simply immune to certain sorts of treatment."
• Open Left's Sirota: "[H]ow is it that the White House is requesting the resignation of GM's CEO while not doing the same of, say, Bank of America's CEO? In fact, not only is the president not demanding the resignation of bank CEOs, he's actually hosting them for photo ops at the White House. Sure, I know some bank CEOs resigned a few months ago under shareholder pressure, but the Obama administration has never publicly demanded such resignations of the current management that is making the problems worse, nor the resignation of management at the biggest firms (Goldman Sachs, BofA, etc.) that are still in place."
• TalkLeft's Big Tent Democrat: "I do not disagree with President Obama's admonitions to the auto industry. [...] Here's my question -- how about some tough words and conditions for Wall Street BEFORE you bail them out, AGAIN, President Obama?"

KRUGMAN: Now You're Paying Attention To Him?

Liberal bloggers are buzzing about Newsweek's cover story about Krugman's emergence as "Obama's toughest liberal critic." Many lefty bloggers are complaining that Krugman didn't receive this much attention when he was vociferously criticizing George W. Bush between 2000 and 2008:

• Daily Kos' mcjoan: "Now that he's criticizing some of the policies of a Democratic president, the traditional media is just fascinated by Paul Krugman. Back when he was criticizing Bush policies, he was just another liberal, a 'shrill' one, at that."
• Oliver Willis: "[It's] worth noting what it takes for an outspoken liberal to get on the cover of a newsweekly. You have to be on a different side of an issue than a Democratic president."
• BooMan: "Three things changed to convert Paul Krugman from a raving Michael Moore-ish leftist (in the eyes of the Establishment) into a very serious man: (1.) He won the Nobel Prize in Economics (2.) A Democrat took over the White House (3.) Krugman is now attacking a Democrat rather than a Republican."
• Media Matters' Eric Boehlert: "During the Bush years, Krugman, from his same perch on the pages of Times' opinion pages, waged about as vocal a campaign as humanly possible to warn readers and the country about what he considered to be the perilous policy decisions the Bush administration was embracing, and what the disastrous results for America would be. Looking back on the Bush years, Krugman's track record was rather impeccable. But you'll note he didn't appear on the cover of Newsweek back then. (No 'Bush is Wrong' cover lines.) And for years Krugman only occasionally appeared on the pundit talk shows. [...] But now a Democrat is in the Oval Office, Krugman is still hitting the president from the left, and suddenly the Beltway press thinks Krugman's work is fascinating and newsworthy. Trust us, it is. (For years he's been our pick as the country's premier columnist.) We just think everyone would have been better off if the press had paid this much attention to Krugman's work between, say, 2002 and 2006."

Some liberal bloggers see Krugman's rise as a positive development, since it pushes the debate to the left:

• Atrios: "Boehlert's right that Krugman's getting much more attention now than he did in the Bush years, though I still find it refreshing that the self-described establishment is finally acknowledging that a Democratic president actually has criticism from the left which doesn't just come from (in their eyes) crazy people."
• dday: "[Krugman] performs an important function. It's an odd quirk of fate that Krugman has as big a megaphone as he does, and so using it to put pressure on the Obama Administration from the left does several things: 1) provides a counter-weight to the conservative critiques of the President, which are usually so nutty that they pale in comparison to reasoned dissent, 2) forces Obama to at least debate the merits of his proposals rather than dismiss all critics, and most important, 3) gives Obama space on the left to put out an more progressive agenda than otherwise."
• Balloon Juice's DougJ: "What’s most important about Krugman right now isn't whether he's right or wrong but that he's starting to get traction attacking Obama from the left. [...] It's worth remembering that criticism of [Franklin] Roosevelt from the likes of Huey Long, Francis Townsend, and Charles Coughlin, crackpots though they were, played an important role in setting the stage for the Second New Deal. One can only hope that Krugman and his ilk will succeed in moving the debate from moderation versus right-wing craziness to moderation versus more aggressive policies."

Other liberal bloggers aren't convinced that Krugman's rise is good for progressives:

• Balloon Juice's John Cole: "CNN's 'Your Money' segment earlier today featured them reading two paragraphs of Krugman trashing the bank plan and then spent the next five minutes letting wingnut WSJ economist Stephen Moore trash the plan. This is working out well. And might I point out that after we all have trashed the President from every angle, the American people aren't going to say to themselves 'the socialist black muslim guy kind of sucked, let's give [OH Rep.] Dennis Kucinich and [VT Sen.] Bernie Sanders and [WI Sen.] Russ Feingold a shot.' Not going to happen. Standing in the on-deck circle are Mr. [SC Gov. Mark] Sanford, Mittens, and the Wasilla wingnut."
• BooMan: "I'm going to keep my eye on Krugman as the media builds him up. [...] Krugman is not an idiot, but he should be careful that he isn't treated as a useful one by corporate and Republican enemies of Obama's policies."

CLINTON: D'oh!

Conservative bloggers are criticizing Sec. Clinton for asking "Who painted it?" while visiting the Basilica of Our Lady of Guadalupe in Mexico City (Catholics believe that "the image appeared miraculously on the back of a simple peasant cloak"):

• Power Line's John Hinderaker: "This is one of those stories that seem like it can't possibly be true. Could America's Secretary of State really be ignorant of a central cultural symbol of a country next door? It is as though a foreign minister came to Washington, was shown [Gilbert] Stuart's portrait of George Washington, and asked, 'Who was he?' It is hard to imagine how Clinton's staff could have prepared her for her visit without making sure she knew the story."
• Hot Air's Ed Morrissey: "Demonstrating that Amateur Hour continues at the State Department, Hillary Clinton managed to display an amazing degree of ignorance while making a pilgrimage to the shrine of Our Lady of Guadalupe in Mexico yesterday afternoon. [...] Some 'smart diplomacy,' huh? First Hillary doesn't understand multiparty democracy, then she fumbles a snarky 'reset button' by mistranslating it and putting it in Latin rather than Cyrillic script. She can't even get names straight, let alone sound intelligent when visiting national shrines."
• Right Wing News' Cassy Fiano: "Hillary Clinton is not a tourist making a casual visit; she's the Secretary of State making a trip on behalf of, according to her own words, the American people. Was there no one who told her that she should learn about Our Lady of Guadalupe before going on the trip, since the idea apparently never crossed her own mind?"

TORTURE: Spain Takes Matters Into Its Own Hands

Liberal bloggers are pleased that a Spanish court is considering "opening a criminal investigation into allegations that six former high-level Bush administration officials violated international law" by authorizing torture at Guantanamo Bay:

• dday: "I would call this a big deal. As the report notes, [Judge Baltasar] Garzon indicted [ex-Chilean Pres.] Augusto Pinochet, which led to his arrest and extradition. This would not immediately lead to arrest and trial, but it would certainly confine the six officials to the United States and increase the pressure for stateside investigations."
• Think Progress' Matthew Yglesias: "I do think that symbolism is important in situations like these, so I wouldn't dismiss the importance of symbolism. And while fear of traveling abroad isn't the gravest punishment in the world, it's not nothing. [...] I think it's important not to normalize these kind of crimes as the precise time and place of their commission fades into the background. Legal rulings help with that, even if they don't lead to trials in the short-term."
• mcjoan: "This is, or at least should be, more than a little embarrassing for the U.S. -- other countries are now investigating torture instigated by American officials. [...] The fact that the U.S. is also a party to the torture convention, and thus is also obliged to investigate torture claims, has as of yet not compelled the U.S. to begin the process. Maybe the fact that our allies are doing so will spur our own Justice Department on. It's going to be awfully hard to 'turn the page' and look forward when the rest of the world is exposing the very dirty deeds of our past."

The Atlantic's Andrew Sullivan: "It's a start."

Conservative blogger (and ex-Asst. U.S. atty) Andy McCarthy had a different reaction: "Battle lines are being drawn regarding whether the United States is going to be a sovereign nation ruled by a Constitution voluntarily adopted by our body politic or a satellite in a world government under 'the rule of law' as fashioned and evolved by international law professors, human-rights activists and other transnational progressives."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Is The Blogosphere An Echo Chamber?

Power Line's Paul Mirengoff wonders if the conservative blogosphere is underestimating Obama:

"A brutal work and travel schedule prevented me from blogging this week. I did manage to watch President Obama's press conference, however, and I must say that the Obama I saw was not entirely the same Obama I had been reading about on the conservative blogosphere. The Obama I'd been reading about was at sixes and sevens, gaffe prone even though married to this teleprompter, and perhaps on the verge of melting down. Even the New York Times seemed to be having second thoughts about him.

The Obama I saw delivered an assured performance. He provided detailed answers to a range of questions without a teleprompter and without gaffes. The policies he defended ranged from the misguided to the abominable, and his pronouncements were frequently misleading and sometimes flatly dishonest. But they easily passed the political test -- they were delivered with confidence and they sounded plausible or better. [...]

As the economy continues to 'lose 10-0,' Obama will find it difficult to maintain his popularity. However, the communication skills he has displayed at his press conferences will help keep him afloat, whatever the New York Times thinks. This is not yet an administration in trouble and this president should not be underestimated."

LEST WE FORGET: Everything Taking Too Long

From The Onion:

"WASHINGTON -- An overwhelming sense of restlessness and impatience engulfed the U.S. this week when citizens determined that everything -- the morning commute, phone conversations, getting a table at Chili's, making coffee, commercial breaks, everything -- was taking entirely too long.

'This is ridiculous,' said Boston resident Joe Sosnoff, waiting for a subway train running behind schedule. 'I don't have time for this. I seriously do not have time for this.'

'Oh, for crying out loud,' said Atlanta native Ashley Rose, standing in line at a local Rite Aid pharmacy. 'Open up another register if you have to. What are these people doing? Hanging out?'

Between eye rolls, sighs, and repeated glances at wall clocks, a majority of Americans are reporting that the nation badly needs to pick up the pace. In some cases, including those where things are taking so long that it's not even funny, citizens urged all present to hurry the hell up."

3/27: The Budget That Wasn't

NBC's First Read described yesterday's House GOP budget rollout as "a P.R. disaster for the GOP," and a quick scan of the blogosphere confirms the accuracy of that description. Liberal bloggers are ridiculing the House GOP leadership for unveiling a 19-page document that contains "no hard spending numbers or deficit projections." Ezra Klein snarks: "[It] reads like what would happen if The Onion put together a budget: 'Area Man Releases Proposal for 2010 Federal Spending Priorities.'" Meanwhile, Steve Benen writes: "If Republicans aren't going to take their own ideas seriously, why should anyone else?"

Most conservative bloggers haven't mentioned the GOP alternative budget, but the few who did were disappointed by the lack of details. David Freddoso complains: "[A]fter all of the buildup about the Republican budget, I would have liked to see a budget. Even a one-page budget. [...] But this...well, it's a bottle full of air." Philip Klein agrees, suggesting that the House GOP leadership should have "wait[ed] an extra week to release a serious alternative, rather than rush out a half-baked proposal with few specifics that would be easy to mock." At this point, bloggers on the left and right are both eagerly anticipating the more detailed budget that GOP leaders plan to unveil next week. Liberals will undoubtedly tear it apart, while conservatives will undoubtedly praise it as a superior (and more fiscally responsible) alternative to Pres. Obama's.

What else is happening in the blogosphere?

• Liberal bloggers (Black, Morrill, Bowers, Orton, Benen) are criticizing Sen. Evan Bayh (D-IN) after he defended his Senate Blue Dog caucus by saying: "We literally have no agenda. How can [liberal groups] be threatened by a group that has taken no policy positions?"
• Conservative bloggers (Morrissey, Yousefzadeh, Malkin, Hewitt) are buzzing about yesterday's Chicago Tribune article detailing how WH CoS Rahm Emanuel "made at least $320,000 for a 14-month stint" on Freddie Mac's board.
• Liberal bloggers (Wheeler, Waldman, Aravosis, Willis) are accusing Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA) of operating in bad faith after he proposed "a change in federal law that could force Michelle Obama and future first ladies to do more of their policy work in public."

GOP BUDGET: Is This A Joke?

Liberal bloggers are mocking the House GOP leadership after it unveiled a 19-page alternative budget that contained "no hard spending numbers or deficit projections":

• Klein: "If you're having a bad day, I highly encourage you to spend some quality time with the Republican budget proposal. [It] reads like what would happen if The Onion put together a budget. 'Area Man Releases Proposal for 2010 Federal Spending Priorities.'"
• Balloon Juice's John Cole: "For some reason or another, the Republican leadership held a press conference, held up a blue binder that allegedly held a budget, but didn't really, and the results were pretty disastrous."
• TPM's Elana Schor: "Where's the actual budget? You know, the numbers that show deficit projections and discretionary spending?"
• AMERICAblog's Joe Sudbay: "The big news is that there really is no GOP budget. No numbers, no ideas, no details, no plan. They are the party of 'NO' -- No future."
• Obsidian Wings' hilzoy: "I've been trying to figure out what to say about the House Republicans' new 'budget'. I think it's pretty neat that they decided to use those cute bubbles instead of numbers. Maybe next week they'll present their budget using interpretive dance or little animated jelly beans."
• MyDD's Todd Beeton: "Wow. I guess the Republicans felt they needed to get a handle on this whole 'party of No' meme, the sense that all they did was complain and obstruct rather than offer constructive alternatives. So today, they unveiled their budget alternative, which actually wasn't a budget at all, if by budget you mean, ya know, numbers and stuff. But never again let it be said that Republicans don't know how to bind 18 pages together into a presentable packet."
• Think Progress' Matthew Yglesias: "So taking a first glance at the Republicans' alternative budget proposal, the striking thing is the total lack of real budget numbers. It's full of complaints that the CBO score of Obama's budget leaves the deficit too high -- they have charts and graphs and everything -- but no charts and graphs about the deficits that would be created by their own proposals. After all, as best I can tell they're not proposing drastic cuts to Social Security or to Medicare or to defense but they are promising lower taxes. This should leave them with spending that's not all that much lower than Obama's spending, but revenues that are wildly lower."
• dday: "The President and his team walked into the worst economic crisis in decades [...]. A smart political opposition could take this environment and turn it to their advantage. Fortunately, or unfortunately, depending on your perspective, we don't have one of those. We have one actual political party and a conservative know-nothing rump faction which literally has absolutely no ideas about how to capitalize on this political moment. They released a budget plan today without numbers. No, really."
• The Washington Monthly's Steve Benen: "If Republicans aren't going to take their own ideas seriously, why should anyone else?"

Other liberal bloggers are ridiculing the charts in the GOP budget. Meanwhile, Daily Kos' Jed Lewison snarks: "You know how the GOP promised to propose a budget today, but failed to deliver? Well, do you know when they've repromised to deliver it? Wednesday. Wednesday, April 1. April Fool's Day. The GOP is now promising to deliver its budget on April Fool's Day. They are gold. Pure gold. Pure fool's gold."

GOP BUDGET II: Where's The Beef?

Conservative bloggers were disappointed by the lack of details in the GOP budget:

• NRO's Freddoso: "[A]fter all of the buildup about the Republican budget, I would have liked to see a budget. Even a one-page budget. Frankly, Obama's budget is so bad that I would just like the consolation of seeing someone in power present a realistic plan that doesn't involve tripling the national debt in 10 years. But this...well, it's a bottle full of air. One cannot help but get the impression that Obama's challenge to present an alternative caught the Republicans unprepared. It's great that they're going to present an alternative budget, but it's a bit disappointing to be promised a budget and to get a general statement of policies instead."
• AmSpec Blog's Klein: "[D]espite the macho talk, the 19-page document [House Min. Leader John] Boehner waved included general proposals, but no actual projections of how it would impact the deficit relative to the White House budget. Pretty soon, Republicans were downplaying the booklet as a mere blueprint of their actual budget, to be released next week. And the Politico reported infighting among Republicans, because some members felt (rightly, in my view) that it would be better to wait an extra week to release a serious alternative, rather than rush out a half-baked proposal with few specifics that would be easy to mock. [...] Many conservatives continue to underestimate Obama, pinning him as some naive rube who is in over his head and unable [to] speak without a telepromter. But, while his policies may be dangerous, he remains a skilled politician, and he played this one beautifully."

In a separate post, Klein offers a more specific critique of the GOP budget: "Overall, the biggest problem with the Republican budget is for all of its justified outrage about the exploding debt created by Obama's budget, it makes no serious effort to cut entitlement spending. Sure, there are some fixes around the edges. It would ask wealthier seniors on Medicare to pay more for prescription drugs, allows states more flexibility on Medicaid, and promises to reduce 'waste, fraud, and abuse' of Medicare. That's simply not going to cut it when we're facing a $56 trillion long-term entitlement deficit. It doesn't mention any plans for Social Security. What's alarming is that Republicans are surrendering too much ground to liberals."

Meanwhile, Townhall's Matt Lewis is growing increasingly frustrated with the GOP congressional leadership: "Clearly, John Boehner and [Senate Min. Leader] Mitch McConnell are not equipped or prepared to lead any sort of revolution -- but I'm also beginning to think the same sadly holds true for younger Members of Congress like [House Min. Whip] Eric Cantor and [WI Rep.] Paul Ryan -- both of whom voted for the punitive AIG bonus tax, for example. [...] My guess is conservatives must look outside DC for inspiring young leaders who haven't been beaten-down by DC, who are still bold enough to espouse 'bold colors -- no pale pastels'..."

BAYH: What's The Point Of Forming A Group With No Agenda?

Yesterday we noted that liberal bloggers have been harshly criticizing the moderate Dem coalition created by Sen. Bayh. Yesterday, Bayh responded to his progressive critics by telling Politico, "We literally have no agenda. How can they be threatened by a group that has taken no policy positions?" Liberal bloggers think Bayh's comments are absurd:

• Atrios: "I was going to ask what exactly the point of a congressional group which has taken no positions on anything was, but then I realized the answer was 'getting on the teevee and having David Broder say nice things about me.' Still, if Evan Bayh wants to walk around town with a 'Kick Me' sign on his back I guess he's free to do so."
• Daily Kos' BarbinMD: "His group has no agenda? Then why is it that last week you couldn't swing a dead cat without hitting Bayh as he appeared on one cable news show after another, talking about his group's agenda? Bottom line, Senator Bayh? Don't complain about the reaction you get after you litter the airways with vague, smiling threats about getting your own way."
• MyDD's Josh Orton: "So what's the point? If Bayh refutes the notion that his caucus of self-appointed moderates disagrees with Obama's agenda, then why tie a ribbon around yourself? Does anyone think there's anything here besides an attempt to stay somehow relevant? The Washington political media loves this type of posturing, but is there substance?"
• TAPPED's Tim Fernholz: "[This is] exactly the problem. If there were a 'moderate' agenda, perhaps you could argue it on the merits. But the moderate agenda seems to be focused on making sure people who actually have ideas about policy are considered extreme."
• Open Left's Chris Bowers: "Well Senator Bayh, how can you be for a group, and in fact organize a group, that has no agenda? And anyway, if you don't have an agenda, then how was the group even formed? Was it a random lottery of United States citizens that just happened to select 15 people who were all members of the Democratic caucus in the U.S. Senate? If the group has no agenda, then how was your press release for the group constructed? Was it a dada production where newspapers were cut up, and words were glued randomly to the page? And if the group has no agenda, then should we expect all future votes from the group members to be completely random in nature?"

Benen, on the other hand, thinks Bayh is being disingenuous: "The problem, of course, is that people feel 'threatened' because Bayh and the Blue Dogs do have an agenda, and we've already seen some of their policy positions. The Wall Street Journal noted this morning that the working group's stated goal is to 'protect business interests.' [...] Americans elected Democrats to hold a 58-seat majority in the Senate, and yet, the majority party will struggle to pass it's agenda -- a popular agenda, mind you -- because of Republican obstructionism, and Democrats who prefer to drive with their foot on the brake."

EMANUEL: Why Isn't Congress Taxing His Bonuses?

Conservative bloggers are buzzing about yesterday's Chicago Tribune article detailing how Emanuel "made at least $320,000 for a 14-month stint" on Freddie Mac's board:

• Hot Air's Ed Morrissey: "Capitol Hill exploded in outrage this month when AIG paid retention bonuses to the employees it brought on board to rescue the company from the shoals. What about people in high government office who profited from unethical behavior during the period when the damage got done? Congress could start demanding refunds from those people -- like, say, Barack Obama's chief of staff Rahm Emanuel."
• The New Ledger's Pejman Yousefzadeh: "Read the story and one will see that a lot of easy money was made for very little work -- save the work done by people like Emanuel to ignore shenanigans like accounting tricks that were meant 'to mislead shareholders,' and 'illegally using corporate resources' to raise funds for politicians -- and getting fined for it. Such shoddy business practices and unethical behavior helped lead to Freddie Mac becoming nearly insolvent and being taken over by the government. And Rahm Emanuel got rich in the meantime."
• Michelle Malkin: "So, when's the ACORN/MSM-chartered bus to Rahm's (illegal) apartment departing to protest his ill-gotten gains?"
• Townhall's Hugh Hewitt: "Would [ex-WH CoS] Karl Rove have survived on the White House staff after such a story? Would any Republican?"

ISSA: What's He Got Against Michelle?

Liberal bloggers are accusing Rep. Issa of operating in bad faith after he proposed "a change in federal law that could force Michelle Obama> and future first ladies to do more of their policy work in public":

• Firedoglake's emptywheel: "I'm honestly not surprised that Darrell Issa is so insecure in the face of Michelle Obama's buff triceps that he is now trying to regulate her. [...] But I want to know where the fuck Darrell Issa was when we were trying to protect 'the historic role of the Vice President' for the last eight years?!?!? I mean, Issa had no problem with Mr. Fourth Branch conducting major policy work in hiding. But apparently he has decided now is the time to regulate Veeps and First Ladies."
• Daily Kos' David Waldman: "[I]sn't it interesting that the mere fact that the measure is being proposed by Darrell Issa (R-CA-49) makes you suspect that he's got no serious interest in this other than being a dick?"
• AMERICAblog's John Aravosis: "The House Republicans are now afraid of Michelle Obama. Not that they shouldn't be. The woman could clearly kick most of their asses. But they're so afraid of her that they're now trying to pass laws reining her in? The Republican obsession with targeting their enemies' wives is alive and well in the form of GOP Rep. Darrell Issa of California."
• Oliver Willis: "My memory may be rusty but it feels like [GOPers] waited until at least the six month point to completely lose their marbles against President Clinton. Then again, we know the Obamas are more exotic *wink* *wink* *nudge* *nudge* than the Clintons."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: What's The Role Of A White House Correspondent?

On Wednesday we observed that liberal bloggers took a lot of pleasure in Obama's pithy response to a question from CNN's Ed Henry during Tuesday night's press conference. Henry subsequently wrote a column about the exchange in which he explained that his "strategy" going into the press conference was to "make news on something unexpected." Ezra Klein thinks Henry's incentives are out of whack:

"'Make news' is an interesting formulation for a reporter. I'm pretty sure the J School graduates are taught to 'report' news, or maybe 'explain' news. But creating news is rather a different goal. Inserting himself into the story, however, is well-aligned with Ed Henry's incentives. A lot more people know Ed Henry's name today than did a week ago. Henry can now write a column congratulating himself for standing tall in the face of the President's ire. It's similarly well-aligned with his industry's incentives. Though the American people might appreciate seeing the President offer a substantive explanation of his policy ideas -- 32 million of them, after all, watched the press conference for exactly that -- it's not the sort of thing that the cable channels can replay in bite-sized chunks. They're better off 'making' a new news story that can lead tomorrow's Situation Room."

LEST WE FORGET: Nature Decays, But Latinum Lasts Forever

Yglesias:

"With Fox News and [Matt] Drudge stoking fears of a new global currency the question naturally arises of what to call the currency. One option, based on analogy with the Euro, would be to call it the Globo. On the other hand, part of the appeal of 'Euro' is that it's solid multi-lingual word -- something that works as well in Portugese as it does in Finnish. On the world-wide scale, I'm not sure there's anything truly similar that works.

One leading contender in the future monetary policy literature is the 'credit' found in Galactic Empire's as varied as George Lucas' and Isaac Asimov's. There's also the 'cubit' from Battlestar [Galactica] which actually manages to stay in use despite the near-total destruction of humanity.

But Glenn Beck should consider that the left's agenda goes considerably beyond a black helicopter-based global monetary system. The ultimate aim is to establish a Star Trek-style post-capitalist society in which there's no currency whatsoever. Fortunately, the Trek universe does provide some refuge for the right -- the Ferengi who stand strong against the collectivist proclivities of their Alpha Quadrant neighbors. They, of course, have moved beyond fiat currency to a sound money system based on the un-replicatable liquid latinum; used in its gold-pressed form as a convenient means of exchange."

3/26: Senators Under Fire

As we reported earlier this month, liberal bloggers reacted angrily when a group of moderate Dem senators began devising ways to push back against Pres. Obama's budget proposals. Yesterday, three of the leaders of this moderate group -- Sens. Evan Bayh (D-IN), Blanche Lincoln (D-AR), and Tom Carper (D-DE) -- wrote a Washington Post op-ed reassuring their progressive critics that they don't intend to "water down the president's agenda." However, lefty blogggers were not persuaded by this op-ed. Some of them are complaining that Bayh and his moderate colleagues have "apparently been cryogenically frozen for the last 16 years" and that they still think it's 1993, where conservatives are ascendant and the newly-elected Dem president is in a weak position. Others are arguing that Dems should reform the Senate filibuster rules instead of empowering the party's moderates to try to broker compromises with "reasonable Republicans" (as Bayh, Lincoln, and Carper suggested). Finally, several bloggers are accusing Bayh of being a shill for corporate interests who wants to weaken progressive legislation for selfish reasons, not out of a genuine desire to help the President.

Meanwhile, conservative bloggers are blasting the Serve America Act (known as the GIVE Act in the House), which expands volunteer service opportunities for students and seniors. Righty bloggers are calling it the "Hitler Youth Bill" and claiming that it's "reminiscent of the old Soviet Union." Conservative bloggers are also criticizing the GOP senators who supported the bill (such as GA Sen. Johnny Isakson) and praising those who opposed it (such as SC Sen. Jim DeMint).

BAYH: Who Are These "Reasonable Republicans" He's Talking About?

In yesterday's Washington Post op-ed, Sens. Bayh, Lincoln, and Carper wrote:

"As moderate leaders, it is not our intent to water down the president's agenda. We intend to strengthen and sustain it. [...] The stakes are too high for Democrats to fear a policy debate. Such debates produce better legislation. On nearly all important votes, a supermajority of 60 senators will be needed to pass legislation. Without Democratic moderates working to find common ground with reasonable Republicans, the president's agenda could well be filibustered into oblivion."

Liberal bloggers didn't find this op-ed very persuasive:

• Think Progress' Matthew Yglesias: "Who are the Republicans they're going to work with? [PA Sen.] Arlen Specter who's running scared of a primary challenge from the right and flip-flopping as fast as he can to base-friendly territory?"
• The Washington Monthly's Steve Benen: "So, Bayh & Co. will water down make legislation less progressive so Republicans will be less inclined to oppose key bills. Is this a recipe for success? We saw this play out during the stimulus debate, and the result was a weaker and insufficient bill. (Indeed, the same Democrats want to make it easier for Republicans to filibuster health care and energy bills. I wonder why that is?) This is built on a faulty premise of negotiating from weakness. Democrats start off with a popular president, a popular agenda, and a 58-vote majority. Instead of wondering how to make good legislation worse to make [ME Sen. Susan] Collins, [ME Sen. Olympia] Snowe, and Specter happy, perhaps the majority party should consider a) reforming the filibuster rules; or b) pressuring Republican 'centrists' to vote for good bills that will make them more popular back home."
• AMERICAblog's Joe Sudbay: "Um, when was the last time there was a productive debate in the Senate? And, um, where are those reasonable Republicans? Bayh is living in a world doesn't exist anymore. From what I can tell, the bridge these folks are building is just a place for them to negotiate with themselves. That's a classic move from this new spineless caucus. We were hoping those days of caving in to the GOP were over when the Democrats had such big wins last November. Not to be. The Republican Party wants Obama to fail -- and they are unabashed about it. And, the true result of this cabal of 'moderate' Democrats, while negotiating with themselves, is to abet the GOP and undermine the Obama agenda."
• MyDD's Todd Beeton: "You see, just like Susan Collins, their relevance depends on this [60-vote] threshold remaining in place. It's no accident that 8 Senators signed the letter -- that's precisely the difference between the number of Dem Senators we have (pending [Al] Franken's arrival) and the number needed to deliver a majority (50 votes + [VP Joe] Biden's tie break.)."

TAPPED's Tim Fernholz finds a silver lining: "It's a good sign, at least, that Bayh et. al. have faced enough political pressure that they felt it necessary to come forward and reiterate their support for the president."

BAYH II: Um, Guys? This Ain't 1993.

Liberal bloggers were also critical of Bayh, Lincoln, and Carper's comparison of the current political climate to that of 1993:

"In 1993, the three of us, as much younger politicians, stood with great expectations as the last Democratic president was sworn in with big plans, a head of steam and a Democratic Congress ready to begin a new progressive era. In less than two years, it all came crashing down, with disillusioned moderate voters handing the GOP broad congressional victories in 1994."

• Daily Kos' Markos Moulitsas: "Bayh, Carper and Lincoln, clearly feeling the heat for being idiots, try to defend themselves in the pages of the WaPo. The takeaway? They've apparently been cryogenically frozen for the last 16 years. [...] Bayh is particularly funny, since he doesn't seem to realize that Obama won his home state of Indiana -- without the benefit of coming from a political dynasty -- in one of the most dramatic electoral comebacks for a party in any state (20-point shift in one cycle). The political equation is changing and these self-styled 'moderates' don't just appear to be stuck in the past, but they actually admit that they're stuck in the past."
• Benen: "Um, guys? 2009 is not 1993. The party would be wise to start realizing this. Obama has more support than [Bill] Clinton did 16 years ago, Democrats have more seats than they did 16 years ago, and the broader political dynamic has flipped -- Republicans were in ascension then, and are in decline now. Bayh and the Blue Dogs are acting shell-shocked, and it's clouding their judgment."
• Fernholz: "They worry that the president's agenda is going to alienate moderates and cost him his his political support, just as it did Bill Clinton in 1993. Except, you know, that Obama won a lot more votes than Clinton -- moderate votes! -- and that he continues to have the approval of moderates, all while saying the same things. [...] Bayh continues to misunderstand the current political dynamic, or he's stuck in the past."

BAYH III: Putting K Street Ahead Of Main Street?

Meanwhile, several liberal bloggers are questioning Bayh's motives, as they believe that he's simply a shill for corporate interests who likes to present himself a "centrist":

• Firedoglake's Jane Hamsher: "This is nothing more than a naked power grab by corpratists who use the conservative bent of their districts to push through legislation on behalf of lobbyists and control campaign cash, and become the arbiters of any law that gets through Congress. It's Jack Abramoff/Tom DeLay all over again. [...] Bayh's little 'lobbyist problem' is considered by many to be what tanked his Vice Presidential aspirations. His wife Susan [Bayh] earns about $837,000 a year serving on seven corporate boards, among them Wellpoint, a health insurance company for which Bayh helped secure a $24.7 million dollar grant. She's on the board of ETrade, even as Bayh is on the Senate Finance Committee. Bayh wants people to believe he's a 'moderate' who sits in the 'center.' Center of K Street, maybe."
• Sudbay: "[A]t the same time Bayh is purporting to be a great man of the moderates, he's been doing the bidding of the banking industry to water down the mortgage cram down bill, which has passed the House. [...] This is happening, as Jane [Hamsher] notes, even as Bayh's home state, Indiana, is suffering a huge foreclosure problem. The original House-passed bill could benefit his own constituents, but Bayh is siding with bankers. There doesn't have to be a narrowing of the bill, but Bayh and his crew are doing it anyway. Negotiating with themselves, again."

SERVE AMERICA ACT: The Hitler Youth Bill?

Conservative bloggers are blasting the Serve America Act (known as the GIVE Act in the House), which is "designed to create new volunteer service opportunities, building on a larger call to service by President Barack Obama and the AmeriCorps program model":

• RedState's hogan: "This bill should scare the hell out of every American Our national government in Washington...are now going to tell us how to volunteer, and start telling our kids that they must volunteer and with whom they must do it. This is a complete outrage -- and reminiscent of the old Soviet Union."
• Gateway Pundit: "House Passes Hitler Youth Bill: Obama promised during the campaign to create a Socialist National Civilian Security Force similar to what they have in other Marxist regimes. Yesterday, the US House took the first step in organizing Dear Leader's dream youth service corp. [...] The bill includes language indicating young people will be forced to participate in mandatory national service programs. The bill also states that 'service learning' will be a mandatory part of the youth curriculum. That doesn't sound much like 'volunteerism' does it?"
• Michelle Malkin: "If this does lead to the establishment of a civilian national security force, as Obama signaled during the campaign, Republicans who vote for this Trojan Horse will have no one to blame but themselves."
• Hot Air's Ed Morrissey: "Republicans have an opportunity to stand for individual liberty and the limitation of government control over the lives of young people across the nation by opposing GIVE's new study and all talk of compulsory service. Ask college-age students how they feel about taking two years out of their post-educational lives to dig ditches and build bridges not because they want to do it, but because it will become illegal to refuse. I suspect they will start Google-mapping the best routes to Canada -- or stop voting for the people proposing to enslave them."

Meanwhile, RedState's Erick Erickson blasts Sen. Isakson for supporting the bill: "Isakson speaking out on this is going to royally hack off the Republican base in Georgia, perhaps even more so than Saxby [Chambliss] did. This is a 'hill to die on' piece of legislation for many conservatives and libertarians. Already radio host Mark Levin is on offense against Isakson. It's only a matter of time before [Rush] Limbaugh, [Sean] Hannity, and local radio hosts in Georgia go after him. Isakson has been a part of every unpopular compromise with the Democrats in the past few years -- from immigration to energy. Being on the ballot in 2010, you'd think he would have learned from Saxby Chambliss's mistakes. Isakson has just become more beatable. Now the Democrats just need to find a credible challenger."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Not Everyone Believes

As he so often does, NRO's Victor Davis Hanson captures the conservative id, blasting Obama's domestic policy, foreign policy, and teleprompter use:

"For some reason, I don't believe that eventually halving the now-tripled budget deficit means either a better net yearly financial picture or less accumulated aggregate debt. And for some reason, I don't believe that promises of the most ethical cabinet in history result in anything different from what we've seen in the past. And, for some reason, I don't believe that talking about government waste and financial sobriety means reduced government expenditure. And for some reason, I don't believe that much publicized outreach to the Russians, Syrians, Iranians, and Hamas will result in either in a safer world or an enhanced reputation of the United States. And, for some reason, I don't believe that 'Bush did it' and 'We inherited [fill in the blanks]' is either 'bipartisanship' or will ever really cease. And, for some reason, I just don't believe that teleprompted eloquence is the same thing as either impromptu mastery of issues, candor and modesty, or good-faith governance."

LEST WE FORGET: It Could Be Worse

From FMyLife.com:

• Today, I saw an elderly man fall in a crosswalk, so I jumped off my bike to help. As I helped him across, the light turned green. At that point I noticed my phone had fallen out of my pocket in the street and was run over by several cars. I then watched across a 6 lane street as someone stole my bike. FML.
• Today, I went to McDonald's for lunch and ordered a salad. The man behind the counter looked at me and said "Well, at least you're trying." FML.
• Today, I was talking to my 81-year-old widowed grandmother on the phone, and she told me she was giving up sex for lent. Not only do I now have a vision of my grandma having sex, I am reminded that she is having more sex than me. FML.
• Today, I rolled over a curb and bent one of the signs that read "Please Park Here After Your Road Test," at the DMV, because my foot slipped off the brake just before I put the car in park, which would've ended my test. The first words out of the examiner's mouth were, "Well you would've passed." FML.
• Today, I went on a blind date that my sister had set up. When I arrived at the coffee shop, I approached a man waiting by the counter, asking if his name was Tim (my date's name). He looked at me and said no and then left with a drink clearly labeled "Tim" in bold letters. FML.

3/25: Another Presser, Come And Gone

Liberal bloggers were impressed by Pres. Obama's performance at last night's press conference, praising his "reassuring" demeanor and his "ready and mainly unflappable command of the issues confronting the country". Not surprisingly, conservative bloggers felt differently, criticizing Obama's "defensiveness" and his reliance on a teleprompter during his opening remarks. Righty bloggers were particularly annoyed by what they perceived to be Obama's dishonest remarks about the impact of his proposed budget on the deficit.

In other news, liberal bloggers think that Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA) made a mistake by reversing his position on the Employee Free Choice Act. Jake McIntyre describes Specter's move as "a classic case of winning the battle and losing the war, as it's hard to imagine Specter surviving a concerted Democratic effort in increasingly blue Pennsylvania without the longstanding support of organized labor." Conservative bloggers, meanwhile, are praising Specter's rumored '10 primary challenger, ex-Rep. Pat Toomey (R-PA), for forcing Specter to change his position on the EFCA. However, Michelle Malkin isn't ready to forgive Specter: "If he thinks one right vote will mitigate the mountain of all the wrong ones, he is mistaken."

OBAMA PRESS CONFERENCE: Steady As He Goes

Most liberal bloggers were impressed by Obama's performance at last night's press conference:

• TPM's Josh Marshall: "One thing that was clear from tonight's press conference was why the White House keeps wanting to get Obama out in front of the cameras and on TV. Obama has a ready and mainly unflappable command of the issues confronting the country, which I think people find reassuring in itself."
• AMERICAblog's Joe Sudbay: "That was some performance by the President last night. He's good. [...He] knows what he's talking about. And, while the talking head types seem to believe the GOP talking point that Obama is doing too much, he explained repeatedly how issues are interwoven. That makes sense to the American people, but I don't think too many of our 'elites' can grasp that."
• digby: "Obama was fine and sounded reassuring which is the reason they did it."
• Obsidian Wings' hilzoy: "I saw Obama's press conference, and I thought it was quite good, in a sober, unremarkable way."
• The Atlantic's James Fallows: "After seeing a session like this, it is hard to understand how right-wingers can keep up their 'Obama can't talk without his teleprompter' theory -- although it's hard to know, given his campaign-debate performance etc, how anyone could have advanced this view in the first place."

Liberal bloggers particularly liked Obama's pithy response to Ed Henry's question about why Obama waited "days" before denouncing the AIG bonuses ("It took us a couple of days because I like to know what I'm talking about before I speak"):

• Balloon Juice's John Cole: "Was that as good for the rest of you as it was for me?"
• Daily Kos' Jed Lewison: "How can you not love this response to a stupid and loaded question about AIG from CNN's Ed Henry (a former gossip columnist)."
• Mother Jones' Kevin Drum: "OK, this was good. Ed Henry asked Obama why it took him a few days to respond to the AIG bonus scandal. Answer: 'It took me a couple of days because I like to know what I'm talking about before I say something.' Ba-da-bum!"
• Thers: "Ed Henry...now carries his ass in a brown paper bag."

OBAMA PRESS CONFERENCE II: Chuck Todd Demands Sacrifice!

Liberal bloggers very critical of Chuck Todd's question about why Obama hadn't "asked for something specific that the public should be sacrificing to participate in this economic recovery":

• Marshall: "Not sure I'm getting Chuck Todd's question. Isn't the public sacrificing by lots of people losing their jobs and the whole country going into a huge amount of debt? I like Chuck Todd...but maybe that question needed to be thought out a little more clearly."
• Open Left's Chris Bowers: "Chuck Todd ask[ed] the ultimate Village question: 'why aren't you asking people to make sacrifices during a major recession[?]' Apparently, Todd is unaware that the recession has caused more than five million people to lose their jobs, a similar number to lose their heatlh care, millions to put off retirement, and millions more to lose their homes. Nope, no one is making any sacrafices out here in the provinces, Chuck."
• digby: "What do you think the highly paid celebrity Chuck Todd should be asked to 'sacrifice,' do you suppose?"
• Balloon Juice's DougJ: "God, these people are predictable."
• Think Progress' Matthew Yglesias: "Apparently Chuck Todd asked President Obama why he isn't asking people to 'sacrifice' more amidst the recession. The standard progressive answer to this starts by observing that the hundreds of thousands of people who are losing their jobs each week are, presumably, sacrificing. I take it that their spouses and kids are also sacrificing. And though they don't count in the job loss tallies, I also spare some thoughts for the young people leaving school and coming into the workforce at a time when nobody's hiring anyone. This all seems like a lot of sacrifice."

Yglesias continues: "A lot of people in the press seem obsessed with the idea that it would be noble for politicians to ask people to sacrifice. But in general, the whole idea in public policy is to make things better, not worse, so the logic here is a bit hard to understand. [...] Alternatively, underlying this is the idea that if some of us sacrificed that would make things better for other people. This is true in a certain narrow sense. If [Citigroup CEO] Vikram Pandit sacrificed some of the money he has and mailed it to some unemployed former manufacturing workers in the rust belt, they'd be in somewhat better shape. But if Americans were to collectively sacrifice -- everyone agree to eat only potatoes on Wednesdays or something -- that wouldn't help anyone except the potato farmers. Consumption in a market economically is almost always a positive-sum exchange; economic growth, and therefore prosperity, requires more economic activity, not more sacrifice. If the big national problem were a giant war, things might be different -- we could all conserve gasoline and save it to fuel the tanks. But it's hard to see how sacrifice could solve the problem of rapidly rising unemployment."

OBAMA PRESS CONFERENCE III: Prime Time Suck

Not surprisingly, conservative bloggers were not impressed by Obama's performance:

• Townhall's Hugh Hewitt: "Last night's press conference telegraphed increasing insecurity on the president's part about his budget and about his way forward. Filibusters are not the tactics of the confident, and the defensiveness throughout the Q-and-A underscores President Obama's nervousness that large parts of his own party in Congress are revolting from the prospect of this massive lurch towards wild spending in support of half-baked dreams of remaking the country."
• NRO's Mark Hemingway: "Alex Conant, the former RNC press secretary and author of this insightful Politico piece last week, observes on Twitter: ...Why did we have a primetime news conference tonight? What was the news? What was his message? I'm so confused by WH's strategy... I think a lot of people are wondering about that right now."
• RedState's Jeff Emanuel: "Here's a tip for Democrats: it's not the end of the world when your leader is poorly-spoken, unable to stay on message, and devoid of any specific ideas or leadership ability -- but the first step in addressing that reality is cutting through the denial and admitting you have the problem in the first place. [...A]n inability to speak in public isn't the worst thing in the world. After all, we've all known for quite some time now that Barack Obama is no Ronald Reagan."
• The New Ledger's Pejman Yousefzadeh: "[W]hen it comes to press conferences and other events in which the President is forced to engage in give-and-take with reporters, Barack Obama comes down to Earth quite noticeably. And why shouldn't he? As good a speaker as he is, as intelligent a politician as he has proven himself to be, he still tries to defend indefensible policies against the questions of a press corps that surprisingly proves itself to be skeptical at key moments. No one should expect the results to be all that pretty."

Righty bloggers were particularly annoyed by what they perceived to be Obama's dishonest remarks about the impact of his proposed budget on the deficit.

SPECTER: See? Primary Challenges Work!

Liberal bloggers are buzzing about Specter's announcement that he will not vote for cloture on the Employee Free Choice Act, even though he co-sponsored the bill in 2005 and voted for cloture in 2007. Lefty bloggers don't buy Specter's claim that "the problems of a recession make this a particularly bad time to enact [the EFCA]"; they believe that he changed his position in an attempt to fend off a primary challenge from Toomey:

• Daily Kos' Markos Moulitsas: "Specter will vote against cloture for EFCA. Says he'll wait until economy improves, but really he meant 'when I survive my primary.'"
• Ezra Klein: "For some time, Specter was the sole Republican supporting card check in the Senate. Now, facing a primary challenge from Pat Toomey and a lot of corporate money and pressure, he's folded."
• AMERICAblog's John Aravosis: "Arlen Specter has never been much of a profile in courage. In fact, he's been a profile in moderate Republicanism. Claim you're a moderate, but then cave when the Rush Limbaugh wing of the party threatens to be mean to you. And he did it again today."
• Yglesias: "[Specter] has a nominal rationale [for changing his position], but I think it's fair to say that an important consideration is his need to fend off a primary challenge from Pat Toomey. If Specter hews to the anti-union lines, many business-types will support him in the primaries as the candidate more likely to hold the seat for the GOP. But if Specter were to cross big business on EFCA, the nomination would be as good as Toomey's. Specter secured substantial union support in his last re-election bid, but after selling labor out on their key priority he now looks like a much more vulnerable general election candidate than he was last time around."
• Firedoglake's Jane Hamsher: "What can you say, as we knew when we formed Accountability Now -- primaries work."

That said, Hamsher is not happy about this outcome: "As bankers gleefully rub their hands at the prospect of their trillion dollar gift from [Treasury Sec.] Timothy Geithner with no limits on what they can pay themselves, the one thing that might have made a tiny dent in the huge transfer of wealth taking place in this country is tabled -- for now. [...] President Obama has expressed strong support for the Employee Free Choice Act. He's shown that he's very good at making the case to the American public about why something needs to happen. If he genuinely believes in it and thinks it's important legislation, he could easily resurrect it, and I very much hope that he will."

SPECTER II: Winning The Battle, But Losing The War?

Several liberal bloggers think Specter's reversal will ultimately hurt his chances of winning re-election:

• TAPPED's Tim Fernholz: "[Specter] may not make it through the 2010 elections unscathed; even if he survives his primary, the lack of union support that will result from this decision could be deeply problematic in the general election."
• MyDD's Jonathan Singer: "My prediction, on the basis of this move, is that Specter will not win a sixth term in the United States Senate. I just don't see the path. Even with this move, Specter isn't going to be able to make it out of a Republican primary. He only narrowly beat Toomey in 2004, with the White House on his side, with [ex-PA Sen.] Rick Santorum on his side, with the fact that the GOP held just a two-seat majority in the Senate at the time on his side, etc. Unless Specter already struck a deal with Toomey -- that in return for Specter siding with the GOP corporatists against working Americans on EFCA, Toomey wouldn't run in the primary -- I can't see a path to renomination for Specter. And given that this move has alienated organized labor, which was likely to support him as an Independent had he supported EFCA, I can't see the path to Specter winning in a three-way race as an Independent against Toomey and a strong Democrat."
• Daily Kos' McIntyre: "Perhaps Specter is so freaked out by a 2010 primary challenge from the right -- probably from former-Rep. Pat Toomey -- that he felt he couldn't stick to his guns on Employee Free Choice. If so, it's shaping up to be a classic case of winning the battle and losing the war, as it's hard to imagine Specter surviving a concerted Democratic effort in increasingly blue Pennsylvania without the longstanding support of organized labor. And one would have to believe that such support will not be forthcoming in the wake of his betrayal on the single most important piece of labor law reform in 50 years. Looks like he just doesn't want to get reelected."
• Obsidian Wings' publius: "I think his new position shows that he fears Toomey more than the Democrats at the moment. And that calculation may be correct -- it certainly was in 2004. But make no mistake, this switch -- in union-heavy PA -- makes his general re-election much tougher, assuming the Democrats get their act together. At the moment, though, he apparently doesn't feel much pressure on his left flank. The story also illustrates another timeless truth -- the best way to get progressive policies enacted is to defeat Republicans. They simply aren't going to come around on anything important."

SPECTER III: Thank You, Toomey!

Like their liberal counterparts, conservative bloggers believe that Toomey deserves the credit for Specter's switch:

• Townhall's Matt Lewis: "Conservatives are often warned not to 'primary' liberal Republicans, but yesterday was an example of how the mere threat of a primary can yield tremendously favorable results. Specter was essentially the deciding vote on this important issue, and the threat of losing his seat appears to have been enough to make him see the light..."
• Hot Air's Ed Morrissey: "I'd guess that Specter understands the dilemma in which he finds himself after his vote on Porkulus. He's rumored to be thinking about a Joe Lieberman-like run as an independent, because his polling among Pennsylvania Republicans has plummeted ever since. He wants to convince the state GOP to run an open primary, because Pat Toomey will clobber him if the primaries remain closed and independents and Democrats don't get an opportunity to support him."

NRO's Peter Kirsanow warns opponents of the EFCA not to rejoice too soon: "Although this is a significant blow to labor's agenda, the battle is far from over. [...] EFCA proponents aren't going away. There are several compromises that have been floated over the last several weeks (especially keep a sharp eye on 'equal access' proposals). One or more will become the new focus of lobbying efforts. Since EFCA supporters are certain to change their legislative strategy, opponents must also. They'll be making a big mistake if they relax their efforts -- the horse-trading may be just beginning in earnest."

Meanwhile, Malkin isn't ready to forgive Specter: "This is a huge relief. Democrats are one short of the 60 needed to move it forward. But it's no time to do cartwheels over Specter. He handed the Generational Theft Act to the Democrats. He voted to kill the D.C. school choice program. He supported AG Eric Holder. And that's just this year. If he thinks one right vote will mitigate the mountain of all the wrong ones, he is mistaken."

AIG BONUSES: See What You've Done, Congress?

Conservative bloggers are buzzing about the resignation letter (published in today's New York Times) of Jake DeSantis, an executive VP of AIG's financial products unit:

• Glenn Reynolds: "[It's] a letter from John Galt."
• Power Line's Scott Johnson: "The letter by AIG executive Jake DeSantis submitting his resignation should be a cause of shame for the politicians and pundits hounding AIG in connection with its payment of retention bonuses. [...] Among those for whom DeSantis's letter should be a cause for shame are Barack Obama, Timothy Geithner, [Speaker] Nancy Pelosi, [NY AG] Andrew Cuomo, [CT AG] Richard Blumenthal and the many journalists and pundits who have egged them on, such as the one who credited Cuomo for his good works last night at Obama's press conference."
• Morrissey: "The US has invested over $150 billion in AIG, expecting to get at least some of that value returned. If not, we could simply have made direct payments on behalf of AIG to its creditors and allowed the company to go bankrupt. In order to get value back out of the company, we need to have people on board who understand the complicated financial provisions of AIG's problems and can apply the investment towards resolving them. In other words, we needed Jake DeSantis on that wall, and we just did everything we could to knock him off of it, along with the rest of his colleagues. [...] Now DeSantis is leaving, and the rest of the people that we've pilloried without having a clue who they were, what they did, and what they're doing now will probably follow as soon as they can find jobs. Why rescue a bunch of ingrates, after all? Let Obama, Barney Frank, and [CT Sen.] Chris Dodd rescue AIG instead."

Many righty bloggers are still upset about what they perceive to be Congress's overreach following the revelation of the AIG bonuses:

• NRO's Mark Steyn: "I wonder if Senator [Chuck] Grassley (Republican, of course) is pleased that AIG honchos are now doing as instructed and falling on their swords. As I said a few days ago, if you own even modest assets (a small house, a savings account) and you think that in a battle between the political class and the business class it's in your interest for the latter to lose, you're a fool who entirely deserves the vaporization of his wealth on which Barney Frank & Co have embarked."
• RedState's Skanderbeg: "It looks like the moronic 'clawback' provision that was mobbed through the House has been allowed to vanish in the Senate -- which is a start. But this matter is surfacing all sorts of appalling worries. Will we soon face national income caps? And has the Congress forgotten about that old document known as 'The Constitution?' [...] The economic damage is indeed about a lot more than AIG or Wall Street. These sorts of lawless shenanigans are destroying value and wealth all over the place."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Putting Catastrophe In Perspective

Yglesias:

"Here's one thing I completely agree with William Galston about: A strong cap-and-trade program seems relatively unlikely to pass. Many Democratic Senators represent relatively coal-dependent states, Republicans seem determined to mount uniform opposition to even the Obama administration's most popular initiatives, and given the economic downturn voters seem maximally likely to be open to pollution lobby arguments that letting them destroy the planet is crucial to America's economic health. I also agree with Galston that one might deem this looking collision between Obama's policy goals and the realities of congressional politics a 'catastrophe.'

Where he goes wrong is that he seems to see this primarily as a political calamity in terms of the administration's standing both domestically and in the eyes of international participants at the coming Copenhagen conference. That's all true enough, but I think it's important for people not to write about this issue without mentioning that failure to start reducing carbon emissions in the very near term is a substantive human and ecological catastrophe. Absent emissions reductions, the globe will continue to warm. [...] Climate change means drought and famine, flood and forest fire, all in new and unprepared places. People will die. In the developing world where large numbers of people still subsist in an essentially malthusian state, the stress on resources will lead to armed conflict and even more death, but here in the developed world things won't be pretty either. Essential as it may be for the administration to savvily adapt its goals to political reality, it's even more essential for members of congress to adapt their political goals to real-world reality."

LEST WE FORGET: Area Dad Botches 'Princess Bride' Quote

From The Onion:

"LIVONIA, NY -- Mere hours after watching Rob Reiner's classic 1987 film The Princess Bride with his children, area father William Loomis badly botched some of the most familiar lines from the movie, sources reported Monday. 'My friend Laura came over and my dad greeted her at the door by saying, "Hello. I am Diego Montoya. You killed my father. Now you will die,"' said Loomis' 17-year-old daughter Erica. 'Then at dinner he started waving his wine glass and yelling, "irreconcilable!" over and over again in this sort of Elmer Fudd voice. That's not even the right speech impediment.' Loomis has a history of bungling well-known cultural references, most notably in 1985 when he spent all summer asking family members, 'Where's the meat?'"

3/24: The Netroots Still Ain't Sold

Liberal bloggers continue to criticize Treasury Sec. Tim Geithner's plan for dealing with toxic bank assets. Many are citing New York Times columnist Paul Krugman strident criticism of Geithner's plan, noting that Krugman "just won the Nobel prize in economics" and that he "has an exceptional track record over the past decade". Liberal bloggers aren't putting much stock in the fact that the financial markets appeared to respond favorably to Geithner's proposals. Ezra Klein writes: "[W]hen you're offering this direct of a subsidy to Wall Street, I don't know that you can intuit much from Wall Street's reaction besides the fact that they're thrilled with the subsidy."

What else is happening in the blogosphere?

• Conservative bloggers (Hinderaker, Morrissey, Reynolds, Lane) are buzzing about John Zogby's hint that his latest poll will show Pres. Obama's job approval rating at "about 50-50."
• Conservative bloggers (Hewitt, Fowler, Hogan) are furious that The University of Notre Dame has invited Obama to speak at this year's commencement.
• Liberal bloggers (Benen, Beeton, Blue Texan) are criticizing Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN) after she urged an "armed" revolt over the Dem cap-and-trade proposal.
• Liberal bloggers (Jaikumar, Orton, digby, Serwer, Benen, Sudbay) are blasting Fox News host Bill O'Reilly after one of his producers followed a liberal blogger while she was on vacation.

GEITHNER TOXIC ASSETS PLAN: Comin' Under Fire

Liberal bloggers continue to attack Geithner's plan:

• Firedoglake's Scarecrow: "I used to believe that massive government fraud and corruption was something that took place behind the scenes. If anyone tried it in the light of day, they'd be summarily fired, publically vilified, and probably indicted. But Tim Geithner's plan to remove toxic assets from the banking system is making it all respectable."
• Atrios: "The Geithner plan will: (1) Funnel more government money to the banksters. (2) Allow the banksters to pretend for a bit longer that their hunks of big shitpile aren't quite as shitty as we thought by using the bullshit price that this process comes up with, allowing too big to fail businesses to stay in business for a bit longer. This might make sense if you truly believe the magic market you believe in fervently is genuinely incorrectly pricing the assets, perhaps because you genuinely believe that if you could turn around the economy fast enough that you could massively reduce expected foreclosures. But if you genuinely believe that, I don't think you've been paying too much attention to just what's been going on in the housing market. I don't think you paid too much attention 3 years ago when you didn't realize that it didn't quite make sense that so many people could afford $700,000+ homes in Orange County. I don't think you paid too much attention to the degree of speculation and outright fraud that was happening in parts of the country."
• Open Left's Chris Bowers: "The question of the day is whether or not the Obama administration's 'new' bailout plan, presented today by Treasury Secretary Geithner, will work. Over the weekend, Paul Krugman was the leading voice of 'no, it probably won't.' On the other side, [Berkeley econ. prof] Brad DeLong was the main proponent of 'yes, it probably will.' Lacking relevant policy expertise, I am not going to pretend that I can determine whether Krugman or DeLong is correct. [...] So, rather than sitting here and pretending that I know what will happen, I am just going to be honest and say that I don't trust the people who got us into this mess to fix the mess."
• Firedoglake's Jane Hamsher: "Timothy Geithner's new TALF/PPiP/FDIC* plan, like all his other plans, seems designed to shovel billions into the coffers of the very same bankers who got rich on the mortgage bubble. [...] Geithner seems to believe that there is an elite class of bankers in this country who must make money no matter what happens, who should never be held to account, and whose interests should always come first in any plan the government devises. Do you get a chance to make money in this 'off-the-charts good' investing opportunity? Noooo, these loans that nobody has to pay back aren't being offered to the public. The public understands what's going on all too well. The same thieves are back again to pick their pockets in broad daylight, thanks to the tireless efforts of Timothy Geithner on their behalf."

Several liberal bloggers disputed Hamsher's complaint that "these loans that nobody has to pay back aren't being offered to the public":

• Think Progress' Matthew Yglesias: "To be fair, you do need to pay the loan back if you make money. But it's a loan that sharply limits your downside risk and gives you some shot at a substantial payoff. It's not a good investment for everyone, but I would say that for a lot of people who are in a position to be fairly risk-friendly with their money (the youngish and employed, basically) it's a good deal. [...] I'm pretty sure, though, that the public actually can come to the party. It says in my fact sheet, 'A broad array of investors are expected to participate in the Legacy Loans Program. The participation of individual investors, pension plans, insurance companies and other long-term investors is particularly encouraged.'"
• BooMan: "[T]he 'off-the-charts good investment opportunity' that Jane is referring to is not TALF, but the buying up of toxic assets from a nationalized bank administered by the FDIC. That's exactly the kind of arrangement that so many on the left are urging on Geithner. The reason you and I are not being offered sweetheart deals to buy toxic assets in either the nationalization process or the TALF process is not because Tim Geithner wants to screw us, but because we don't have the money to buy them. In reality, any of us can start a hedge fund and be eligible to participate if we can convince other people to let us manage their money."

GEITHNER TOXIC ASSETS PLAN II: Following Krugman's Lead

Many liberal bloggers are echoing Krugman's criticism of Geithner's plan:

• TalkLeft's Big Tent Democrat: "Krugman and Atrios speak for me. This [plan] is a disgrace and it will not work."
• AMERICAblog's John Aravosis: "Whether or not the administration likes or respects Krugman, a lot of other people do (including the Nobel committee). And his incessant criticism of the administration's economic plans is increasingly disturbing. I'm willing to believe that Krugman is not right about everything. But at this point, are we really to believe that the guy who just won the Nobel prize in economics is wrong about everything?"
• digby: "Krugman has an exceptional track record over the past decade, however, and it is a mistake for the anyone to dismiss his criticisms out of hand because of a perception that he has some personal animus [toward Obama]. More important than that however, is this idea that criticisms of Obama's economic policies are coming from sort of leftist fringe when the fact is that it's coming from mainstream economists. [...] The arguments aren't about right vs left, they are about insider vs outsider, wall street vs main street, what works vs what doesn't work."

Meanwhile, liberal bloggers aren't putting too much stock in the fact that the financial markets appeared to respond favorably to Geithner's plan:

• Balloon Juice's John Cole: "[T]he world stock market is reacting positively, which makes me think we are about to get screwed since the only thing those guys care about is a bailout with no pain involved for any of the actors."
• digby: "It's great that the Dow is rallying so crisply this past couple of weeks, but it operates on its own logic that doesn't really mean anything when you are talking about these fundamental, economic issues as Krugman is."
• Klein: "...I'm not comfortable letting the Dow's reaction stand as the arbiter of success or failure. [...] There's much that enters into a stock market rally, but little is more directly correlated to enthusiastic trading than the prospect of making money. And no one doubts that this plan offers private investors an almost historic opportunity to make money. It may be that the plan is also the correct salve for the economy, or it may be that the plan is a good opportunity for investors that will fail the broader economy. But when you're offering this direct of a subsidy to Wall Street, I don't know that you can intuit much from Wall Street's reaction besides the fact that they're thrilled with the subsidy."

OBAMA: See? We Told You He's Slipping

Conservative bloggers are buzzing about Zogby's hint that his latest poll will show Obama's job approval rating at "about 50-50":

• Power Line's John Hinderaker: "Regression to the mean. It's one of the world's most powerful forces, and it may have caught up with Barack Obama, just two months into his term: tomorrow's Zogby poll will show the President's approval/disapproval rating at 'about 50-50.' This will be no surprise to Power Line readers, who have followed Obama's steady decline to near the break-even point, as recorded by Rasmussen Reports. It's striking, though, that so far Obama's return to campaign mode (e.g. his appearance on the Tonight Show) has not arrested the decline that has been precipitated by public alarm over his radical policies."
• Hot Air's Ed Morrissey: "Over the last few weeks, Scott Rasmussen has repeatedly shown a rapid rate in dissatisfaction over Obama's performance, and a smaller but still significant decline in approval. Yesterday's job-approval rating on the daily tracking poll has Obama at 56%, not the 50% shown by Zogby, but that's down from the high 60s at the end of January. [...] Zogby may or may not have overstated the decline, but he's got the direction right."
• Glenn Reynolds: "[W]e'll see how this holds up with other polls besides Zogby; this seems a bit low by comparison. On the other hand, it's been a bad week for Obama, for those paying attention."
• RedState's Moe Lane: "An 50% approval rating is quite respectable. For a human being. The question thus becomes, Is the President prepared to govern as a human being? -- because if he is, there will have to be some changes made to his operating style. To begin with, this nonsense of 'I won' will have to be completely banished from Obama's administrative philosophy. 50% Presidents don't get to rule as philosopher-kings. Second, there's a whole list of White House staffers who need to be publicly cured of their bad habit of publicly blaming every problem under the sun on either the Republican party or the previous administration. 50% Presidents don't get to have an unlimited number of scapegoats. And, of course, the President will need to either wrest control over his agenda away from his colleagues in Congress, or else admit that he's lost that control, and start building a new coalition to push his policy agenda. 50% Presidents need to actually accomplish things that the populace likes if they want to stay 50% Presidents. Alternatively, the Obama administration could just hope that this was an outlier, and keep doing what they were doing already without making any changes. That might work."

NOTRE DAME: First Charlie Weis, Now This?

Conservative bloggers are furious that The University of Notre Dame has invited Pres. Obama to speak at this year's commencement:

• Townhall's Hugh Hewitt: "In a single gesture, ND has undone much if not all of the work of last fall during which the Roman Catholic hierarchy in America labored mightily to deliver the message that the Church really does mean what it says about protecting the unborn. [...] The country's preeminent Catholic institution just doesn't care about abortion, or embryonic stem cell research, or even late term abortion or the Born Alive Protection Act, at least not enough to stand in the way of a good party and a lot of camera time."
• NRO's Jack Fowler: "Obama is also receiving a Doctor of Laws degree from Notre Dame. 'Laws' -- as in the things he tried to prevent in the Illinois legislature on the matter of protecting infants who survived abortion?"
• RedState's hogan: "Instead of succumbing to celebrity and inviting a 'cool' President to speak at graduation, perhaps Notre Dame should focus on its core principles. Without its Catholic soul, the University would be relegated to the growing ash-heap of second-rate academic institutions cluttered with self-important academics pedaling their leftist propaganda and politically correct musings. Notre Dame should be better than that. And, that is why alumni and friends of the school should visit www.notredamescandal.com to register their objection to the administration's decision -- and more, they should step up and firmly withhold financial contributions to the University and stop all pledges to any annual giving or capital campaigns the University is running...including athletics."
• Notre Dame law prof Richard W. Garnett: "I believe that the University of Notre Dame should not, at this time, honor President Obama with a ceremonial degree and the commencement-speaker role. To say this is not to deny that there are things about his election and achievements that a meaningfully Catholic university -- and, to be clear, Notre Dame is such a university -- could and should celebrate. Under the circumstances, though -- so soon after the president's insultingly bad statement regarding embryo-destructive research (in which he reduced moral critique to 'politics') -- it seems to me that there is no way to avoid the impression that Notre Dame is un-bothered (even though we are) by his deeply unjust actions."

BACHMANN: A Call To Arms

Liberal bloggers are criticizing Rep. Bachmann after she urged an "armed" revolt over the Dem cap-and-trade proposal:

"I want people in Minnesota armed and dangerous on this issue of the energy tax because we need to fight back. Thomas Jefferson told us 'having a revolution every now and then is a good thing,' and the people -- we the people -- are going to have to fight back hard if we're not going to lose our country. And I think this has the potential of changing the dynamic of freedom forever in the United States."

• Firedoglake's Blue Texan: "I'm starting to believe Michelle Bachmann isn't actually a real politician at all, but instead, an unusually gifted performance artist who's engaged in a brilliant post-modern parody of an insane wingnut. [...] This is beyond unhinged. It sounds like a press release from Stormfront."
• The Washington Monthly's Steve Benen: "It's obviously just rhetoric from overly-excited far-right lawmakers. It's no doubt intended to fire up the activists (and donors) who help Republicans succeed. But when Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) casually refers to elected Democratic officials as the 'enemy,' and nonchalantly refers to keeping her supporters 'armed and dangerous,' it's probably a good time to remind Republican lawmakers to turn down the temperature a bit. [...] Obviously, Bachmann and other unhinged conservatives have the right to say what they please. But at a minimum, I think it's fair to describe this kind of talk from elected leaders in positions of authority as irresponsible."
• MyDD's Todd Beeton: "[T]his is extremely dangerous language for a sitting member of congress to be using. [...] For me, this is comparable to the sort of frenzy [John] McCain and [Sarah] Palin were creating at their campaign rallies last year except Bachmann is being far less subtle. The revolution Bachmann is trying to incite here is along the same lines as the 'We Surround Them' farce Glenn Beck recently launched on Fox News. Their point (if I can try to get inside their heads for a minute -- scary) is that President Obama's agenda -- which was ratified by a strong majority of the nation in November, by the way -- is a threat to 'our economic freedom.'"

Conservative blogger Hinderaker, who conducted the interview with Bachmann in which she made these statements, defends her: "...I interviewed Michele for ten or twelve minutes. She explained some of the evils of cap and trade, and said that she is bringing an expert on the subject to speak at two meetings, one in St. Cloud and one in Woodbury. She encouraged the public to attend. Not very controversial, one would think."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Short-Term vs. Long-Term

TAPPED's Tim Fernholz:

"[S]hould the [Obama] administration try to fundamentally change the character of the financial system, or should it just try to get it running again and worry about sustainability later? James Galbraith, in an article well worth your time, argues that the two are one in the same. But the up-front political and financial costs of the kind of program Galbraith might prefer are probably too much for the U.S. government to face at this time. Perhaps all this talk of populism will provide an opportunity for that kind of agenda, but the administration would probably be happy just to have a functioning, or even semi-functioning, financial system, damn the moral hazard. It could work.

The administration is politically smart to focus on the short-term functionality of the credit markets, but like Matt [Yglesias] I do worry that they aren't preparing rhetorically for the kind of regulatory reforms and trust-busting that would create a sustainable system. There needs to be more preparation for the pivot that has to occur after stability has returned. Or, on the other hand, perhaps the PPIP will fail to work, and in so doing reveal that nationalization is the only option left. That would give the administration the ability to fix the banks for both recovery purposes and for long-term economic productivity."

LEST WE FORGET: You Know, The Guy Who Used To Be President

From Overheard in New York:

Guy: So I was talking to this hot girl the other day, but then she told me she liked Bush.
Girl: Oh...she's a lesbian?
Guy: No! Bush!
Girl: Oh, the band.
Guy: No, Bush! She's a Republican!
Girl: Wait. What?!

3/23: Geithner vs. The Netroots

Details about Treasury Sec. Tim Geithner's toxic assets plan leaked out over the weekend, and the reception in the liberal blogosphere could not have been worse. Led by New York Times columnist Paul Krugman (who repeatedly attacked Geithner's plan on his blog before lambasting it in his Monday column), lefty bloggers spent much of the weekend criticizing Geithner's proposals. Josh Marshall complained that Geithner's plan forces taxpayers "to pay or underwrite purchasing these bad debts from the banks at inflated, perhaps wildly inflated, prices." James K. Galbraith called Geithner's plan "a Rube Goldberg device for shifting inevitable losses from the banks to the Treasury, preserving the big banks and their incumbent management in all their dysfunctional glory." Influential liberal blogger Atrios summed up the general sentiment in the liberal blogosphere when he declared: "We are so screwed."

Conservative bloggers, meanwhile, don't really have a consensus position on Geithner's plan. Michelle Malkin criticized it, but other righty bloggers noted that the financial markets seemed to react positively to Geithner's announcement. It appears that conservative bloggers are more upset about the size of Pres. Obama's budget than his specific plan for dealing with insolvent banks.

What else is happening in the blogosphere?

• Conservative bloggers (Morrissey, Lane, Faughnan, Bandow) are buzzing about rumors that three companies are working with congressional Dems to write "compromise legislation that would make it easier for organized labor to unionize but preserve a workers' ability to decide using a secret ballot vote."
• Conservative bloggers (Malkin, Hinderaker, Reynolds) are complaining that the national media isn't devoting sufficient attention to the "tea party" protests.

GEITHNER TOXIC ASSETS PLAN: Timmy Strikes Out Again

Liberal bloggers spent the weekend tearing into Geithner's plan:

• Ezra Klein: "It's probably a bad sign that the administration leaked the details of their full banking plan in a Friday night newsdump. And reading it, you can see why."
• TPM's Marshall: "[This] seems like another twist on the basic concept of getting taxpayers to pay or underwrite purchasing these bad debts from the banks at inflated, perhaps wildly inflated, prices."
• Think Progress' Matthew Yglesias: "[T]he Geithner Plan, even if all goes well, will leave us with a situation in which essentially the same large firms with essentially the same management still dominate the economy, but now with a bunch of added moral hazard."
• Atrios: "Aside from setting up an overly complicated plan to try to disguise what they're really doing, the utility of the Geithner plan rests (or pretends to rest, not sure) on one fundamental premise: that Big Shitpile is greatly undervalued by 'the market' and that these mortgage securities really have expected revenues which justify higher prices. One could have reasonably believed this months ago, I have no idea why anyone would believe this now. The housing bubble burst, and now recession is here. There's a lot of shit to be eaten, the question is who will eat it? Timmeh wants to make sure it's not the banksters."
• Firedoglake's Christy Hardin Smith: "After several weeks of pushback on [Henry] Paulson redux for TALF, the Obama administration appears to have settled on...the Paulson redux plan with assorted new shiny windowdressings. Oh joy and rapture."
• TPM's David Kurtz: "Geithner['s] bank plan is as bad as advertised."
• dday: "Basically, the government will subsidize investors to overpay for bad assets, meaning that cash will simply flow from taxpayers to banks. Instead of shrinking the wealth and value of the financial sector relative to the greater economy, this plan would keep it in place. The White House clearly sees paying off the banksters as equal to saving the economy, making the solution far more expensive than the problem, especially considering that this probably won't work."
• digby: "The only way to look at this that makes any sense is to believe that the toxic assets are actually worth more than everyone outside the government thinks they're worth. And that requires that we give ourselves up to the faith-based notions of the last administration, in which we simply buy in because 'they must know things we don't.' Whenever that happens, it's time to be very, very skeptical. [...] I'm getting more and more convinced that Matt Taibbi is right: we are officially, royally fucked."

GEITHNER TOXIC ASSETS PLAN II: The Experts Agree: This Plan Sucks

Several liberal economists in the blogosphere wrote much-linked posts trashing Geithner's plan:

• Galbraith: "If I'm right and the mortgages are largely trash, then the Geithner plan is a Rube Goldberg device for shifting inevitable losses from the banks to the Treasury, preserving the big banks and their incumbent management in all their dysfunctional glory. The cost will be continued vast over-capacity in banking, and a consequent weakening of the remaining, smaller, better- managed banks who didn't participate in the garbage-loan frenzy. This will not achieve the stated goal, of bringing on new lending, for reasons already explained at length. It's all about not-measuring true asset quality at the big banks, permitting them to escape a clean audit, and therefore preserving them as institutions, while forcing the inevitable shrinkage of the financial sector to occur elsewhere. In short, the plan seems to me to be a very bad idea."
• Krugman: "[This is] exactly the plan that was widely analyzed -- and found wanting -- a couple of weeks ago. The zombie ideas have won. The Obama administration is now completely wedded to the idea that there's nothing fundamentally wrong with the financial system -- that what we're facing is the equivalent of a run on an essentially sound bank. As Tim Duy put it, there are no bad assets, only misunderstood assets. And if we get investors to understand that toxic waste is really, truly worth much more than anyone is willing to pay for it, all our problems will be solved. [...] This plan will produce big gains for banks that didn't actually need any help; it will, however, do little to reassure the public about banks that are seriously undercapitalized. And I fear that when the plan fails, as it almost surely will, the administration will have shot its bolt: it won't be able to come back to Congress for a plan that might actually work. What an awful mess."
• The American Prospect's Dean Baker: "House prices are currently falling at more than a 20 percent annual rate. If they fall another 20 percent in real terms, they will be back at their trend level. A further 20 percent decline will hugely increase the percentage of mortgages that are underwater, reducing the value of mortgage backed securities from their current level. There is no obvious reason that house prices should then again rise above their trend level. The failure of people like [Fed Chair] Ben Bernanke and Timothy Geithner to recognize the $8 trillion housing bubble led to this crisis. It appears as though they somehow still don't understand it."

GEITHNER TOXIC ASSETS PLAN III: You Say You Want Nationalization...

A number of liberal bloggers have suggested -- either implicitly or explicitly -- that the Obama admin. should temporarily nationalize insolvent banks. However, other lefty bloggers are arguing that nationalization isn't a great option by any means:

• BooMan: "For proponents of bank nationalization as a panacea for our problems, it should be pointed out that the FDIC nationalized IndyMac last year. They just sold it (after failing to find any larger banks that would buy it) to a consortium of former Goldman Sachs executives and hedge fund managers (including George Soros). They sold it at an estimated loss of $10.7 billion. The FDIC provided $9 billion in financing to the consortium and agreed to assume 80% of the losses on future (existing) loan defaults. That is what nationalization looks like. [...] I think it is safe to say that if no banks were able or willing to swallow IndyMac, no banks are going to be able to swallow Wells Fargo, CitiGroup, or Bank of America. Who will buy them back from the government? A: Hedge Fund managers and ex-investment bankers, that's who. And they're not going to buy them without sweetheart financing and the assumption of risk for future loan defaults by the taxpayer. There are good reasons to nationalize the banks and (certainly) to fire current management. But don't think we can avoid these fundamental realities by nationalizing banks."
• Mother Jones' Kevin Drum: "[I]t's worth noting that taxpayers are going to eat almost all of this shit no matter what happens. If Geithner's plan fails, we eat it. If we nationalize the banks and become owners of all the toxic waste, we eat it. This financial crisis is going to cost the government a ton of money no matter what we do at this point. [...] Nationalization would hurt bankers a little bit, and it would give taxpayers a bigger upside than the current plan. That's good. But it would also be ungodly complex and create plenty of problems of its own. It's worth avoiding if there's another solution."

In a separate post, Drum offers another reason to support Geithner's plan: "Do supporters of bank nationalization really think it's either legally or politically feasible at this point in time? I'm skeptical on both counts. Legally, I'm not sure Obama has the statutory authority to take over a big bank. He may well need congressional authorization of some kind first. And even if he doesn't, does anyone really think it would be wise to go down this road without broad congressional support anyway? I don't. Like it or not, there's only one way to get this support: show that (a) one or more of the big banks really is insolvent and (b) every other option for rescuing them has been exhausted. Geithner's plan does both."

Meanwhile, Berkeley econ prof. Brad DeLong was another progressive who defended Geithner's plan (although Krugman and Atrios both critiqued his argument).

OBAMA: Where's The Diversity Of Views?

Many liberal bloggers are complaining that there aren't enough progressives in Obama's inner circle of economic advisers:

• Open Left's Paul Rosenberg: "Instead of having folks like Krugman, Galbraith, [Nouriel] Roubini, [Joseph] Stiglitz, [Dean] Baker, etc. all on the outside criticizing noisily in the public square, [Obama should] have at least some of them -- or others who think like them -- on the inside challenging [Lawrence] Summers and Geithner every step of the way. This is a minimal requirement for avoiding group think."
• AMERICAblog's John Aravosis: "[W]e can't name a single senior Obama economic adviser who represents the Krugman/Stiglitz wing of economic theory and policy. It's not a matter of expecting Obama to buy, and implement as policy, every single thing that Krugman and Stiglitz say. But it's not clear that anyone is even listening to what they have to say, or representing their philosophy at the table when options are being discussed. That is scary. And it's what the last guys who messed up our economy used to do."

Meanwhile, Arianna Huffington became the latest liberal blogger to call for Geithner's dismissal: "Geithner's actions throughout his career, including his time as Treasury Secretary, are proof that the toxic thinking that got us into this mess is part of his DNA. That's why every proposal he comes up with is déjà vu all over again -- a remixed variation on the same tried-and-failed let-the-bankers-work-it-out approach championed by his predecessor, Hank Paulson. Geithner's Masters of the Universe, the people he still thinks are the ones we should turn to to save the day, are the same people who brought us here. And that is why Geithner either needs to go or keep his job but have his authority stripped and transferred to someone who does not share his Wall Street Weltenschauung. Use any window dressing you want, just take the steering wheel out of Geithner's hands."

Daily Kos' Markos Moulitsas made a similar point via Twitter: "Geithner is starting to look like Obama's [Donald] Rumsfeld."

EMPLOYEE FREE CHOICE ACT: A Compromise The Rightroots Can Accept?

Conservative bloggers are buzzing about a new Washington Times article detailing how Starbucks, Whole Foods Market and Costco are working with congressional Dems to create "compromise legislation that would make it easier for organized labor to unionize but preserve a workers' ability to decide using a secret ballot vote." Some conservative bloggers think this compromise would be a major improvement over the EFCA in its current form:

• Hot Air's Ed Morrissey: "This might seem like bad news for Card Check opponents, but a closer look at the compromise makes it look more like bad news for its advocates. [...] It's not great, but it's not horrid, either. In truth, it gives the unions little that they don't already have, and it strips them of two of their cherished prizes. It also gives politicians on Capitol Hill a way to throw a bone to union rank and file without offering a complete game-changer. If it's incrementalism, it's an increment of the smallest variety possible."
• RedState's Moe Lane: "[This compromise] is much more likely to pass the Senate than the current version. In fact, the current version is not likely to pass the Senate at all. This doesn't mean that this is a good result, of course. [...] But it is the result that occurs when both Houses of Congress and the Presidency are held by a political party that is heavily pro-labor union management (note the precise designation there)...if you're lucky."
• Commentary's Jennifer Rubin: "So what does all this really mean? Most people who can count votes in Congress have figured out that EFCA is going nowhere -- at least for the foreseeable future. So the scramble begins for pro-Big Labor operatives and their allies to find ways of retreating and declaring victory in the face of defeat. But make no mistake: the central planks of EFCA -- doing away with the secret ballot and mandatory arbitration -- are withering on the legislative vine, no matter what the spinners say."

Other conservative bloggers are upset that these three companies are "backing down" to the unions:

• RedState's Brian Faughnan: "Is corporate America really this suicidal? [...] Prior to this report, it looked quite possible that Card Check could be defeated on a straight up-or-down vote. While the unions might have been able to muscle through a win, the greatest danger seemed to be a compromise that preserved the worst elements of Card Check. And now we learn that three of the companies most affected by the legislation are prepared to give the unions half a loaf. [...A] compromise today will teach Card Check opponents a valuable lesson: don't invest heavily in protecting corporate America from the unions; they're bound to cave at the end of the day."
• AmSpec Blog's Doug Bandow: "It has long been obvious that among the greatest enemies of capitalism are the alleged capitalists. Corporate America is one of the least constant defenders of the market economy, ever ready to sell out the system. Businessmen constantly request subsidies and bail-outs, as we have seen in recent months. Similarly, some companies may be preparing to back organized labor's 'card check' bill, which would allow union acitivists to initimidate their way to victory without a secret ballot election."

MEDIA CRITICISM: Teabagging The Media

Conservative bloggers are complaining that the national media isn't devoting sufficient attention to the "tea party" protests:

• Malkin: "Maybe if the Tea Party protesters burned the American flag instead of waving it proudly, the AP would send out reporters..."
• Power Line's John Hinderaker: "One emerging theme is the absence of press coverage, especially at the national level. For some reason, reporters and editors believe it is not news when thousands of people, all around the country, gather to protest the government's bailouts, trillions in debt, etc."
• Glenn Reynolds: "Maybe some of that press mob should have been retasked to Ridgefield? But that would assume that they saw their job as covering actual news, rather than advancing the proper political narrative."

On the left side of the blogosphere, Blue Texan argues that conservatives' complaints are unfounded.

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: The Trouble With Twitter

Balloon Juice's John Cole:

"Here is what I don't understand about twitter. When blogs came out and started to rise in popularity, lots of folks in the MSM and elsewhere said 'Great. Just what we need. The undigested, unedited thoughts of the rabble.' If blogs are the undigested thoughts, tweets are the orts.

And I say this as a guy who fires off numerous posts a day without properly thinking through most of them, usually in a fit of pique, later having to come back and apologize and correct the record or both. I had a twitter account for approximately an hour and thought to myself 'No good can come from this.'

And not only that, the few times I have attempted to read 'tweets,' I can never figure out who is saying what and why, and they all read like cell phone text messages between 12 year olds."

LEST WE FORGET: Getting Randomly Picked To Make Half-Court Shots Now Best Way To Earn Living

From The Onion:

"WASHINGTON -- A new study released by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics Tuesday confirmed that the most dependable source of income for American workers in the current economic climate is to win a novelty contest in which one must successfully shoot a basketball from half-court. 'After factoring in the odds of your ticket number being called while attending a game, the median dollar value awarded, and the athletic ability of the average American citizen, and cross-referencing these data with employment forecasts and current job-security indices, we have determined that half-court shooting contests are currently the most effective way to support a family of four,' the report read in part. 'While this may seem like dire news, keep in mind that the consolation prize for missing the shot usually includes a food item from the concession stand.' The report cited several other possible methods of securing a livelihood, including 50-50 raffles, lotto scratch-offs, and inventing YouTube."

BLOGGER SPOTLIGHT: Robert Stacy McCain

Today the Blogometer talks to Robert Stacy McCain, who blogs at The Other McCain and AmSpecBlog.

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

Where did you grow up?
Douglas County, Georgia.

Where do you live now?
Near Hagerstown, Maryland, about two miles from the Appalachian Trail.

If you have an occupation other than blogging, what is it?
Freelance journalist and karaoke king.

What's on your iPod right now?
A crusty old 8-track tape of ZZ Top's "Tres Hombres." (Frequent Commenter Smitty is working on the compatability issues.)

What book do you think every person should read?
The Holy Bible, preferably the King James Version. Also, Thomas Sowell's "The Vision of the Anointed."

Please finish this sentence: "When I'm not blogging, you'll probably find me..."
Sleeping, singing karaoke or playing with fireworks.

What has been your favorite blog post, or your favorite story to write about?
"How to Get a Million Hits On Your Blog in Less Than a Year."

Which blogger(s) do you consider indispensable, if any?
Wow. If I name one, that will piss off 1,000 other bloggers whose linkage I crave. So I'll play it safe and go with She Who Must Be Linked, the universally beloved Little Miss Attila.

Who's your favorite non-conservative blogger?
Dave Weigel.

Who's your favorite active politician? Least favorite?
Favorite: Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK). Least favorite: Name any Democrat.

What would you realistically like to see Republicans accomplish in 2009?
Avoid going the way of the Whigs.

If you could give President Obama some advice, what would it be?
Approve my application for a $1 million NIH sex research grant. "Stimulus" and all that, you know.

What keeps you up at night?
My wife's good lovin'.

Please feel free to ask and answer your own question.
When do I get paid for this? (Crickets chirping.)

3/20: First They Came For Our Bonuses...

Liberal bloggers were all over the map in their reactions to the passage of yesterday's House bill, which levied a retroactive 90% tax on bonuses for executives who (a.) work at companies holding at least $5B in federal bailout funds and (b.) earn at least $250,000/year. Some liberal bloggers praised the bill and warned that the six Dems who voted against it might face primary challenges. Other liberal bloggers criticized the bill, arguing that it punishes people who don't deserve to be punished. Still others complained that the bill doesn't go far enough.

While liberal bloggers were divided in their reactions to the bill, conservative bloggers were not. They unanimously blasted the bill, calling it "a cheap PR stunt to deflect public anger" and "blatantly unconstitutional". Conservative bloggers are also criticizing the 85 GOPers (which included Minority Whip Eric Cantor) who voted in favor of the bill.

What else is happening in the blogosphere?

• Liberal bloggers (Kurtz, Bowers, Sirota) are accusing senior Obama adviser David Axelrod of being out of touch after he said that "people are not sitting around their kitchen tables thinking about AIG."
• Liberal bloggers (Llorens, Greenwald, Bowers, Chris in Paris) continue to criticize Obama's economic team -- especially Treasury Sec. Tim Geithner. Others (Scheiber, Klein) are offering a qualified defense of Geithner's conduct with regard to the AIG bonuses.
• Conservative bloggers (Hewitt, Malkin, Morrissey, Riehl) are blasting Obama for saying "it's like the Special Olympics" while joking about his poor bowling skills on Jay Leno's show.

Finally, please check back later today for our interview with Robert Stacy McCain!

AIG BONUS TAX: The Netroots Agree To Disagree

Liberal bloggers had a variety of reactions to the passage of yesterday's House bill. Several liberal bloggers praised the bill:

• Open Left's Chris Bowers: "Good news: the Wall Street bailout bonus tax just passed the House. [...] This is going to start turning things around. This is the side we need to be on. Real action is being taken to recoup the bonuses, and Republicans were the ones opposed. Six Democrats voted against the bill. It will be interesting to see who they are. No matter what district they are from, their constituents are not going to like this."
• BooMan: "I am kind of enjoying the return of 90% marginal tax rates. I don't think we should go quite that high in general, but something between 50% and 70% would be reasonable, depending on the loopholes. The fewer the loopholes, the lower the rate can be. There's not much point in paying out huge bonuses if the government gets to keep 70% of the money."

Other liberal bloggers criticized the bill:

• TPM's Josh Marshall: "This strikes me as pretty ill-advised on a couple levels. First, what's to stop the companies from just folding the 'bonuses' into straight salary income? In which case, the whole thing goes out the window? Second, this cuts a pretty broad swathe. You don't want CEOs who drove their companies into the ground pulling down multi-million dollar bonuses from companies that wouldn't even exist any more without big taxpayer handouts. [...] But it's not clear to me why a couple, both of whom work in the financial services industry, and make $150,000 each should essentially have their entire bonuses taken back in taxes."
• FiveThirtyEight's Nate Silver: "Just think about some of the implications of this. A senior engineer at General Motors, who shepherds the production of a new hybrid vehicle that will turn out to be a best-seller, shouldn't get a bonus for that. Really? Jamie Dimon at JP Morgan, who has managed his company's assets adeptly and kept it mostly off the taxpayer's dole, is no more deserving of a bonus than an AIG crook. Really? [...] I understand why the bill was written this way -- it had to be broad enough to fend off a constitutional challenge -- but the cure is worse than the disease. Much worse. I can't imagine a credible defense of it along economic lines, and so far as I've seen nobody has even attempted one."

Still others complained that the bill doesn't go far enough:

• AMERICAblog's John Aravosis: "Are they freaking insane? Why does a company that got a $4.9bn bailout, or even a $2bn bailout, get to hand out $10m bonuses to their top employees? The Democrats don't think that little story is going to infuriate the American people? And why are you and me paying, in a year in which we're not even sure if we're gonna have a job, for anyone's bonus on Wall Street? Let alone someone making $249,000 a year? Who came up with that brilliant idea?"
• Firedoglake's Jane Hamsher: "As John Aravosis writes, the measure to tax these bonuses is really half-assed and doesn't get to the heart of the problem -- namely, the deal cut by Timothy Geithner calls for AIG to cut $1 billion more in bonus checks to be paid for in July and September of this year."

AIG BONUS TAX II: This Is Just Wrong

While liberal bloggers were divided in their reaction to yesterday's House bill, conservative bloggers were not. They unanimously blasted the bill:

• Power Line's John Hinderaker: "[Speaker Nancy] Pelosi's tax will never become law; it will die quietly at some point. Its only purpose is as a cheap PR stunt to deflect public anger -- mostly misplaced, in my view, to the extent that it focuses on the AIG bonuses rather than the multiple, trillion dollar disasters the Democrats have perpetrated or are planning."
• Townhall's Matt Lewis: "Regardless of how one feels about the AIG fat-cats, we live under the rule of law. If the government cannot honor a contract, we truly have problems, but as it has been said, 'the power to tax is the power to destroy'."
• Power Line's Scott Johnson: "A 90 percent income tax rate (even if not a marginal rate) harkens back to the good old days for liberals. [Speaker Nancy] Pelosi's proposed 90 percent income tax rate on the nefarious bonuses may well be a stalking horse for tax rates exceeding those to which Obama has already vowed to return."
• Right Wing News' John Hawkins: "Targeting people's incomes with a special tax because the public is mad at them opens up a rather dangerous can of worms [...] If we're going to start playing this game, how about we aim a massive tax at former congressmen who lobby for a living -- after all, lobbyists are supposed to be bad guys, right? Oh, and how about a 90% tax on people who make over a million dollars per year acting? After all, no one deserves that kind of money just to act and those guys are jerks anyway. Know who else we should tax into the ground? Employees of organizations that engage in voter fraud -- I'm looking at you, ACORN. Is this a road we want to go down?"
• Tom Maguire: "I deplore this confiscatory tax aimed at whoever Congress is mad at today. Right now it's AIG and Fannie Mae; later it will be Merrill and Citibank, and eventually it will be defense contractors, profiteering oil executives, or whomever the Congressional Dems single out as their whipping boy du jour."
• NRO's Jonah Goldberg: "[W]e're a nation of laws. As Calvin Coolidge said, one with the law on his side is a majority. Those bonuses -- as bad as they might be -- are just one more toxic debt we took on when we decided to bailout AIG. In fact they're a tiny, tiny fraction of a fraction of debts we're taking on thanks to this mess and Obama's grand plans."

AIG BONUS TAX III: The Crazy 85

Conservative bloggers are also criticizing the 85 House GOPers who voted for the bill:

• Lewis: "While I understand and appreciate the political realities -- and the tremendous populist outrage out there -- the notion that supposed pro-liberty fiscal conservatives such as Eric Cantor and [WI Rep.] Paul Ryan would vote for something so blatantly unconstitutional is frankly shocking."
• Michelle Malkin: "You can find the full roll call vote on HR 1586, tax cheat [NY Rep.] Charlie Rangel's ass-covering, after-the-fact AIG bonus tax here. I have broken out the 85 Republicans (led by GOP Minority Whip Eric Cantor) who voted with Rangel and the Democrat demagogues. Because you should know. [...] Way to go, confiscatory Republicans. Charlie Rangel, [CT Sen.] Chris Dodd, and [MA Rep.] Barney 'Grabby Hands' Frank thank you!"
• Hinderaker: "[The] wall of shame [is] where we put the names of House members who voted for Nancy Pelosi's silly, unconstitutional 90% tax on the AIG bonuses. The measure passed, 328-93, with Democrats frantically seeking cover against voter wrath. It's sad to see any Republicans going along with the Democrats' Know-Nothingism, but, by a bare 87-85 margin Republicans opposed the Dems' stunt. I'm glad to see that conservative stalwarts, including [MN Rep.] John Kline, [AZ Rep.] John Shadegg and [MN Rep.] Michele Bachmann, generally voted 'no.'"

AXELROD: Out Of Touch?

Liberal bloggers are accusing Axelrod of being out of touch after he downplayed the significance of the AIG bonus scandal, saying, "People are not sitting around their kitchen tables thinking about AIG. They are thinking about their own jobs":

• Open Left's Mike Lux: "I love and admire David Axelrod, but he is just plain wrong if he really believes that 'people are not sitting around their kitchen tables thinking about AIG'. Um, yes they are. And they are pissed out of their minds."
• TPM's David Kurtz: "I honestly don't get what up-side they see politically in taking this tack."
• TalkLeft's Big Tent Democrat: "The Obama political team seems to be out of whack these days. [...] Axelrod [is] reveal[ing] some real political tone deafness."
• Bowers: "Wow. That is a lot of cognitive dissonance, given that President Obama himself said that people were 'right to be angry, I'm angry,' over the bonuses. Are people angry, or don't they care? Depends on if you are listening to President Obama or to his senior advisors, I guess. [...] Americans are pissed about the bonuses because they are pissed about the recession. Because they are pissed at Wall Street. Because they are pissed a a bailout they were told was necessary, but that only seems to helping make the rich get richer. If that isn't obvious to you, it should be. Democrats and progressives are screwed if we don't catch this populist wave."
• Open Left's David Sirota: "Look, I get that nobody in Establishment Washington genuinely cares that taxpayers are being ripped off, and I get that the super-wealthy political class from millionaire investment banker [Rahm] Emanuel to millionaire consultant Axelrod to millionaire banker Tim Geithner gives much of a shit that our taxpayer dollars are being used to make new millionaires on Wall Street. But their boss, President Obama, is right: A huge majority of Americans, most of whom are not millionaires, are really angry and has a right to be angry. [...] If the White House doesn't get out of the tone deaf D.C. echo chamber and get back on message, my bet is that very soon Republicans' faux populism that portrays Democrats as part of the problem is going to start getting traction."
• Salon's Glenn Greenwald: "You can't spend six months frightening people by warning them that they're headed into a Great Depression and then be surprised when they're 'outraged' that hundreds of millions of dollars in taxpayer money are being shoveled into the pockets of those who helped bring the situation about."

GEITHNER: The Pile-On Continues

Liberal bloggers are harshly criticizing Obama's economic team -- especially Geithner:

• Atrios: "The issue is that [Geithner] and friends never distinguished between bailing out the system and bailing out the players. There was a way to do that, and they didn't do it."
• Big Tent Democrat: "Geithner and [WH economics adviser Lawrence] Summers are busy trying to save Wall Street, not the country's economy. Therein lies the problem."
• Greenwald: "It's hard to know which is worse: that Geithner was aware of [AIG's retention bonuses] and now claims he wasn't, or if, while at the New York Fed working on AIG's bailout, he somehow remained blissfully unaware of all of this. Given the relative amounts involved, the bonus payments themselves may not be significant in the scheme of things, but the window this scandal provides into the insider dealing, arrogance and corruption driving the trillions of dollars in public money flying around (and disappearing) certainly is significant."
• AMERICAblog's Chris in Paris: "[Geithner] is not the person we need for these extraordinary times. We need someone who is much more aggressive about fighting these companies and restoring balance to a distorted and dysfunctional system. Geithner is not that person."
• Bowers: "I also agree with President Obama that these bonuses are a symptom of a larger problem. That includes Timothy Geithner's Wall Street bailout plan, as Geithner originally worked against anti-bonus legislation in order to protect that bailout plan. Geithner has, in fact, been doing this all along. We need a different plan, one that, in order to work, doesn't require making the people who ruined the economy even richer."

Lux: "I know you don't like us bloggers who over-simplify things, Mr. President, but this is gut-check time: you have to decide which side you are on. Many of my friends are calling for Tim Geithner's head, but I don't think that is what this is about. You as President need to decide which way you are going to go. One path keeps dribbling out more and more money to big bankers while letting them operate according to their version of "free market principles," such as giving multi-million dollar bonuses to retain employees. The other path says you save our banking system by taking it over, firing the executives who have put us in this mess, and putting people in charge with the public interest in mind rather than their own. The problem with trying to walk down both paths at once - giving out billions more to save the banks while letting them run things the way they are and at the same time expressing justifiable outrage when they screw up - is that it is politically untenable."

GEITHNER II: Get Some Perspective, People

Other liberal bloggers are offering a qualified defense of Geithner. They're arguing that the $165M AIG bonuses -- while outrageous -- aren't all that important in the grand scheme of things:

• The New Republic's Noam Scheiber: "I have to say, I'm starting to find the obsessive 'what did Geithner/Obama know and when did he know it' line of questioning a little tedious. [...] I mean, however you feel about what Geithner knew about the bonuses and when he knew it, you have to concede that his far bigger concern throughout this time was preventing the global economy from self-immolating. As a substantive proposition, how much would we even want a Treasury secretary to focus on $165 million in bonus money while there were hundreds of billions of dollars in bailout money flowing to AIG and other companies? Doesn't seem like that would be a particularly good use of his time beyond a certain point."
• Ezra Klein: "[G]iven the information Geithner had available, it's hard to argue that he should have stopped the bonuses. The AIG retention payments were one-tenth of one percent of the money we've given AIG, much less the rest of the system. Whether Geithner knew of them early or late, he probably didn't consider them a priority. If someone had sat him down and explained that the bonuses would become the flashpoint for populist outrage and imperil the whole of the administration's response to the financial crisis, that might have changed matters. But that sort of thing is hard to predict that in advance: There have almost certainly been a thousand outrageous provisions and outcomes on the level of the AIG bonuses. If Geithner were of a preventive mindset, he could expend so much effort putting out potential political brushfires that he'd have no time to actually deal with the inferno consuming the banking system."
• Think Progress' Matthew Yglesias: "The AIG bonuses are largely irrelevant to the recovery issue, and while important as a social justice matter they're primarily of symbolic social justice importance. It's good that people are outraged by this -- it's outrageous! And it's good that in response to the outrage the government is now working to correct the problem. That's the media-political-outrage cycle at its best. But it's not healthy to just go 'round and 'round in circles over this issue endlessly. If 18 months from now the economy's still shrinking and unemployment's at 15 percent, nobody's going to feel particularly happy about the fact that we stuck it to some scumbags from AIG back in early '09."

OBAMA: We're Not Laughing, Mr. President

Conservative bloggers are blasting Obama for saying "it's like the Special Olympics" while joking about his poor bowling skills on Leno's show (Obama later apologized):

• Little Green Footballs' Charles Johnson: "Obama insults disabled people. Unbelievable."
• Townhall's Hugh Hewitt: "There is an effort underway among the eugenics-minded to encourage the abortion of children identified as having Down Syndrome. Casual cruelty of the sort President Obama engaged in is, sadly, routine, and reinforces the popular idea of children with Down as somehow second-class."
• RedState's E Pluribus Unum: "Obama insult[ed] the dignity of special-needs Americans. [...] It wasn't a slip of the tongue. It was inconsiderate, rude, and insulting. That little gift-exchange fiasco with [British PM] Gordon Brown along with this, reveals a vain, self-important, small man."
• Hot Air's Ed Morrissey: "Maybe he should have brought his Teleprompter with him. [...] Eventually, even the media will have to realize that Obama is in over his head. They may be the last ones in on the joke, but eventually they'll catch onto the fact that Obama is floundering."
• Dan Riehl: "Obama [is a] clueless, classless clown. Come on, folks. Let's face the facts. The idiot sent some errand boy out to WalMart for a gift for the British PM -- read the wrong teleprompter lines when with the Irish PM -- and now this. [...] He's making Jimmy Carter look good by comparison. Unfortunately we have to wait four years to cough up this electoral fur ball who can't even make his mind up about a dog. Thank you mainstream media. You should be proud -- electing this idiot was a wonderful dying act."
• Michelle Malkin: "Way to go, Soul Fixer. I blame Obama's Prompter...or lack thereof."
• NRO's Yuval Levin: "How do you top trying to make injured veterans pay for treating their own war wounds? Maybe by making fun of disabled athletes. [...] What's next, tripping elderly nuns? He's very lucky he's not a Republican."

Hot Air's Allahpundit was one of the few conservative bloggers who defended Obama: "[H]onestly, I tire of this politically calculated outrage. We all know what he meant; it was politically incorrect, but more political incorrectness among our political elite is all to the good. Lay off."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Obama's Challenge

Josh Marshall analyzes the significance of the AIG bonus scandal:

"What is so damaging about this isn't the money -- which is almost trivially small compared to the many hundreds of billions we've already committed. The problem is what appears to be the president's mortifying impotence in the face of bankers and financiers who created the problem. The president speaks and acts for the federal government, which is to say, the American people, who have mobilized more than a trillion dollars and all powers of the state to repair the damage emerging out of the financial sector. And with all that, he's jacked up on a employment agreement between a company the government now owns and derivatives traders who sank the world economy and may quite likely be looking at criminal charges for their activities in the not too distant future? Anyone can look at that and see that the equation of power and accountability is all screwed up. [...]

Whether Geithner and Summers are too close to the people on Wall Street, either through interest or affinity, is an interesting and possibly important question. But fundamentally Obama needs to start showing that he's in charge, that he's operating as the American people's advocate and that he has the power to do it -- which these stories of getting jacked up by some Gordon Gecko wannabes in London just terribly undermines. But to do that, to show that, it has to be true. And that might require some real changes in policy and possibly in personnel too."

LEST WE FORGET: Dick Vitale More Sexual During March Madness, Wife Lorraine Reports

From The Onion:

"BRISTOL, CT -- Emerging from her husband's dressing room slightly out of breath and sporting nothing more than a silk robe and tousled hair, Lorraine Vitale, wife of iconic ESPN college basketball analyst Dick Vitale, told reporters Sunday that her spouse is at his sexual peak during March Madness.

'He's an animal,' said Mrs. Vitale, adding that prior to her husband's appearance on ESPN's Selection Sunday special, the couple engaged in sexual intercourse three times in different locations, including once in a Bank of America ATM kiosk. 'We fool around at other times during the year, of course, but once the conference tournaments start and the brackets are finalized, well, that's when the role-playing starts, the dirty talk gets louder, and "the prime-time player" comes out of its velvet-lined case and gets fresh batteries.'

'He's especially aggressive this year because Duke has a legitimate chance at making the Final Four,' she added."

3/19: More AIG Fallout

Sen. Chris Dodd (D-CT) continues to receive a lot of attention in the political blogosphere regarding his role in allowing AIG to hand out multimillion-dollar bonuses. On Tuesday, Dodd denied that he had inserted a clause in his executive compensation amendment which exempted bonuses that had been agreed upon before Feb. '09. Yesterday, however, Dodd admitted that he had been involved in drafting the exemption clause, although he emphasized that he only did it "reluctantly" because Treasury Dept. officials "were insistent." Conservative bloggers are calling Dodd a liar and declaring that he's "toast" in his 2010 reelection bid. Liberal bloggers, on the other hand, aren't upset by the fact that Dodd changed his story; they think that the real issue here is the fact that Treasury Dept. officials pressured Dodd into inserting the exemption clause. The netroots are tired of what they perceive to be Treasury Sec. Tim Geithner's unwillingness to demand more from financial firms receiving bailout funds, and they're calling on Pres. Obama to replace him. One blogger warns: "[Obama] can either stay with [Geithner] or cut his losses now and find a grown up who is more focused on helping the country as a whole instead of remaining friends with Wall Street."

Meanwhile, there appears to be a split between GOP congressmen and grassroots conservatives with regard to the AIG bonuses. While GOP congressmen are ratcheting up the populist rhetoric and trying to compel the Treasury Dept. to "recoup or stay the payment of AIG bonuses," conservative bloggers are defending AIG's right to fulfill its contractual obligations to its employees. Conservative bloggers are harshly criticizing the Dem proposal to tax AIG bonuses, calling it "patently unconstitutional" and "very bad for American capitalism".

What else is happening in the blogosphere?

• Liberal bloggers (Lewison, Dayden, Bok) are urging the DoJ to investigate AIG, as they see evidence for criminal activity in various divisions of the company
• Liberal bloggers (Drum, Yglesias, Benen, Coates) are not happy about Sen. Evan Bayh's (D-IN) new moderate caucus. Conservative bloggers, on the other hand, are pleased that Bayh's group "want[s] to put some speed limits on Obama's agenda."

DODD: Liar, Liar, Pants On Fire

On Tuesday, Dodd denied that he had inserted the exemption clause and "insisted he [didn't] know how it got there." Yesterday, however, Dodd admitted that he had been involved in drafting the clause, although he emphasized that he only did it "reluctantly" because Treasury Dept. officials "were insistent." Conservative bloggers are accusing Dodd of lying:

• NRO's Jim Geraghty: "Dodd admits initial lie on bonus amendment; increasingly resembles toast."
• Hot Air's Ed Morrissey: "Dodd lied. He spent a full day lying to the American people, and now he's trying to shift blame to others. He and his pal Barney Frank want to publicly name the people who received the bonuses authorized by Congress and this administration in an attempt to deflect blame for their own actions. If Dodd had a shred of honor, he'd resign. If he had a shred of honor, though, we wouldn't be in this mess."
• Michelle Malkin: "[U]nscrupulous borrower and No. 1 AIG benefactor Chris Dodd admits that yes, yes, he did support AIG bonus protections before he was against them. [...] Chris Dodd: Lying crapweasel, bailout lackey, winner of Kabuki Theater of AIG outrage lifetime achievement award."
• Power Line's John Hinderaker: "In a bizarre turn of events, Chris Dodd has walked away from the claim he made just yesterday that he had no idea how the provision affirming AIG's bonuses was inserted into the 'stimulus' bill at the conference committee stage. [...I]t appears that he lied yesterday to protect himself as well as the Obama administration, and then told the truth today because someone in the Treasury Department had already explained what happened. To say that the Democrats are in disarray would be an understatement."

DODD II: Blame The Obama Administration, Not Dodd

Liberal bloggers weren't upset by the fact that Dodd changed his story; they think that the real issue here is the fact that Treasury Dept. officials pressured Dodd into inserting the exemption clause:

• Salon's Glenn Greenwald: "The point was -- and is -- that Dodd was pressured to put that carve-out in at the insistence of Treasury officials (whose opposition meant that Dodd's two choices were the limited compensation restriction favored by Geithner/Summers or no compensation limits at all), and Dodd did so only after arguing in public against it. To blame Dodd for provisions that the White House demanded is dishonest in the extreme..."
• digby: "The media, for reasons I don't quite understand, still seem to think they've caught Chris Dodd lying about something. As dday pointed out last night, we knew that high officials in the Obama administration were lobbying for the carve-out provision be put into the conference report and Dodd confirming that is simply not news. For some reason, all day today, the media seemed convinced that there was some mystery surrounding this event and were passing on dark suspicions that this happened because Dodd took AIG money (as did a whole bunch of other politicians) when that clearly wasn't the motive. It was all very confusing. [...] Dodd did not indict the administration in his comments today. He didn't name any names and he said that he didn't think AIG was on the radar at all at the time. He was being a good soldier, as he was when he agreed to the changes thinking he was compromising. But at some point he may have to name names since somebody in Washington is determined that he take the fall for these bonuses and the press is on the hunt to prove that the Obama administration has been lying about when they knew about it."
• Open Left's Chris Bowers: "This scandal is the direct outcome of Geithner's bailout plan. Because the Obama administration is pursuing a public-private partnership bailout strategy, and because Wall Street wouldn't participate in this plan if their bonuses were threatened, the Obama administration blocked legislation that would have blocked Wall Street bonuses. They really should have pursued temporary nationalization instead."

Conservative blogger Stephen Spruiell agrees with his liberal counterparts: "Did Dodd lie to CNN? Maybe. Or maybe he just didn't understand the question. Look, it's hard to have any sympathy for Dodd -- the sweetheart mortgage deals, the Irish cottage, the self-righteous grandstanding, etc. And as for the policy at hand, I agree more with Geithner and [WH economics adviser Larry] Summers than Dodd. But as for the politics, this AIG thing is blowing up in Obama's face, and it looks an awful lot like his administration is trying to make Dodd the fall guy. I'm not so sure Republicans (or conservatives) should help."

AIG: Are The Rightroots Going Populist? Doesn't Look Like It...

Conservative bloggers are criticizing the Dem proposal to "levy a 90 percent tax on bonuses paid to employees with family incomes above $250,000 at companies that have received at least $5 billion in government bailout money":

• NRO's Mark Steyn: "If you think the economy's bad now, wait till the world gets the message that American business is subject to retrospective bills of attainder and (as is also being proposed re the property market) that the legally binding terms of contract between independent parties can be modified by a judge. A land without the law of contract is a banana republic."
• Malkin: "Beware the awful precedent this after-the-fact 90 percent tax grab will set. Remember that last month, Barney Frank was already flexing his grubby paws over executive compensation. [...] First, they came for AIG bonuses. Next?"
• Hinderaker: "So an employee is promised a bonus if he stays on and works another year in what would otherwise be a dead-end job; in reliance on that offer, he stays and works for a year. Now Congress wants the bonus back. It's hard to understand how that comports with anyone's idea of fairness, let alone legality. Remember when George Bush was 'shredding the Constitution?' Ah, those were the good old days! Now we have Congressional Democrats trying to give themselves political cover by advocating patently unconstitutional legislation singling out a few hundred employees of a single company for a 'tax' that would reclaim money that they were promised, and earned, with the full knowledge and consent of the Federal Reserve and, it turns out, Congress."
• NRO's Yuval Levin: "As a general matter, the anger about the AIG bonuses is understandable and probably largely well-placed, but our elected officials really need to think before they speak, because they're sending a message to the potential future investors and financial sector workers who will be crucial to a recovery that perfectly legal contractually arranged payments and profits are subject to arbitrary retroactive rescission at the whim of panicked politicians. [...] That's not to say that the AIG bonuses are not outrageous, but the severe and ugly overreaction we're seeing (and especially the prospect of micro-targeted punitive taxation, let alone personal threats) is very bad for American capitalism."

Geraghty is also critical of the GOP proposal, which instructs the Treasury Dept. "to recoup or stay the payment of AIG bonuses": "I'm underwhelmed with the first part of the House GOP's proposal to deal with the AIG bonuses. [...] Some bonus recipients are returning the money; in other cases, the money is gone; even the Democrats' 'tax 'em until they bleed' strategy won't affect those who are foreign citizens. I'd prefer if the GOP used this mess as an argument for no additional federal bailouts. Companies that make bad decisions can no longer look to Uncle Sam to save them from the consequences of their actions."

AIG II: Take These Bastards To Court!

Several liberal bloggers are urging the DoJ to launch a criminal investigation into AIG, as they see evidence for criminal activity in various divisions of the company:

• dday: "I think we need to stop looking at AIG as simply a failed company and more like a criminal enterprise."
• Daily Kos' Jed Lewison: "As Josh [Marshall] says, we need to take a broader view of AIG's malfeasance. We are all justifiably outraged by AIG's handling of the bonus issue. But if it turns out that AIG was involved in a criminal conspiracy to commit fraud, the bonuses will take care of themselves. It's unrealistic to expect Tim Geithner to adequately address either either issue -- the potential criminal wrongdoing, or the bonuses. He's got enough on his plate trying to stabilize the financial system and usher in an economic recovery. But the Obama Administration does have a responsibility not just to make sure taxpayers don't get screwed, but also enforce the rule of law. That's why there's a Department of Justice, and that's the job of the Attorney General."
• Obsidian Wings' hilzoy: "I hope that every law enforcement agency with anything resembling jurisdiction goes over everything about AIG-FP with a fine-tooth comb. There are more than enough peculiar aspects to this story to warrant it. There's nothing like legal liability and high-profile prosecutions and lawsuits to put the fear of God in people. And the Masters of the Universe badly need a little fear of God right now."

GEITHNER: He's Gotta Go

Liberal bloggers continue to criticize Geithner and urge Obama to replace him:

• Open Left's David Sirota: "[I]n light of the fact that Tim Geithner was intimately involved in the original AIG bailout as a top Federal Reserve bank official, it's fair to say he has either lied about when he knew about the bonuses, or he is totally incompetent and out of the loop on major economic issues. Now, we get this from Time magazine confirming that his department knew about these bonuses far earlier than he admits. [...] I said it before and I'll say it again: In light of the lying or the incompetence (or, perhaps, both), it's time for President Obama to fire Tim Geithner and Larry Summers, and replace them with more competent people."
• AMERICAblog's Chris in Paris: "Obama is in a deep hole with this problem and does not have the right team to move forward. He can either stay with [Geithner] or cut his losses now and find a grown up who is more focused on helping the country as a whole instead of remaining friends with Wall Street. As I've said before, Obama is making a mistake if he thinks this is not going to drag him down. The entire process including bringing in Geithner and his team has been chaotic and that does not help bring confidence to anyone."
• AMERICAblog's Joe Sudbay: "[N]ote to Tim Geithner: Let's hope you've figured out by now that you work for Obama, not Wall Street. Your old pals in the biz are making you look really bad. They're not your friends now. So, start working for the American people."
• Atrios: "Obama's big mistake was hiring Larry and Timmeh."

BAYH: Time To Put The Brakes On The Obama Agenda

Needless to say, liberal bloggers did not welcome Bayh's announcement that he's created a caucus of moderate Dem senators:

• Mother Jones' Kevin Drum: "[I]t's about time, isn't it? We've now gone nearly a full two months without Democrats forming a circular firing squad designed to bring down a Democratic president and prove that Democrats can't actually get anything done. I say, that's two months too long. But at least a bunch of senators will get to preen a bit about how they managed to water down progressive legislation and get the White House to beg them for their votes. And that's what public service is all about, isn't it?"
• MyDD's desmoinesdem: "Of the Moderate Dems, only [AR Sen. Blanche] Lincoln, [LA Sen. Mary] Landrieu, [AK Sen. Mark] Begich and [NE Sen.] Ben Nelson represent states carried by John McCain. Why did the others rush to join a caucus that (based on Bayh's record) will try to water down President Barack Obama's agenda? [...] The severe recession may make next year a tough environment for the president's party to begin with. If Democrats carrying water for corporate interests sink 'the change we need,' Democratic base turnout could drop significantly, as it did in 1994. Most of the Moderate Dems Working Group members will not face the voters until 2012 and 2014, but their obstruction could harm many other Congressional Democrats."
• The Atlantic's Ta-Nehisi Coates: "Clearly [Bayh's caucus] is needed because the greatest threat to the Democratic Party -- with Tim Kaine chairing the DNC, Hillary Clinton at the State Department, Lawrence Summers directing the National Economic Council, Rahm Emanuel as Chief of Staff, and Bob Gates in the Pentagon, pro-lifer Harry Reid as Majority Leader -- is a Marxist plot hatched by Dennis Kucinich and the ghost of Paul Wellstone. Look, I'm not opposed to moderation or pragmatism as a principle. But what I see below from Evan Bayh is a rather shallow, sanctimonious, self-congratulatory, voodoo moderation. Here is a Senator who co-sponsored the resolution for the Iraq War -- arguably the most delusional, Utopian act since Vietnam -- talking up his pragmatist credentials. Laughable."

The fact that Bayh chose to announce his plans on Morning Joe -- which is hosted by conservative MSNBC pundit Joe Scarborough -- only confirmed that netroots' belief that Bayh's intentions are bad:

• Think Progress' Matthew Yglesias: "It's been known for a while now that Senator Evan Bayh (D-IN) has been planning to form a caucus of 'moderate' Senate Democrats hoping to soak up special interest cash in exchange for blocking the progressive agenda. I'm told he more formally announced the formation of this group this morning, on Morning Joe, to acclaim from Joe Scarborough and Pat Buchanan. It's nice to see that Bayh isn't even pretending that what he's advancing is some alternative vision of progressive change -- it's something he expects, rightly, die-hard rightwingers to find pleasant."
• The Washington Monthly's Steve Benen: "Joe Scarborough (conservative Republican) was thrilled to hear about Bayh's new venture. Pat Buchanan (conservative Republican) was glad to hear it. Far-right blogs think this is a great idea. This should offer a fairly significant hint to Bayh about the value of this endeavor. It's all rather painful. The president -- you know, the one who just easily won a national election and enjoys strong approval ratings -- will face governing challenges in a Senate in which his own party has 58 (eventually, 59) members. Part of the problem is Republican obstructionism, and part of it is Bayh and the Blue Dogs who feel more comfortable driving with their foot on the brake."

One liberal blogger, Daily Kos' David Waldman, isn't too worried about Bayh's "moderate" caucus because the members of his caucus "[are] not voting with him". Meanwhile, conservative blogger Morrissey is pleased that Bayh's group "want[s] to put some speed limits on Obama's agenda."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Enough With The Faux Outrage

Spruiell:

"Ed Liddy sized up this situation when he got to AIG and came to the conclusion that the best course for taxpayers and for the financial system was to pay the bonuses. This gets back to something I wrote earlier: If Obama disagrees with Liddy's decision, he should either A) fire Liddy, or B) fire the guy who hired Liddy (Tim Geithner). What he should not do is go along with this Kabuki outrage, in which official Washington pretends it had no idea that big financial institutions -- especially failing ones -- might need to keep paying their top employees competitive salaries."

LEST WE FORGET: Tweets From The Roman Senate During Cicero's First Oration Against Catiline

McSweeney's contributor Daniel O'Keefe:

• "One doesn't want to sound snarky, but it's nice not to see Sulla up there."
• "'O tempora, O mores'? O give it a rest."
• "Somehow the best seats are reserved for patricians."
• "Pompeius Magnus is here!"
• "I can't believe Catiline actually showed up for this."
• "Cicero's definitely planning a bid for praetor."
• "I'm sitting behind Cato the Younger."

3/18: The Debate Over Dodd

Yesterday, a ton of blog posts were written about Sen. Chris Dodd's (D-CT) alleged role in allowing AIG to hand out multimillion-dollar bonuses. FOXBusiness' Rich Edson and ABC News' Jonathan Karl both wrote articles alleging that Dodd attached an amendment to the stimulus bill which restricted executive compensation but contained an "exception for contractually obligated bonuses agreed on before Feb. 11, 2009" (Dodd denies writing this exemption clause). Edson's article was picked up by Matt Drudge and various conservative bloggers, who proceeded to mock Dodd. Jim Geraghty wrote: "Senator Chris Dodd's challenger, Rob Simmons, was just given a golden, golden issue to run on. Who in their right mind would codify in law that bonus payments to executives at bailed-out companies could not be prohibited?"

Liberal bloggers, on the other hand, are defending Dodd and pointing to Marc Ambinder's article explaining that the exemption clause was added by the conference committee, not Dodd. In the eyes of most lefty bloggers, officials in Pres. Obama's administration are responsible for watering down Dodd's restrictions on executive pay, since they openly opposed Dodd's amendment back in February. Consequently, the netroots are stepping up their criticism of Treasury Sec. Tim Geithner, whom they consider responsible for this AIG bonus fiasco.

What else is happening in the blogosphere?

• Conservative bloggers (Reynolds, Riehl, Bandes, Hinderaker) continue to argue that controversy over the AIG bonuses is a distraction from the larger issue, which is the bailouts themselves.
• Liberal bloggers (Singer, McIntyre) are buzzing about a new Gallup poll indicating that 53% of Americans support "a new law that would make it easier for labor unions to organize workers," but others are pointing out that the question doesn't specifically ask about the Employee Free Choice Act.

DODD: The Rightroots Pile On, But Do They Have The Wrong Guy?

Yesterday, Edson and Karl both wrote articles alleging that Dodd attached an amendment to the stimulus bill which restricted executive compensation but provided an "exception for contractually obligated bonuses agreed on before Feb. 11, 2009." Edson's article (whose initial title, "Amid AIG Furor, Dodd Tries to Undo Bonus Protections He Put In," has since been amended) was picked up by Drudge and various conservative bloggers, who proceeded to mock Dodd:

• Michelle Malkin: "Chris Dodd: For AIG bonuses before he was against them."
• RedState's Erick Erickson: "[W]ill federal prosecutors indict Chris Dodd? Dodd sneaked in a provision to protect AIG bonuses. Congress, via Dodd's last minute amendment, specifically granted AIG permission to give the bonuses."
• NRO's Geraghty: "Senator Chris Dodd's challenger, Rob Simmons, was just given a golden, golden issue to run on. Who in their right mind would codify in law that bonus payments to executives at bailed-out companies could not be prohibited?"
• Commentary's Jennifer Rubin: "[G]ood old Chris Dodd gave AIG a little help via a legislative goody to 'protect' certain bonuses from government meddling."
• NRO's David Freddoso: "[Dodd], who has received more than $100,000 from AIG employees in the last 20 years, had written and inserted the relevant provision, with the relevant loophole. How can he, the president, or anyone else who voted for the stimulus, suddenly act surprised? Don't tell us they didn't read the bill."
• Rep. Michelle Bachmann (R-MN): "It turns out that Chris Dodd, Chairman of the Senate Banking Committee and the largest single recipient of campaign contributions from AIG, has found himself embroiled in the recent AIG bonus scandal and is quickly trying to reverse course, in both his policies and rhetoric. First, Dodd inserted language into last month's 'stimulus' package that specifically prohibits the government from stopping the taxpayer-funded $165 million in executive bonuses at AIG to happen. Now that there is a political firestorm rising over these very bonuses, he is calling for a 91% excise tax on those bonuses."

DODD II: He's Innocent, I Tell Ya!

Media Matters and Ambinder published articles disputing the notion that Dodd deliberately created a loophole that allowed AIG to hand out these bonuses. As Ambinder explains (in an article that Dodd himself is promoting), the loophole was added by the conference committee, not Dodd:

"[O]n the subject of AIG's bonuses, [Dodd] doesn't deserve the bad rap. [...] The truth is that the codicil was added in conference by mutual agreement of House and Senate Democrats and the White House. At the time, the administration worried about both the perception and the reality of government's interfering in the decisions and internal operations of the banks. Backstopping employment contracts was controversial to critics, but to an administration that was trying to work with the banks, it was an easy call. The worry was that the banks would suffer immediate and disasterous brain drain if the govenment could abrogate (the world of the week!) employment contracts willy-nilly. Apparently, no one at the Treasury Department or the New York Federal Reserve Board bothered to check on what those contracts actually contained -- therein was the sin of omission, if you can call it that."

Liberal bloggers are now accusing the Obama admin. of trying to throw Dodd under the bus, noting that they were the ones who opposed Dodd's efforts to limit executive pay:

• Salon's Glenn Greenwald: "There is a major push underway -- engineered by Obama's Treasury officials, enabled by a mindless media, and amplified by the right-wing press -- to blame Chris Dodd for the AIG bonus payments. That would be perfectly fine if it were true. But it's completely false, and the scheme to heap the blame on him for the AIG bonus payments is based on demonstrable falsehoods. [...] It was Obama officials, not Dodd, who demanded that already-vested bonus payments be exempted."
• Open Left's Chris Bowers: "Back in mid-February during the fight over the stimulus package, Senator Chris Dodd was pushing for retroactive restrictions on bonuses paid to employees of financial companies receiving bailout money. This measure, which would have applied to AIG bonuses, was opposed by both Wall Street and the Obama administration. [...] Both [WH economics adviser] Larry Summers and Tim Geithner personally asked Senator Dodd to remove the retroactive provision, because they thought it meant banks would give the government its money back. [...] While Dodd refused to back down, at the request of the administration the retroactive language was stripped from the final bill during the conference report anyway. Now, a source deep inside the Obama administration is telling the press that the bonuses are Dodd's fault, and that Geithner is the one who is outraged."
• MyDD's Todd Beeton: "Chris Dodd's amendment limiting executive compensation, particularly bonuses on a retroactive basis[,] passed the Senate but then got severely watered down in conference. The more you read, the more it's clear that Geithner's and Summers' fingerprints are all over this. [...] The fact is, despite what the right wing noise machine tells you, it wasn't because of Dodd that the limitations on executive pay and bonuses in the stimulus package weren't retroactive (and thus applicable to AIG) it was in spite of him."
• Firedoglake's Jane Hamsher: "Dodd's provision was weakened when the bill got to conference. According to those knowledgeable about what happened, it was due to pressure brought to bear by the Treasury out of concern that those with contracts that guaranteed them bonuses would litigate. [...] It's impossible to know how many of those bonuses would have been covered by Dodd's original language without examining the individual contracts. What is certain, however, is that the loophole regarding 'retroactivity' which facilitated the payout of the bonuses that AIG cited in their white paper, was something that Treasury specifically lobbied for. For the 'administration official' to blame Dodd in the pages of the New York Times for the payout of these bonuses, after the White House publicly fought him tooth and nail to weaken compensation limits, is completely disingenuous."
• dday: "The President brought this upon himself through his hirings. But if he wants to find a way out, he could stop the practice of his team blaming others and start living up to his own rhetoric."

GEITHNER: Fire His Ass, Mr. President!

Liberal bloggers are stepping up their criticism of Geithner:

• Atrios: "Which senator will be the first to ask [Geithner] to resign?"
• Bowers: "If Geithner knew about the bonuses for months, and was working on trying to stop them, why didn't he tell the public? Knowledge of these bonuses would have reduced support for the releasing of the second $350 billion in TARP funds, and also increased support for the TARP Reform Act that passed the House but was not acted upon in the Senate. Burying this info played a huge role in the January passage of TARP that included no additional legal restrictions on the money. But Geithner sat on the story. [...] He sat on information that could have swung one of the three most important congressional votes of the last two years. That is unacceptable. Fire Geithner."
• Beeton: "It seems President Obama may have a...bad choice before him: save the jobs of those complicit in this fiasco, i.e. Geithner and Summers, or risk his first term's agenda. Actually, it shouldn't be a difficult choice."
• Hamsher: "Geithner seems to share [Andrew Sorkin's] assumption, namely that there is nothing wrong with this system that piles of money won't fix. That if you keep shoveling cash into it, some day things will get better. He has not addressed the crisis of public trust, the critical lack of faith that everyone -- both inside and out of the financial industry -- is gripped with right now. He wants to pay the very bankers who created this mess in order to buy up 'toxic assets,' which the public views as just another way for him to funnel billions to his Wall Street pals. As if the systemic problems that led to this crisis will just go away and the same thing won't happen all over again. People are outraged at the injustice of paying out billions in bonuses to AIG bankers, but they're also irate (and freaked out) about what it says about those in charge -- that they are so much a part of the fabric of the problem that they're incapable of seeing what it is, much less solving it."

AIG: Let's Not Forget The Big Picture

As we noted yesterday, conservative bloggers aren't joining their liberal counterparts in decrying the AIG bonuses. Instead, they're portraying the bonus hubbub as a distraction from the larger issue, which is the bailouts themselves:

• Glenn Reynolds: "[T]he whole bonus issue is kind of a distraction."
• Dan Riehl: "What this entire fiasco documents is how bad an idea it is when the government gets its hands around elements of the private sector. They invariably screw it up."
• Townhall's Jillian Bandes: "I'm not thrilled about millions going to executives who don't deserve it. But in light of AIG's legal obligations, and in light of the bailout being such a gigantic fraud to begin with, worrying about the bonuses seems like a very expedient distraction."
• Power Line's John Hinderaker: "I'm not sure whether there is actually anything wrong with the AIG bonuses or not; if the facts are as described by the Washington Post, this may be a standard employee compensation issue, not an executive greed-fest. The real lesson is that the federal government has no business trying to run an insurance company. When the manner in which AIG pays its employees becomes a political food-fight, something is seriously wrong."
• RedState's Francis Cianfrocca: "Even though there is a principled case to be made in favor of the bonuses, principle is something Obama has never known or cared anything about."

That said, Reynolds is pleased that the AIG bonus backlash appears to be hurting Dems: "They rushed this stinker through, and now it's biting them on the ass. Good."

EMPLOYEE FREE CHOICE ACT: Does The Public Support It?

Liberal bloggers are buzzing about a new Gallup poll which found that 53% of Americans support "a new law that would make it easier for labor unions to organize workers":

• MyDD's Jonathan Singer: "So much for the notion that the Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA) is toxic, or even unpopular. [...A]t the least these data should indicate to those wavering on the legislation that they would stand to gain from coming out on the side of workers, even if it might slow down the flow of large contributions to their campaign accounts."
• Daily Kos' Jake McIntyre: "The timing of this news couldn't be better, as it should help stiffen the spines of Congress to move quickly to pass Employee Free Choice -- as written -- and get it to President Obama's desk for signing."

However, FiveThirtyEight's Nate Silver cautions EFCA proponents not to take too much comfort in this poll, since the wording of Gallup's question is vague: "Let's be careful here, however: that Americans support an easier path toward unionization in the abstract does not mean that they support any and all potential mechanisms toward achieving that goal. They might plausibly think that EFCA is the wrong means toward the right end."

Ezra Klein takes a more optimistic view: "[T]he question avoids a lot of the complexity in the debate but it does make clear the goal of the legislation; in my view, despite skipping over the controversy, your answer to the question of whether or not it should be easier or harder to organize unions more or less determines your response to EFCA."

Meanwhile, Silver offers EFCA proponents some advice on how to frame the issue: "While a certain amount of anti-corporate populism can probably be productive in this environment, I don't know that the unions fundamentally want to make this a narrative about class conflict. [...] Polling has generally revealed that more Americans support the right to union formation than would want to form a union themselves. The more effective framing, rather, might be in normative rather than economic terms. That is, don't focus on the benefits of unionization, but rather on the right to union formation. For example: the ability to form a union is a fundamental American right, companies are routinely infringing upon that right, and EFCA is necessary to protect that right. This would also provide for a stronger rebuttal to the 'secret ballot' talking point ('EFCA would deprive employees of their right to a secret ballot'), which is oriented precisely along these lines."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Why Do You Need 60 When 50 Is Enough?

Yglesias defends the proposed Dem strategy of using the "budget reconciliation" process to pass Obama's health care and cap-and-trade plans with 51 votes instead of 60:

"[T]he idea that passing legislation my majority rule is some kind of mafia stunt is absurd. This is how bills pass in the House of Representatives, in the parliaments of the United Kingdom and Canada, in the state legislatures of the vast majority of American states. It's how student council worked in my high school. It's how New Hampshire town councils make decisions. You're not talking about 'running over' the minority, you're talking about taking a vote in which the majority wins and the minority loses. That's how we pick Senators! [NH Sen.] Judd Gregg doesn't need 60 percent of the vote to stay in office."

LEST WE FORGET: Policeman Breaks Up Area Party Out Of Pity

From The Onion:

"SOUTH BEND, IN -- While patrolling the University of Notre Dame campus Friday night, officer Robert Mueller disrupted a party taking place at 131 Frances St. out of sheer pity for its attendees. 'At approximately 10:30 p.m., I observed two minors awkwardly drinking beers on the porch outside their home,' Mueller wrote in his report of the pathetic infraction. 'After approaching the suspects, I immediately scanned the area for rowdy or disorderly conduct, the smell of marijuana smoke, or any signs of possible fun and, finding none, decided to take decisive action. That party was a goddamn embarrassment.' Although Mueller felt so sorry for the partygoers that he couldn't bring himself to contact their parents, the relieved college sophomores said they would never forget the crazy night when their Numb3rs viewing party was busted up by the cops."

3/17: The AIG Backlash Continues

AIG's decision to hand out $165M in executive bonuses continues to provoke outrage in the liberal blogosphere. Lefty bloggers strongly dispute the company's claim that it was contractually obligated to pay these bonuses. A common argument in the liberal blogosphere is that the Detroit automakers had to renegotiate their employee contracts as a precondition for receiving government bailout funds, so why shouldn't AIG do the same? The netroots are also criticizing the Obama admin.'s handling of this episode, calling it "disappointing and frustrating." Chris Bowers has launched a petition urging Obama to replace Treasury Sec. Timothy Geithner and WH economics adviser Lawrence Summers on the grounds that they're either (a.) too close to Wall Street, or (b.) incompetent.

Meanwhile, conservative bloggers are echoing House Min. Leader John Boehner's argument that the real outrage is not the executive bonuses, but the bailouts themselves. John Hinderaker warns that "the flap over AIG bonuses is just one of many that we can expect to arise if we continue down the path of endless bailouts" and argues that bankruptcy is the only solution for insolvent firms like AIG.

What else is happening in the blogosphere?

• Conservative bloggers (Lopez, Liebau, Allahpundit) are criticizing WH Press Sec. Robert Gibbs for taking a swipe at ex-VP Dick Cheney in response to a reporter's question about Cheney's criticism of Obama. Liberal bloggers (Lewison, Kleefeld), on the other hand, think Gibbs' quip was quite justified.
• Markos Moulitsas thinks House Dems need to stop blocking an ethics investigation into Rep. Jack Murtha's (D-PA) ties to a defense research center. Naturally, conservative bloggers (Reynolds, Allahpundit) agree.

AIG: Some Contracts Are Made To Be Broken

AIG CEO Edward Liddy and various Obama officials have argued that AIG was contractually obligated to pay $165M in bonuses to executives in its Financial Products division. However, liberal bloggers don't find this explanation the least bit persuasive. First of all, they see an enormous double standard, since Congress required the Detroit automakers to renegotiate their employee contracts before providing them with bailout funds, whereas it didn't impose such a requirement on financial firms:

• Salon's Glenn Greenwald: "Apparently, the supreme sanctity of employment contracts applies only to some types of employees but not others."
• Firedoglake's Jane Hamsher: "Unlike the auto workers, nobody insisted that the AIG bankers who wrote half a trillion in credit default swaps take a pay cut as a condition of receiving TARP funds. But this was the deal with the auto makers."
• Sadly, No!'s Brad: "If Team Obamee is smart, they'll come out today and announce that they're forcing AIG to renegotiate its contracts with its employees, just as the autoworkers have had to renegotiate their contracts with GM, Ford and Chrysler. Because if they don't, they'll be giving the GOP the opening that they've been so desperately seeking."

Liberal bloggers also do not buy the argument that AIG had no legal means of breaking its employee contracts:

• Greenwald: "[T]he Obama administration's claim that nothing could be done about the AIG bonuses because AIG has solid, sacred contractual commitments to pay them is, for so many reasons, absurd on its face. As any lawyer knows, there are few things more common -- or easier -- than finding legal arguments that call into question the meaning and validity of contracts. Every day, commercial courts are filled with litigations between parties to seemingly clear-cut agreements. Particularly in circumstances as extreme as these, there are a litany of arguments and legal strategies that any lawyer would immediately recognize to bestow AIG with leverage either to be able to avoid these sleazy payments or force substantial concessions."
• TalkLeft's Big Tent Democrat: "I am not in agreement that [violating contracts] is quite as easy as Glenn [Greenwald] makes it out to be, but there is no doubt that building legal arguments, oftentimes borderline (and not so borderline) frivolous arguments, is often part of the process of negotiating an 'efficient breach' and the payment to be made by the party seeking to breach a contract."
• Firedoglake's Chris in Paris: "I've had it with the 'well, it's legal' crap with the AIG bonus payouts. Let's quit being cute about this and lower the boom. We all know AIG needs more money and that won't end any time soon. If they want to play the legal game, let's let the bastards go bankrupt [...M]aybe it's time we push AIG (and their friends) to the brink and see who wants to scream chicken."

Meanwhile, ex-MA Gov. Mitt Romney writes a blog post at National Review in which he agrees with liberal bloggers: "[T]he Obama administration was wrong to initially defend the bonuses as contractually obligated. In 1990, I was asked to assume the CEO position at the management consulting firm Bain & Co., then in acute financial distress. The need to restructure was paramount or else the company would fail, leaving 1,000 employees without a job. We renegotiated debt with bankers. We rewrote leases with landlords. We designed a whole new governing system. We also had to convince the founding partners to turn back profits they had already taken out of the company. Of course, we had no legal basis for making such a request, but without a shared sacrifice we couldn't keep the company alive. Generously, the founders returned the money, putting us on a path to stabilizing the firm and turning it over to new leadership. It's difficult to understand why the same lesson about shared sacrifice is lost on AIG's executive team and their government overseers."

AIG II: This Is Just A Symptom Of A Larger Illness

Most conservative bloggers are echoing Rep. Boehner's response to the AIG bonus debacle -- namely, that the real problem is not the bonuses, but the bailouts themselves:

• Right Wing News' John Hawkins: "It's easy to forget in this big back and forth over these bonuses that the taxpayers have pumped $173 billion dollars of our money into that company. We're worried about 160 million dollars? Okay, well what about the other 172 billion, 840 million dollars? [...] How about we take the money back and let AIG worry about AIG instead of us worrying about AIG? If we're not going to do that, how about we at least a set a date for an exit strategy? If Barack Obama can set a timeline to get us out of Iraq, why can't he set a timeline to get us out of AIG and these other corporations that have been bailed out with taxpayer money?"
• Power Line's Hinderaker: "A bailout is an ill-defined procedure in which no one's rights are clear, and political calculation counts for more than fairness or transparency. The flap over AIG bonuses is just one of many that we can expect to arise if we continue down the path of endless bailouts, rather than allowing insolvent companies and their creditors and investors to pay the price of that insolvency."
• Michelle Malkin: "Okay. We get it. Every politician in Washington wants to show They Care by bashing AIG. Which almost all of them agreed to bail out. Repeatedly. But never mind all that."
• Hot Air's Ed Morrissey: "The nasty little secret at the center of all the outrage is that the Obama administration could have stopped the bonuses by simply stopping the bailout. They could have forced AIG into bankruptcy, which would have voided the company's contractual compensation obligations. Instead, the Obama administration chose to inject liquidity into AIG, following the lead of the Bush administration, which had done the same thing. That kept AIG's doors open, and therefore kept its contractual obligations to its employees intact. Now Obama is outrageously outraged, as Allahpundit put it yesterday, but over what? A company complying with its contractual obligations?"

OBAMA: Too Little, Too Late?

Some liberal bloggers praised Obama after he declared that he had instructed Geithner to "pursue every single legal avenue to block these [AIG] bonuses and make the American taxpayers whole":

• AMERICAblog's John Aravosis: "Obama's pissed. He's going after AIG. Good."
• Firedoglake's emptywheel: "I'm glad that Obama did this (after seeing the outrage in Congress no doubt). I'm still astounded that Geithner needed to be told."

Other liberal bloggers were less impressed by Obama's rhetoric:

• MyDD's Todd Beeton: "While this tough talk from the President is welcome, the management of this news and the lack of the exertion of any authority over a company that the government essentially owns, has been disappointing and frustrating."
• TPM's Josh Marshall: "I guess [the Obama admin.'s] outrage is a little hard for me to swallow at this stage of the game. They just got schooled by AIG. Their initial outrage should have been about the bonuses, but their outrage now ought to be about AIG's fundamental misapprehension of what the post-bailout relationship between the company and Treasury is all about. AIG doesn't seem to get it -- and I'm not convinced yet that the Administration gets it either."
• Open Left's David Sirota: "Wall Street and Washington insiders like Larry Summers and Tim Geithner have spent the last few weeks telling America there's supposedly nothing that can be done to stop bailed out banks from using our taxpayer money to subsidize executive bonuses. [...] Now, President Obama has publicly contradicted them, signaling a major schism in the new administration. [...] It raises a very serious question: Who is in charge -- the president or the Washington and Wall Street insiders he put around himself?"

OBAMA II: The Netroots Are Done With Geithner And Summers

Liberal bloggers are stepping up their criticism of Summers and Geithner, whom they perceive as ineffectual and/or too closely aligned with Wall Street:

• Daily Kos' Moulitsas: "Obama appears rudderless in dealing with the bailout mess (AIG bonuses just the latest example) precisely because his economic team came from the same group that brought us this mess. A clean break couldn't come soon enough ... you know, change!"
• Atrios: "Timmeh [Geithner] and Larry [Summers] are just shoveling cash to their pals. It's so depressing."
• Open Left's Bowers: "It is becoming hard to avoid the conclusion that Geithner and Summers are working to protect the Wall Street executives at the financial institutions that are receiving TARP money. Its either that, or they are demonstrating a lot of incompetence. No matter which is the case, I have created a petition asking President Obama to replace Geithner and Summers on his economic team. We need people who are serious about changing TARP to be running TARP. Geithner and Summers ain't it."
• Hamsher: "American taxpayers now own 80% of AIG. They'll be paying back the government, and paying off the bonuses, with our money. There is no reason to be tiptoeing around these people. Are Geithner and Summers are just too aligned with Wall Street interests to do what needs to be done? The bottom line is -- nobody trusts them. Congress needs to use its subpoena power to get a hold of these AIG contracts and make their own analysis. "

GIBBS: Crossing The Line?

Conservative bloggers are criticizing Gibbs after he gave the following response to a reporter's question about Cheney's criticism of Obama:

QUESTION: ...How do you respond to those kind of allegations from the former vice president?
GIBBS: Well, I guess Rush Limbaugh was busy so they trotted out the next most popular member of the Republican cabal.

Conservative bloggers complain that Gibbs' response was inappropriate:

• NRO's Kathryn Jean Lopez: "At some point, this administration -- when it takes a break from talking about bipartisanship -- ought to consider that Barack Obama is Rush Limbaugh's and Dick Cheney's -- every American's -- president, too."
• Townhall's Carol Platt Liebau: "For heaven's sake. Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter both broke the longstanding tradition of ex-presidents remaining silent about the policies of their predecessors. Yet I don't recall the George W. Bush White House attacking either of them. Nor did the Bush White House respond when Al Gore essentially accused President Bush of being a traitor."
• Hot Air's Allahpundit: "What happened here? I thought the new strategy was to put aside childish things like the Rush nonsense and start explaining to Americans why an almost $2 trillion dollar deficit is actually a good thing short-term. Maybe they saw the new CNN poll and figured there's a little magic left in their Limbaugh-bashing bag of tricks?"

GIBBS II: Way To Show Your True Colors, Chip!

Liberal bloggers, on the other hand, think Gibbs' swipe at Cheney was quite warranted, and they're criticizing journalists (such as CBS's Chip Reid and ABC's Rick Klein) who think otherwise:

• TPM's Eric Kleefeld: "Now let's consider the full context here. Dick Cheney did an interview with CNN in which he went out of his way to repeatedly attack the new White House, saying they were putting the country at risk of a new terror attack. But the question here is whether it's appropriate for the Obama Administration to fire back in response -- that it's Obama's people who are accused of showing insufficient respect to the office?"
• Balloon Juice's DougJ: "Cheney said that he'd 'pay to see' a debate between Rush and Obama and has repeatedly said that Obama has left the nation open to attack. Why don't we get a 'wow, he's talking about the sitting president' here? Dick Cheney still has higher status in the Village than Barack Obama. It's that simple."
• Daily Kos' Jew Lewison: "First, lighten up -- most people like Gibbs' sense of humor. You don't have to laugh at it, but don't be the sourpuss ruining it for everybody else! Second, if you're interested in decorum, start with Cheney, who spent an hour berating the President of the United States. After all, IOKIYAR is not a good thing."
• Oliver Willis: "Chip Reid: Rush Limbaugh's 'Butt Boy'? By Rush's own definition of the phrase, Chip Reid is doing the GOP's dirty work, last week by attacking Democrats, this week by speaking up for Dick Cheney."
• Atrios: "Wanker of the Day: Chip Reid."

MURTHA: Kos Has Had Enough

Moulitsas thinks House Dems need to stop blocking an ethics investigation into Rep. Murtha's ties to a defense research center: "House Democrats have been blocking an ethics investigation into this matter. That has to stop now. It was shit like this that helped Democrats lose control of the House in 1994, and Republicans in 2006. I've got no interest in giving Republicans easy ammunition. We have to show we are different than Republicans by refusing to tolerate any corruption in our ranks."

TAPPED's Tim Fernholz agrees: "I don't always agree with Kos, but he's right about this. The Democrats have got to stop hindering ethics investigations into their members if they want to retain the majority, and they definitely shouldn't let John Murtha continue to hold the chairmanship of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee. The FBI is investigating Murtha, and if they find nothing, he can always have the chair back. But the more it seems that the FBI will bring back an indictment or damning evidence, the better it is for House Democrats to get ahead of the issue."

Conservative bloggers are praising Moulitsas for his stance:

• Glenn Reynolds: "Good for [Kos] -- he's certainly right. But the GOP Congress didn't listen to me; let's see if the Dems listen to him..."
• Allahpundit: "Give Kos credit, I guess, for supporting the GOP probe, although now that the story's reached this level of rancidity, throwing him under the bus is less a matter of conscience than of simple prudence."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Which Crises Are The Chrisisiest?

Ezra Klein disagrees with Noam Scheiber's claim that "our political system isn't ideally suited to dealing with financial and economic crises":

"Indeed, I think our political system is actually fairly well-designed for short-term crises. The problem is long-term crises like global warming or health costs. As Peter Orszag wrote back on his CBO blog, 'our political system doesn't deal well with gradual, long-term problems' that require 'trading off up-front costs in exchange for long-term benefits.' Few Congressmen want to raise taxes tomorrow to reduce carbon a decade from now. Lots of Congressmen don't want the economy to collapse if they have to run for reelection next year. For that reason, I'm much more confident in the system's ability to react agilely and seriously to the economic crisis than global warming. The economic crisis, after all, threatens their reelection. Incumbents often don't survive depressions. Conversely, I think conventional wisdom is that it's fixing global warming, rather than global warming itself, that poses the largest political threat to incumbent legislators."

LEST WE FORGET: A Vote Of No Confidence

Balloon Juice's John Cole:

"With all this talk about investor confidence and confidence in the market and confidence in the future, you know who doesn't have much confidence? Me.

I'm listening to the 'market analyst' on CNN, and she assured me the market is going to rally today because, and I'm paraphrasing, 'they were reassured by Ben Bernanke's appearance on 60 Minutes.'

Really. No wonder we are in this mess. That is how my ex-girlfriend picked restaurants -- 'Let's go here. I liked the look of their greeter.' If this is how the market really operates, I would not be surprised if this is just another short-term rally before the next plunge to the bottom."

3/16: Everybody Hates AIG

Liberal bloggers are outraged that AIG -- which has received over $170B in taxpayer bailout money -- is handing out $165M in bonuses "to executives in the same business unit that brought the company to the brink of collapse last year." Lefty bloggers are not at all persuaded by AIG CEO Edward Liddy's claim that the company was contractually obligated to pay these bonuses; as Robert Reich points out: "Had AIG gone into chapter 11 bankruptcy or been liquidated, as it would have without government aid, no bonuses would ever be paid."

That said, liberal bloggers aren't merely criticizing AIG; they're also blasting Pres. Obama's economic team (and Treasury Sec. Timothy Geithner in particular) for failing to exert more pressure on the financial companies receiving taxpayer dollars. The netroots are complaining that "the corporate bailouts have become a complete political disaster" and are criticizing the Obama's administration's "impotence". Josh Marshall writes:

"I don't believe the bonuses themselves are the heart of the matter [...] What's really driving this forward -- and what makes it such a dangerous moment for the White House -- is the jarring image of the administration's impotence. Secretary Geithner found out about the bonuses. He told AIG CEO Edward Liddy it wouldn't fly. And Liddy, in a curiously imperial letter, tells Geithner that much as he is pained by the situation -- to blow it out his ass. Which he apparently proceeded to do. There's really no other way to describe it."

What else is happening in the blogosphere?

• Conservative bloggers (Hinderaker, Reynolds, Bandow) are accusing Obama of flip-flopping after WH CEA Chair Christina Romer said that the fundamentals of the economy are "sound."
• Conservative bloggers (Morrissey, Liebau, Driscoll) are arguing that Russia is "testing" Obama after a Russian air force chief speculated about "bas[ing] some strategic bombers in Cuba or on an island offered by Venezuela."
• Liberal bloggers (Lewison, Benen, Yglesias) are blasting ex-VP Dick Cheney after he criticized Obama during an interview with CNN's John King. Other lefty bloggers (Sudbay, Heilbrunn, Llorens) are encouraging Cheney to keep making TV appearances, since they think that he hurts the GOP.

AIG: Shameless

Liberal bloggers are outraged that AIG -- which has received over $170B in taxpayer bailout money -- is handing out $165M in bonuses "to executives in the same business unit that brought the company to the brink of collapse last year":

• The Washington Monthly's Steve Benen: "And here I thought AIG couldn't possibly do anything to anger Americans even more. I stand corrected."
• Think Progress' Matthew Yglesias: "You would think that executives at a company that's so poorly managed that it requires vast government aid wouldn't be getting big bonuses but apparently not."
• Atrios: "Remember that part about the US owning AIG? Well, you know, we just gave them a bunch of money and they get to do with it whatever they want. Heckuva job, Timmeh. This money is going to the clowns who sunk the company, and almost the world."
• AMERICAblog's Joe Sudbay: "It's just phenomenal how tone deaf a lot of these business people are. We thought George Bush lived in a bubble. Apparently, the leaders of corporate America were in there with him...and together, they almost destroyed the economy of the U.S. -- and the world."
• Obsidian Wings' hilzoy: "If you want to get really angry, consider that [AIG's Financial Products division], whose members will be getting nearly half a billion dollars in bonuses for the remainder of 2008 and 2009, has about 370 employees. That's well over a million dollars a person, to a group that lost over $40 billion (so far!), and bankrupted its parent company. Nice work if you can get it."
• TPM's Josh Marshall: "[B]eggars can't be choosers. It's really too rich for AIG to continually come back to the government asking for billions of dollars and tell us it's tough luck when we ask for revisions that should be no brainers. The folks running AIG's financial products division should be happy to escape this mess without criminal indictments. And that's not hyperbole. When you look at what they were doing, foolish or high-risk behavior are inadequate descriptors. It really amounts to fraud."

Liberal bloggers aren't persuaded by the CEO's claim that AIG was contractually obligated to pay these huge bonuses:

• Firedoglake's looseheadprop: "I don't believe this crap about outside lawyers saying they are obligated to pay [the bonsuses]. If AIG did not pay the bonuses and the employees sued -- tell me, where in the world would you find a jury that would vote in favor of the plaintiffs?"
• The Huffington Post's Robert Reich: "AIG's arguments are absurd on their face. Had AIG gone into chapter 11 bankruptcy or been liquidated, as it would have without government aid, no bonuses would ever be paid; indeed, AIG's executives would have long ago been on the street."
• Marshall: "Now, as a narrow legal matter, I don't doubt there is a contractual obligation. But bankruptcy disrupts contractual obligations. I'm actually not sure where employees with contractual bonuses come in line in a bankruptcy proceeding. But I bet it's really far toward the end of the line. [...] So on the business merits, they're bankrupt. But we decide it's in the national interest to prevent formal bankruptcy. And these sharks -- not everyone at AIG, but the execs that created this mess -- use that as a lever to get paid the money they never would have seen if we'd let (market) nature take its course."

Marshall also passes along a quip from a TPM reader: "Have [AL Sen.] Richard Shelby and [TN Sen.] Bob Corker held their press event demanding that AIG break their contracts with their overpaid Financial Products workers for their shoddy work?"

AIG II: Could Geithner Be Any Weaker?

Liberal bloggers are fed up with Obama's economics team:

• MyDD's Todd Beeton: "The administration's impotence in the face of AIG's outrageous bonus announcement is disappointing to say the least."
• MyDD's Jerome Armstrong: "Between Timothy Geithner and [WH adviser] Lawrence Summers, its hard to imagine Obama's economic leadership being any worse. We really need for the Democratic congress to take away the economic agenda from these two. The corporate bailouts have become a complete political disaster."
• Oliver Willis: "On Meet The Press, White House Council Of Economic Advisers Chairperson Christina Romer said that Sec. Tim Geithner is 'urging' AIG on the bonus issue. We -- the American people -- own 80% of the company. We're past the point of 'urging'. We need to TELL those bastards what to do."
• MyDD's desmoinesdem: "I just hope Obama will wake up and realize he needs to ditch Summers and Geithner before they do any more damage to his presidency."
• Reich: "When taxpayers have put up, and essentially own, a large portion of their assets, AIG and other behemoths should be accountable to taxpayers. When our very own Secretary of the Treasury cannot make stick his decision that AIG's bonuses should not be paid, only one conclusion can be drawn: AIG is accountable to no one. Our democracy is seriously broken."

AMERICAblog's Chris in Paris uses sarcasm to ridicule Geithner: "It's hard to understand how so many people believe Geithner is in deep over his head and not up for the job. Sure, he sat on his hands and did nothing for years while working at the NY Fed, but can't they see that he kindly asked AIG to scale back bonuses after they rolled out yet another round just to kick sand in the face of the American public? I hear he asked very sternly and insisted they would all be very naughty if they ran over him again."

Meanwhile, Marshall explains why he thinks this story is so significant: "I think [this] may prove to be a turning point, both for AIG and the government. I don't believe the bonuses themselves are the heart of the matter, nor the fact that they're going to the very executives who caused AIG's implosion or even the galling reality that, since all money is fungible, they're being paid with taxpayer dollars. What's really driving this forward -- and what makes it such a dangerous moment for the White House -- is the jarring image of the administration's impotence. Secretary Geithner found out about the bonuses. He told AIG CEO Edward Liddy it wouldn't fly. And Liddy, in a curiously imperial letter, tells Geithner that much as he is pained by the situation -- to blow it out his ass. Which he apparently proceeded to do. There's really no other way to describe it."

Michelle Malkin is one of the few conservative bloggers who's as outraged about the AIG bonuses as are liberal bloggers: "Here's a blood-boiler of the morning. Mr. Lonely Tim Geithner -- who was instrumental in putting together the wealth-redistributing AIG 'rescue' plan -- now apparently believes that if he says 'pretty please with sugar on top,' the bailout behemoth will cut back on bonuses sure to deepen the disgust of outraged American taxpayers."

OBAMA: Wait -- Now The Fundamentals Are Strong?

Conservative bloggers are mocking Obama after his WH CEA Chair, Christina Romer, echoed AZ Sen. John McCain's famous pronouncement from last year's Presidential campaign and said that the fundamentals of the economy are sound:

• Power Line's John Hinderaker: "Do you think Obama will apologize to McCain for his conduct during the campaign? No, I don't think so either."
• Glenn Reynolds: "Amazing. And amusing! But hey, if the economy is still fundamentally sound, I guess Obama's claims of inheriting the problems don't hold water..."
• AmSpec Blog's Doug Bandow: "As Matthew Vadum points out, after trashing the economy in order to win passage of billions or trillions or who knows how much in 'stimulus' spending, the Obama administration has decided that the economy is doing pretty well, thank you very much. There may still be a couple little glitches here and there, but, with the Chinese inquiring about the security of their U.S. securities, the Prez and his buddies say they are focusing on the economy's sound fundamentals. Right. Catherine Favazza posts a delightful youtube look at what candidate Obama said when Sen. John McCain proclaimed that the economy was fundamentally sound. Strange, there seems to be a little inconsistency. Imagine that..."

OBAMA II: The Russians Are Coming!

Conservative bloggers are declaring that Russia is "testing" Obama after a Russian air force chief said that the country "could base some strategic bombers in Cuba or on an island offered by Venezuela":

• Hot Air's Ed Morrissey: "It took John Kennedy more than a year to precipitate a military standoff with the Soviet Union over Cuba in the 1962 missile crisis. It's taken the Obama Amateur Hour less than two months."
• Townhall's Carol Platt Liebau: "Testing of our new and inexperienced Commander-in-Chief continues as Russia weighs creating military bases in Venezuala and Cuba. The problem, of course, is that if President Obama allows Russia really to gain a foothold in the western hemisphere (in violation of the Monroe Doctrine), it becomes incredibly difficult for his successor to do anything about it."
• Ed Driscoll: "Every four to eight years, Democrats go back to the future, hoping for the latest reissue of a sleek, classic 1960 model. This year, for your ducking and covering pleasure, he comes complete with an update of the Cuban Missile Crisis."

CHENEY: Go Back To Your Cave...Dick

Not surprisingly, liberal bloggers did not take kindly to Cheney's attack on Pres. Obama on CNN:

• Daily Kos' Jed Lewison: "What a complete asshole. It's time for this royal Dick to get his ass back into an undisclosed location."
• Firedoglake's Christy Hardin Smith: "Why won't he just go away?"
• Benen: "There are, oddly enough, still some people who find Dick Cheney credible, and believe his voice is worth listening to. I don't know why."
• Yglesias: "If I were Dick Cheney, I'd be laying low thanking my lucky stars that I'm not on trial for war crimes not going on television to talk smack about the new administration. But talking smack it is. It's really remarkable when you think about it that anyone would listen to Cheney on the subject of national security. His administration was by far the least successful in American history in terms of preventing international terrorists from murdering Americans. Also by far the least successful in American history in terms of preventing international terrorists from murdering NATO allies. And the military action his administration pursued in response to the terrorist attack we suffered under their watch has come to be mired in problems, teetering on the brink of failure, almost entirely thanks to a second -- but completely unnecessary -- war his administration chose to undertake in favor of successfully completing the first one."

Other liberal bloggers don't mind that Cheney is making TV appearances, as they think that his continued media presence hurts the GOP:

• Sudbay: "[I]t's probably good for Obama to have Cheney attack him. Cheney and George Bush are responsible for the massive financial mess Obama inherited. Having Cheney out there talking -- and putting his face in front of the American people again -- just reminds us of that."
• The Huffington Post's Jacob Heilbrunn: "Forget Rush Limbaugh. This is far better. President Obama should thank his stars every time Cheney emerges from whatever hidden lair he's now lurking in to growl about how Bush did everything right. Who could ask for a better reminder of the ineptitude, incompetence, and iniquities of the Bush era?"
• TalkLeft's Big Tent Democrat: "[A]s the de facto leader of the worst Administration in history, Cheney is not someone whose views should be taken seriously. I certainly will not. I will point out that it is political suicide for the Republican Party to allow Cheney to reemerge as the face of the GOP."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Whose Side Are You On, Moderates?

Yglesias offers another of his patented smackdowns of Senate moderates:

"When I read stories about Democrats signing letters urging the leadership not to pass cap & trade through budget reconciliation, or whining that Clinton-era tax rates will wreck the economy, or preemptively caving on permit auction, then it's hard to escape the conclusion that it's not the administration doing something wrong; [it's] that the key members of congress just fundamentally agree with George W. Bush and [Senate Min. Leader] Mitch McConnell that it doesn't matter if people die of treatable illness or if the planet ceases to support human life. It's not, after all, as if any great mystery over how you move legislation that you think is important. Fifty is a smaller number than 60, and it's easier to get smaller numbers of votes that bigger ones. If these guys have some genius alternative plan of preventing atmospheric carbon from reaching deadly levels, I'm all ears -- but if they're convincing then, again, I would want that plan to pass with a minimum of procedural hurdles. But it seems to me they don't have any such plan, they just want to keep letting our problems get worse and worse indefinitely, but they don't have the guts to admit it."

LEST WE FORGET: In New Terror Video, AIG Demands Huge Ransom From U.S.

The Huffington Post's Andy Borowitz:

"American intelligence experts are analyzing a new terror video from the American International Group (AIG) in which the leader of the shadowy organization demands billions of dollars from the United States. In the four-minute tape, which surfaced over the weekend and caused deep concern among U.S. officials, a man believed to be the chairman of AIG says that if his organization is not paid its ransom, 'chaos and destruction will rain down on the American economy.' [...]

Intelligence analysts said that the man, AIG chairman Edward M. Liddy, appears to be speaking at a luxury beach resort that offers few clues as to his exact location, although there is 'good intelligence' pointing to the Ritz Carlton in the Cayman Islands. [...]

Reacting to the video, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano raised the nation's terror alert level to orange, meaning 'taxpayers are about to get reamed again.'

Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner also released a response to AIG's latest demands, but intelligence experts said they would need several weeks to decipher Mr. Geithner's response."

3/13: Sanford In The Spotlight

SC Gov. Mark Sanford is taking a lot of heat from liberal bloggers following his decision to turn down $700M in federal stimulus money. The netroots are disgusted that Sanford is refusing money that would go toward expanding SC's unemployment benefits at a time when SC has the fastest growing unemployment rate in the nation (it's currently at 10.4%). They're accusing Sanford of shamelessly pandering to the GOP base in preparation for a potential presidential run in 2012. Markos Moulitsas writes: "[Sanford's move] may be great politics, but not so great for the people of South Carolina now facing the second-highest unemployment rate in the country."

Liberal bloggers are also blasting Sanford for comparing the stimulus package to the policies of Zimbabwe President Robert Mugabe -- a comparison that they consider both racially tone-deaf and ignorant. Meanwhile, conservative bloggers are defending Sanford and arguing that Dems are only attacking him because they "[see] him as a potential threat in 2012."

What else is happening in the blogosphere?

• Conservative bloggers (Reynolds, Malkin, Hinderaker, Allahpundit) are accusing Pres. Obama of reversing himself after he told business executives that the economic crisis is "not as bad as we think."
• Conservative bloggers (McCarthy, Erickson, Hawkins) are buzzing about recent Rasmussen polls indicating that Obama's approval numbers are falling.
• Liberal bloggers (Benen, Lewison, Sudbay, Fallows, Scarecrow) are praising Jon Stewart after he unloaded on CNBC host Jim Cramer during last night's episode of "The Daily Show."

SANFORD: Ideologues Make For Bad Governors

Liberal bloggers are blasting Sanford for turning down $700M in stimulus money -- some of which would go toward expanding unemployment benefits -- even though SC's unemployment rate has risen to 10.4%:

• Daily Kos' Moulitsas: "SC Gov. Mark Sanford, already running for president in 2012, wants to reject $700 million in stimulus money. It may be great politics, but not so great for the people of South Carolina now facing the second-highest unemployment rate in the country, and even the state's Republican legislature isn't happy about it. [...P]lenty of other states not stupid enough to elect someone like Mark Sanford governor would be more than happy to take that $700 million in stimulus money."
• AMERICAblog's John Aravosis: "The people of South Carolina deserve whatever they get. They voted for [John] McCain 54% to 45% for Obama. They voted for a Republican governor. Let the the Republican governor play politics with people's jobs, and watch the state enter into a massive depression as a result. I am simply tired of watching these idiots in red states vote against their own self-interests. They want conservative governments, they got it. Now watch their state slip into oblivion as their governor rejects the only medicine that can possibly save them."

Think Progress' Matthew Yglesias cites another potential consequence of Sanford's move: "Ali Frick runs some numbers and does a little reporting and concludes that Mark Sanford's anti-stimulus posturing could imperil the job status of as many as 7,500 South Carolina teachers. [...] These kind of education cutbacks directly deepen the recession, by further contracting individual spending power. The teachers who see job losses or salary cuts suffer, but so do all the businesses they patronize and all those business' suppliers. Meanwhile, in the long run the state gets a less-educated workforce, which means more inequality and lower average wages."

Meanwhile, The Washington Monthly's Steve Benen notes that SC lawmakers will bypass Sanford and accept the money: "Sanford's ridiculous grandstanding will not, however, penalize families in South Carolina. State legislators have already indicated that they intend to accept the federal funds despite the governor's objections. South Carolina's General Assembly has a Republican majority, but it has no use for Sanford's nonsense. As for the takeaway for the governor, this is probably the ideal resolution -- he gets to tell 2012 presidential primary voters about his courageous opposition to economic growth, without having to worry about the real-life consequences of his actions."

SANFORD II: Zimbabwe? Seriously?

Liberal bloggers are also criticizing Sanford for comparing the stimulus package to the policies of Mugabe:

"What you're doing is buying into the notion that if we just print some more money that we don't have, send it to different states -- we'll create jobs... If that's the case why isn't Zimbabwe a rich place? [...] Why isn't Zimbabwe just an incredibly prosperous place[?] Cause they're printing money they don't have and sending it around to their different -- I don't know the towns in Zimbabwe but that same logic is being applied there with little effect."

Several bloggers thought that Sanford's Zimbabwe comparison had racial undertones, since he made his remarks while responding to Rep. Jim Clyburn's (D-SC) criticism of his anti-stimulus stance:

• TPM's David Kurtz: "If you're the governor and a prominent black congressman from your state says refusing to take stimulus money will disproportionately hurt black citizens of your state, would you turn around and compare the stimulus plan to the economic policy of ... Zimbabwe? Only if you are Mark Sanford (R-SC)."
• Oliver Willis: "I'm sure him being from South Carolina had nothing to do with this."

Other bloggers think Sanford was simply being stupid:

• Yglesias: "Not only is this comparison really offensive to people living in Zimbabwe and struggling with a horrible situation, far worse than the misery Sanford is trying to inflict on the population of South Carolina by refusing to extend unemployment benefits, but the ignorance on display here is really appalling. Sanford's like a guy standing next to a burning building worrying that it might rain tomorrow. There's no inflation right now in the United States. None whatsoever. It's actually a big problem, because it means that our standard macroeconomic stabilization tool -- federal reserve open market operations -- doesn't work. Serious inflation would be bad, of course, and Zimbabwe-style hyperinflation would be ruinous, but some increase in inflation would be helpful. It would serve as a real cut in interest rates and help to spur growth. And long before inflation reached problem levels, the Fed could increase nominal rates to head the problem off. Sanford's just out to sea on this."
• Benen: "I'm not sure if race entered Sanford's mind here or not. But while I have no idea if the governor is a racist, I do know he's dumb as a sack of hammers."

TAPPED's Mori Dinauer: "The jury's still out on whether Sanford is a bigot or just not that bright."

SANFORD III: They're Only Attacking Him 'Cause They're Scared Of Him

Conservative bloggers are defending Sanford and hitting back at his critics:

• AmSpec Blog's Philip Klein: "Daniel Nasaw reports that the DNC already started circulating opposition research on Mark Sanford because it sees him as a potential threat in 2012. Among the articles they sent around was a Politico item that quoted Sanford comparing our current economic polcies to the ones that had caused hyperinflation in Zimbabwe. And for that, liberals are accusing him of either being racist or dumb. The first charge is a disgraceful smear, and the second charge reveals how much ignorance there is on the left when it comes to economics."
• Hot Air's Allahpundit: "In the span of one day, [Sanford's] decision to turn down part of the stimulus funds earned him criticism from the [DNC], the Democratic Governors Association, and even James Clyburn, deploying one of his patented race-baiting denunciations. All for a guy who's barred by term limits from running for governor again next year. The One's honeymoon is ending and the stimulus is starting to stink, with those who opposed it in the name of fiscal responsibility the obvious political beneficiaries. They're nervous."

OBAMA: Doing A 180?

Conservative bloggers are accusing Obama of reversing himself after he told business executives that the economic crisis is "not as bad as we think":

• Glenn Reynolds: "[It's] the Emily Litella Presidency."
• Michelle Malkin: "Haw, haw, haw. Remember President Doom? Remember the fear-mongering? And Chicken Little dances? [...] Well, cancel the red alert and let the good times roll. I wish he'd give us some advance warning so we could protect ourselves from the whiplash."
• Power Line's John Hinderaker: "So -- things aren't too bad, but just bad enough to require radical measures which, no matter what happens, should be given credit for the fact that things aren't worse. I don't know; maybe someone will buy it."
• Allahpundit: "Do we get to remind him that he said this the next time he asks for a trillion dollars in spending or is this, like his campaign promise about rejecting signing statements, just more crap that we're not supposed to take seriously?"

OBAMA II: Cratering?

Conservative bloggers are buzzing about recent Rasmussen polls indicating that Obama's approval numbers are falling (which Scott Rasmussen noted in a Wall Street Journal op-ed):

• NRO's Andy McCarthy: "Obama [is] cratering."
• Right Wing News' John Hawkins: "[Obama] is dipping -- and I have no doubt that the Democrats in Congress are getting a lot of negative feedback from their constituents about the radical changes he's trying to push through."
• RedState's Erick Erickson: "Well, well, well. Now that Captain Cowpatty's manure is starting to stink up the place and the American people have decided it is starting to smell a hell of a lot like socialism, his poll numbers are dropping. [...] What do we do about this? Well, we keep the drumbeat going. We know the stimulus will ultimately fail. We know that the government will abuse and expand its role at the expense of individual people making their own way in life. We know there will be a series of government abuses and huge inefficiencies. We also know, at the end of the day, the American people are deeply, deeply distrustful of government and have an inherent believe in free markets and free people. We must contrast independence from dependence, freedom from slavery, and government performance from free market performance. People are starting to pay attention as Barry O pees away their and their children's futures."

STEWART VS. CRAMER: No Contest

The netroots are buzzing about Stewart's smackdown of Cramer during last night's episode of "The Daily Show." Stewart's argument that business journalists like Cramer failed to do their jobs echoed the argument that many liberal bloggers have been making:

• The Atlantic's James Fallows: "It's true: Jon Stewart has become Edward R. Murrow."
• Benen: "After a week of back and forth, Stewart had Jim Cramer on 'The Daily Show' last night and not only destroyed the 'Mad Money' host, but more importantly, exposed CNBC as an embarrassment. By the time the brutal interview was over, one thing was clear: the network has no clothes. [...] Watching the evisceration, I couldn't help but wonder why it takes a comedian on Comedy Central to do the kind of interview the non-fake news shows ought to be doing. When the media establishment marvels at Jon Stewart's popularity, they tend to think it's his humor. It's not. It's because he calls 'bullsh*t' when most major media players won't. He did so last night, and it made for important viewing."
• Daily Kos' Jed Lewison: "Sometimes listening to Jon Stewart is like what you'd imagine it would be like to listen to a great journalism professor...except you're laughing so hard you've fallen out of your chair. In tonight's interview, Stewart makes the case for what CNBC should have been doing over the past few years: actual business reporting, instead of acting like they were an entertainment channel for the stock market."
• AMERICAblog's Joe Sudbay: "Jon Stewart asks questions that no one else asked. The business media was to the economic crisis as the DC media was to the Iraq War and other Bush lies."
• Firedoglake's Scarecrow: "Using CNBC's Jim Cramer as both Exhibit A and an accessory, Stewart laid out a devastating indictment of the industry and CNBC's facilitating, coverup role. As Cramer fumbled to defend himself and CNBC, Stewart showed clip after clip of Cramer describing stock price manipulation, insider scams, and how cool and easy it is to fool federal and state regulators. And in the process, the 'comedian' as Cramer tried to belittle Stewart with Joe Scarborough's help, not only humiliated Cramer; he showed by contrasting example how shallow and inept most of the MSM has been in covering the financial scandal."

The Atlantic's Andrew Sullivan: "This was, in my view, a real cultural moment. It was a storming of the Bastille. It was, as Fallows notes, journalism. [...] It's not enough any more, guys, to make fantastic errors and then to carry on authoritatively as if nothing just happened. You will be called on it. In some ways, the blogosphere is to MSM punditry what Stewart is to Cramer: an insistent and vulgar demand for some responsibility, some moral and ethical accountabilty for previous decisions and pronouncements."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Internet: The Silent Killer

Slate's Mickey Kaus:

"During the Trent Lott scandal, if I remember right, there was speculation that the blogosphere would really have arrived when a high public official suddenly resigned over an Web-borne scandal without the scandal being mentioned in the respectable mainstream press -- so if you had only read the New York Times or Washington Post you'd have no idea why this person quit or what the scandal was until he or she was gone. Poof! Killed by ninja blogs. Well (without regard to the merits of the dispute), the Charles Freeman withdrawal is close to that case, no? WaPo apparently printed its first news story on the controversy the day it ended -- i.e. when Freeman withdrew. Ditto the New York Times. ... What does this event signify? Not to be too portentous, but it signifies you can no longer be a well-informed citizen if you just read the Times and Post print editions. You have to go online. Sorry, Mom!"

LEST WE FORGET: Sleazy Health Insurance Covers Any Doctor's Visit They Can Watch

From The Onion:

"CHICAGO -- Offering low annual deductibles and negotiable premiums for college students and redheads, officials from sleazy medical insurer Vance's Health Plan announced Tuesday they would begin covering any routine check-up or medical procedure they can sit silently and watch. 'VHP offer a range of choices to meet the needs of individuals, couples, two women, two men, a pair of ebon beauties, and families,' president and CEO Vance Shelton said. 'Even if you have a preexisting obesity condition, you can still receive full coverage. We got a guy who's into that.' According to promotional brochures, the plan will also cover any generic medications that will make you loosen up and slip into this."

3/12: Steele Steps In It (Again)

RNC chair Michael Steele is making news again, and not in a good way. The blogosphere is in a mini-uproar over Steele's interview with GQ, in which he described abortion as "an individual choice" and said that states should decide whether or not to make the procedure legal. Steele tried to walk back his remarks this morning by releasing a statement declaring his support for a constitutional amendment banning abortion, but conservative bloggers are criticizing him for contradicting himself. Ed Morrissey notes that Steele's two statements "cannot be reconciled with each other," while Philip Klein complains that Steele is a "shape-shifter" who takes different positions depending on his audience. Righty bloggers aren't calling for Steele to step down (yet), but it's clear that their confidence in the RNC chairman is at an all-time low.

What else is happening in the blogosphere?

• Liberal bloggers (Yglesias, Linkins, Benen, Drum) are praising the New York Times for hiring The Atlantic's Ross Douthat as its new conservative columnist. Most conservative bloggers (Hewitt, Dreher, Potemra) are praising the hiring as well, although some (Riehl, McCain, Malkin) are questioning Douthat's conservative credentials.
• Liberal bloggers (Kurtz, Gardner, Orton, Pareene) are making fun of Sen. David Vitter (R-LA) after he reportedly "[went] ballistic on an airline worker after missing a flight from Washington's Dulles airport to New Orleans."
• Conservative bloggers (Malkin, Emanuel, Ace) are mocking Speaker Nancy Pelosi following the release of emails showing her staffers "kvetching about access to official aircraft."
• Liberal bloggers (Sudbay, Drum, Marshall) are buzzing about a new Gallup poll indicating that public approval of Congress is up 20 points since January.

STEELE: Not Again...

Conservative bloggers are buzzing about the following exchange between Steele and GQ's Lisa DePaulo:

GQ: Are you saying you think women have the right to choose abortion?
STEELE: Yeah. I mean, again, I think that's an individual choice.

GQ: You do?

STEELE: Yeah. Absolutely.

GQ: Are you saying you don't want to overturn Roe v. Wade?

STEELE: I think Roe v. Wade -- as a legal matter, Roe v. Wade was a wrongly decided matter.

GQ: Okay, but if you overturn Roe v. Wade, how do women have the choice you just said they should have?

STEELE: The states should make that choice. That's what the choice is. The individual choice rests in the states. Let them decide.

Conservative bloggers are disturbed that Steele appeared to be articulating a pro-choice position:

• Townhall's Matt Lewis: "If this GQ article is quoting him accurately, Michael Steele has just admitted he is, by definition, pro-choice. [...] I'm not sure if it is more concerning that Steele is pro-choice -- or that he is unsure of his position on the Life issue..."
• RedState's Erick Erickson: "Michael Steele sounds very much like he is declaring himself pro-abortion. [...] Now, to be fair, his solution is a federalist solution to let the individual states decide -- a position I favor because I don't believe it is presently possible to end abortion at the national level and this would be the result should Roe v. Wade be overturned. Hopefully he'll clarify his position or can show he was misquoted. I hope so."
• NRO's Kathryn Jean Lopez: "I love Michael Steele's optimism. I love how he wants to consider no American outside the reach of the Republican party. But beyond that, I'm just not sure what his vision or plan is. [...] I'll also add this: I really don't believe 'individual choice' is a sign he's pro-choice, though I can't see myself using the words. I believe the guy is pro-life. But I also believe he might be in over his head at the RNC. That may be something that can be resolved. But giving GQ interviews isn't the way to do it."

RedState's James Richardson: "Steele's comments on abortion...will squarely pit him against social conservative activists and donors. And as such, he's playing fast and loose with the committee's large and small dolor donor database. March 20th -- the release of FEC fundraising reports -- will likely be the first of many bad days in the Steele administration, especially if he intends to keep poking the base in the eye with sharp objects."

STEELE II: Do I Contradict Myself?

Steele tried to walk back his remarks this morning by releasing a statement declaring that he is "pro-life" and that he "support[s] [the GOP] platform and its call for a Human Life Amendment." However, conservative bloggers are pointing out that Steele's statement contradicts his remarks to GQ, where he argued that the abortion question should be left to the states:

• Lewis: "Ironically, his statement -- meant to clarify -- actually raises more questions. The only reasonable conservative defense of Steele's GQ comments were that he is philosophically a Federalist (meaning that he opposed Roe, but supported the rights of states to decide abortion policy). [...] The problem is that in the above statement, Steele reaffirms that he supports the GOP platform and a Human Life Amendment, which, of course, undermines the argument that he believes states should decide..."
• Hot Air's Morrissey: "For the third time in his short tenure as RNC chair, Steele has fumbled a media appearance, this time on abortion, and had to reverse himself afterwards. Steele told an interviewer that he thought abortion was a matter of personal choice and that it should be regulated by the states. Now, as Ben Smith reports at Politico, Steele explains that what he really meant was that abortion should be banned by a Constitutional amendment. [...] The two statements cannot be reconciled with each other. They are mutually exclusive. And Steele has offered both as his views in two successive days."
• AmSpec Blog's Klein: "I'm not sure how [Steele's statement] is supposed to clarify anything. [...] Yes, Steele's mother chose life, but the whole question is whether or not she should have been legally allowed to choose to terminate her pregnancy instead."

Several conservative bloggers are arguing that Steele seems to change his views depending on his audience:

• Klein: "[Steele] is proving himself to be a shape shifter who is trying to please everybody, but in the end delivering a completely muddled message. Ultimately no pro-choice independent or Democrat is going to be more inclined to become a Republican as a result of that GQ interview, because Steele comes off like a bumbling clown who is trying to have it both ways. The mere fact that we have to have a whole debate over what he means demonstrates that he's doing a terrible job at communicating. And lest we forget, communication was supposed to be his strong suit."
• Morrissey: "[T]he problem with Steele isn't the GQ interview. It's the fact that he can't seem to make up his mind and stick with it. Steele seems to have environmentally-dependent political views. When he's talking with DL Hughley, the Republican Convention looks like a Nazi rally. When he's talking on TV, Rush Limbaugh is ugly and incendiary. When Steele talks with GQ, he's pro-choice. And Steele reverses himself with amazing alacrity when speaking in entirely different environments. He appears to have no convictions and no principles when he makes these gyrations on the national stage, as though he stands for nothing but Michael Steele and access to the media spotlight."

STEELE III: An Object Of Mockery

Not surprisingly, liberal bloggers are mocking Steele:

• MyDD's Todd Beeton: "In crisis management mode, Michael Steele ran to GQ for a fluff interview. Unfortunately for him, yet predictably, he couldn't get through it without putting his foot in it."
• Oliver Willis: "So how many minutes until Mr. Steele has to clear out his desk?"
• AMERICAblog's John Aravosis: "I kind of like this guy when he's being frank and honest. He's clearly not a Republican at heart. Kind of sad, really. Too bad it's probably going to get him fired."
• Daily Kos' Dana Houle: "Steele has been a joke since he was elected. The job of the national committee chair is not to be advocating policy. It's mostly an operational position; nuts and bolts of raising money, helping state parties and getting Republicans elected. There is a public/press side to it, but the mandate is to be a mouthpiece for the party, staying on message that's largely driven, when you don't have the White House, by the legislative leadership. As such, Steele should be talking about the budget, attacking [Barack] Obama, whatever. He should not be prattling on about reproductive rights."
• TPM's Josh Marshall: "As I think about this new Steele goof with his answer on the abortion question, I really wonder whether this might be the straw that broke the camel's back, though that camel's in pretty bad shape as it is. I think you can probably be pro-choice or pro-life and be head of the RNC. But given all the antics from Steele over the last few weeks, I'm not sure it's sustainable to not be sure or to be so all over the place that you seem to switch sides during a single interview."

Liberal bloggers are also buzzing about rumors that one of Steele's rivals during the RNC Chair race -- SC GOP Chair Katon Dawson -- is "quietly organizing a [no-confidence] vote and is getting the support of several state party chairmen who want to dump Steele" (Dawson denies the rumors):

• Daily Kos' Markos Moulitsas: "Steele may get ousted by [a] segregationist. God doesn't love me this much, does she?"
• Dylan Matthews: "When the GOP appears set to dump its first African-American leader mere weeks into his tenure in favor of a member of an all-white country club, it's hard for schadenfreude not to turn into genuine pity and concern. Obviously, this was in large part Steele's own doing, but it's fairly tragic that he flamed out the way he did, and that Katon Dawson, of all people, is his natural successor."

DOUTHAT: The Left's Favorite Conservative?

Liberal bloggers are praising the New York Times for hiring Douthat as its new conservative columnist:

• Think Progress' Matthew Yglesias: "Dumping Bill Kristol in favor of Ross is a very smart move -- probably the smartest one (Virginia Postrel?) the Times could have made -- and will generate a conservative column that progressives will have reason to read and take seriously."
• The Huffington Post's Jason Linkins: "I think the New York Times has made an exceedingly wise and, frankly, exciting choice to tap The Atlantic's Ross Douthat as its new op-ed columnist. It's an upgrade in so many critical categories, including intellect and overall seriousness."
• The Washington Monthly's Steve Benen: "If the paper is going to go with a creative, conservative thinker -- someone one who'll do more than just spout RNC-crafted, neo-con approved talking points -- Douthat is probably the single strongest choice the paper could have made. He's not my cup of tea -- I haven't quite gotten over the time he insisted that liberals support 'eugenics' -- but I respect Douthat as a conservative who cares about intellectual honesty. Congrats, Ross."
• Balloon Juice's John Cole: "My first choice was [Daniel] Larison, but with Douthat we get someone who will at least from time to time make interesting arguments. And considering how low a bar Kristol has set, if Ross makes it through his first column without misspelling his name and being forced to issue three factual corrections, he will already be a move in the right direction."
• Obsidian Wings' Eric Martin: "[Douthat] is a marked improvement over Kristol, and I'll take him over [Charles] Krauthammer and [George] Will any day. Obviously, we're not going to agree on many subjects,but it's nice to see someone like Douthat gettinga bigger megaphone within the conservative movement. The neocon/[Rush] Limbaugh factions are already more than represented. On a side note, I count this as yet another victory for the blogosphere. Not only did Douthat come up through the 'sphere, but his name was touted as a replacement for Kristol by many-a-blogger. Myself included. Clearly, the Times was listening."
• Mother Jones' Kevin Drum: "[This] seems like a pretty good choice to me for a couple of reasons. First, Ross has a fluid, intelligent writing style that's well suited to the 800-word op-ed format. Second, he fits the post-Bush zeitgeist: he is, at core, a conservative Barack Obama. What I mean is this: like Obama, he's always careful to acknowledge the arguments of his adversaries and to take them seriously. Like Obama, he does this overtly and deliberately. And like Obama, this is mostly for rhetorical effect: both of them use this technique to mask the fact that they rarely change their minds. They might listen respectfully, but after they're done they go on doing whatever they intended to do in the first place. This isn't a criticism (I don't change my mind very often either, after all). In fact, it makes him a more than normally worthy dissenter to the Age of Obama. His column should make for interesting reading."

The Atlantic's Andrew Sullivan: "[T]his is also, it strikes me, a boon to intelligent conservatism. Ross is able to make his case, especially on social issues, with a clarity and nuance almost totally lacking among the theocons. I'll miss him badly, but will read him compulsively."

The New Republic's Damon Linker: "Ross's appointment represents a broadening of debate in the mainstream media. Unless I'm mistaken, he will be the first pro-lifer ever to write a column for what is still (by a wide margin) the premier daily newspaper in the United States. That he's also a committed orthodox Catholic who enjoys (and excels at) defending his beliefs against critics both serious and silly is a real bonus. Too many pro-life and devoutly religious Americans fall into one of two camps: Either they lack the intellectual ability to engage in conversation and argument with the wider culture, or else they use their intellect to rally their own side for political battle, content to mock and dismiss those outside their ranks. Ross deftly avoids both vices in his writing -- and American public life will be elevated because of it."

DOUTHAT II: The Rightroots (Mostly) Approve

Most conservative bloggers are praising the choice:

• Glenn Reynolds: "A good pick."
• NRO's Yuval Levin: "Ross Douthat will be a fantastic columnist, and one of very few reasons to read the New York Times."
• Townhall's Hugh Hewitt: "Great move by the New York Times. [...Douthat is] a very talented writer and an excellent representative of the conservative world view."
• NRO's Mike Potemra: "I feel the way conservative Catholics felt the day [Joseph] Ratzinger was elected: what a bold, surprising, great choice. Congratulations to Ross, and the NYT."
• Rod Dreher: "[T]his is unqualified good news. Ross has just been moved to very top of American opinion journalism, and I have every confidence that he will use his position to advance smart conservative reform. And please understand this: The New York Times has just hired as an opinion columnist a pro-life socially conservative Catholic. [...] Sometimes, the good guys really do win."
• AmSpec Blog's Joseph Lawler: "I am personally glad to see Douthat end up at the Times. [...] A conservative a little squishy on limited government is better than no conservative voice at all (unless you count David Brooks). Second, I suspect that Douthat is more conservative than his Atlantic record would indicate. Any good writer knows his audience, and his audience at the Atlantic was liberal. He was was accordingly willing at least to entertain liberal ideas. If that's the case, he will continue to do so at the Times. Third, even if his conclusions do not reflect principles that conservatives in general would like to see advanced, there is no doubt that Douthat has as intellectually deep an understanding of conservative thought as anyone. At a time when conservatism is widely mocked as being headed by Limbaugh and Joe the Plumber, it is at least useful to have someone eminently fair-minded and respectable in a highly visible venue."

DOUTHAT III: You Call This Guy Conservative?

However, a few conservative bloggers are criticizing the choice and suggesting that Douthat isn't a true conservative:

• Dan Riehl: "If the Times wanted to bill Douthat as a Republican, or perhaps even as Right-leaning -- fine. Based upon that there's really not much to argue. But as a conservative? It's a disastrous pick as much as it is a dishonest one."
• Robert Stacy McCain: "(Gritted teeth.) Congratulation, Ross! We're all so excited for you! Now excuse me while I go swallow a bottle of sleeping pills, wash it down with a quart of Chlorox, slash my wrists, get in the car, drive to the Bay Bridge, shoot myself through the head, and crash through the guard-rail to the water below."
• Michelle Malkin: "In in its announcement of the hiring of Ross G. Douthat as resident conservative op-ed contributor, the New York Times makes explicit its employment critieria for any pundit to the right of Dennis Kucinich: You must 'steer away from partisanship...or doctrine.' You must 'frequently criticize Republicans.' Show a 'concern for income equality.' And be a 'squishy pro-lifer.'"
• Newsbusters' Tim Graham: "[I]s Mr. Douthat (pronounced DOW-thut) really a conservative, or is he the kind of conservative only the New York Times could love? Their own story says pick (B), a sort of kid brother of David Brooks."

VITTER: Do You Know Who I Am?!?!?

Liberal bloggers are mocking Sen. Vitter after Roll Call reported that he "[went] ballistic on an airline worker after missing a flight from Washington's Dulles airport to New Orleans":

• TPM's David Kurtz: "What a guy."
• Daily Kos' Susan G: "Vitter: Airline security is for the little people."
• Gawker's Alex Pareene: "Man, if there was ever a Senator who should not ask strangers 'do you know who I am?' it is David Vitter of Louisiana. And yet, that is what he said at Dulles last week. Vitter is famous mostly for sleeping with prostitutes and then just not resigning over it, even after everyone in the world heard the terrible rumor that he's a diaper fetishist. [...] And now he has one more item for his political resume: freaking the fuck out at the airport, like an entitled child."
• MyDD's Josh Orton: "These blowups serve as nice litmus tests of people in power -- generally, someone who acts like a schmuck at the airport probably is a schmuck."
• Firedoglake's watertiger: "In a gesture representative of the Republican Party mindset, David Vitter got his Extra Absorbent Huggies in a twist at Dulles Airport when he showed up late for a flight, was refused access aboard the plane (as per airline regulations), and in a fit of impotent rage, stormed the security door. [...] Vitter tried to wave off the incident, labelling the story as baseless 'gossip.' HOW-ever, the TSA isn't as cavalier about breaches of airport security as Mr. 'Let's Arm Airline Pilots' Vitter. The agency has initiated an investigation of the Senator's actions. Looks like Vitter's infantile hissy fit could cost him a year's supply of hookers and diaper rash cream."

PELOSI: Flying The Friendly Skies

Conservative bloggers are mocking Pelosi following the release of emails showing her staffers "kvetching about access to official aircraft":

• Ace of Spades: "Poor Nancy. Those pitiful luxury personal jets she was afforded weren't quite luxurious enough for her."
• Malkin: "Reading through the e-mail exchanges between DoD officials and Pelosi's staff, you can't help but feel very, very sorry for the men and women in uniform who have to put up with this woman -- and even sorrier for all of us taxpayers who are footing her carbon footprint-expanding bills."
• RedState's Jeff Emanuel: "The email traffic makes it clear that, even if Pelosi herself wasn't on the horn to DOD demanding personal transport, more comfort, and personal use of military bases and resources, her staff certainly was -- and the DOD knew full well that the requests were coming not from the House Sergeant-at-Arms office, as Pelosi claimed, but from those speaking for the Speaker herself."

GALLUP: Yay, Congress!

Liberal bloggers are buzzing about a new Gallup poll indicating that public approval of Congress is up 20 points since January, making it "the most positive assessment of Congress since February 2005." The netroots see this 20-point increase as evidence that Americans support the Dem agenda:

• AMERICAblog's Joe Sudbay: "Well, well, well. Look what happened when Congress actually started acting in the interests of the American people. The approval rating increased. [...T]his should serve as a heads up to all of the Democrats who want to block the Obama agenda. Obstructionism and the failure to address serious issues is what makes people hate Congress. Don't sour people on Congress again. The American people want change, not the same old tired games on Capitol Hill. We expect that from the Republicans. Don't let the Blue Dogs and conservatives in the Democratic Party be the roadblock to change."
• Drum: "Apparently the American public likes the idea of better healthcare for kids, fighting discrimination against women, and stimulus spending to slow the course of the financial meltdown. It's also worth noting that although most of the increase is due to Democrats being happier with Congress than in the past (no surprise), approval among independents has doubled. Republicans are still unhappy, of course, but no more so than in the past. Apparently all that talk radio bloviating about incipient socialism hasn't had much effect even on conservatives."
• Marshall: "Obama and the congressional Democrats have their jobs cut out for them -- probably a more difficult set of challenges than any national politicians have faced in a generation, if not a few generations. But thus far every significant bit of polling data shows the Republicans' opposition is failing abysmally."
• Daily Kos' DemFromCT: "Elections have consequences. Fancy that."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: This Is Change?

The American Conservative's Daniel Larison is disgusted by the Charles Freeman episode:

"A qualified professional has been inexcusably dragged through the mud to satisfy a bunch of hypocrites, and in return I fully expect that we will get queries as to why we don't have a better quality of foreign policy realists -- you know, the sort who keep their mouths shut about anything controversial and do what they're told. Then a few years down the road we will wonder why there were not any contrarian and independent minds challenging consensus views that proved to be completely wrong, and then, and perhaps only then, we will look back on this episode and understand how that came about.

In the end, this has been a contestation of power, and the defenders of the status quo won and actually won pretty easily. For all of the pleasant ideas about a changing political landscape and the rise of alternative voices in the debate over U.S. policy in the Near East, all it took to sink a non-confirmable intelligence appointment who had the full confidence of the Director of National Intelligence was a couple of weeks of public whining by a band of petulant, ill-informed hacks. Some may still think about this episode in the days to come, but on the whole 'we' will forget, and that is perhaps the most depressing thing about it. The controversy will not elicit a backlash, but will instead change nothing."

LEST WE FORGET: When Pick-Up Attempts Go South

From Overheard in New York:

Suit: So how are you ladies doing?
Cute girl #1: Um, fine. You?
Suit: Good! I'm Paul.
Cute girl #1: So Paul, what do you do?
Suit: Guess.
Cute girl #2: World of Warcraft?

3/11: Freeman Goes Down

Political bloggers are buzzing about Amb. Charles Freeman's abrupt withdrawal from his appointment as chairman of the National Intelligence Council, as well as Freeman's subsequent statement decrying "the tactics of the Israel Lobby." Most liberal bloggers were saddened by Freeman's departure and are blaming his exit on the efforts of pro-Israel hawks who didn't like Freeman's prior statements about the Middle East. Glenn Greenwald writes: "[T]his outcome was probably inevitable given the refusal of virtually all influential Beltway factions to deviate from mandated loyalty to the right-wing Israel agenda. That it was inevitable doesn't make it any less grotesque."

Freeman's critics, on the other hand, are celebrating his departure, declaring "Good riddance" and "[The] Saudi/Manchurian candidate bites the dust". These bloggers are also blasting Freeman's comments about "the Israel lobby," arguing that his words reveal him to be "a bigot" and "a wallower in paranoid conspiracy theories". Mark Hemingway writes: "Though the primary strike against Freeman always seemed to be that he was pro-Saudi, if you were concerned he might be irrationally anti-Israel, he certainly goes a long way to validating that criticism here."

What else is happening in the blogosphere?

• Liberal bloggers (Moulitsas, Waldman, Fernholz, Klein) and conservative bloggers (Morrissey, Faughnan) are discussing the looming battle over the Employee Free Choice Act. Lefty bloggers (Klein, Hamsher, Dayden) are also blasting Citigroup for downgrading Wal-Mart to "hold" from "buy" due to concerns that passage of the EFCA would promote unionization and hurt the company's competitiveness.
• Conservative bloggers (Goldberg, Allahpundit, Faughnan) are expressing opposition to the prospect of a second stimulus package.
• Liberal bloggers (Bruenjes, Giordano, digby, Lange) are praising Obama for appointing environmental activist/author Van Jones as an adviser on green jobs.

FREEMAN: Apparently, Certain Ideas Are Off-Limits In Washington

Liberal bloggers are blaming Freeman's exit on the fierce opposition that his appointment generated from pro-Israel hawks:

• Firedoglake's Blue Texan: "AIPAC gets a scalp."
• Salon's Greenwald: "[E]verything that is publicly known about Freeman makes it seem unlikely that he would have voluntarily withdrawn due to the shrieking criticisms directed at him. If he were forced out -- and there's no basis for assuming he was until there's evidence for that -- then that reflects quite badly on the Obama administration's willingness to defy the Bill Kristols, Marty Peretzes, and National Reviews of the world when it comes to American policy towards the Middle East. [...T]his outcome was probably inevitable given the refusal of virtually all influential Beltway factions to deviate from mandated loyalty to the right-wing Israel agenda. That it was inevitable doesn't make it any less grotesque."
• MyDD's Charles Lemos: "What just happened to Charles Freeman, the President's nominee to the post of Chairman of the National Intelligence Council, should not have happened. The Israeli lobby has hijacked US policy towards the Middle East and placed us in straight jacket where any dissenting views are disqualified through personal attacks. Let me state that I largely disagree with Charles Freeman's views on China but I am willing to have that debate. That's what policy debates are all about, debating honest differences and different approaches to vexing questions. The Israeli lobby isn't willing to have any debate. It seeks to silence any voices that might argue for a re-balancing of US Mid-East policy."
• The Atlantic's James Fallows: "I do not know Freeman and had never paid attention to him before this controversy. But it turns out that nearly twenty people I know well enough to respect and trust have themselves known and worked with Freeman. Every one of them supported his nomination. And -- as it is unfortunately relevant to point out in these circumstances -- most of them are Jewish."
• TPM's Josh Marshall: "Deep Thought: the man who led the campaign against the Chas Freeman appointment is currently awaiting trial on charges of espionage."

The Atlantic's Andrew Sullivan: "There are a couple of things worth noting about this minor, yet major, Washington spat. The first is that the MSM has barely covered it as a news story, and the entire debate occurred in the blogosphere. I don't know why. But that would be a very useful line of inquiry for a media journalist. The second is that Obama may bring change in many areas, but there is no possibility of change on the Israel-Palestine question. Having the kind of debate in America that they have in Israel, let alone Europe, on the way ahead in the Middle East is simply forbidden. Even if a president wants to have differing sources of advice on many questions, the Congress will prevent any actual, genuinely open debate on Israel. More to the point: the Obama peeps never defended Freeman. They were too scared. The fact that Obama blinked means no one else in Washington will ever dare to go through the hazing that Freeman endured. And so the chilling effect is as real as it is deliberate."

AMERICAblog's John Aravosis: "I probably lean more pro-Israel than pro-Palestinian (I'd describe myself as pro-both, with Israel ahead by a neck). But my experience working on the Hill, and my experience studying, working in, and following US foreign policy, has made me wonder whether we, as a country, aren't a bit too predisposed towards doing what is good for Israel, at the expense of all else."

FREEMAN II: Another Victim Of The Israel Lobby?

Some of Freeman's critics denied that the opposition to Freeman was primarily based on his criticism of Israel, noting that Freeman also made controversial statements about China. In response, liberal bloggers are (sarcastically) pointing to the fact that Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) explicitly cited Freeman's "statements against Israel" as the reason he was ousted:

• Ezra Klein: "Chuck Schumer is taking credit [for Freeman's ouster], which will be no surprise to readers aware of his career-long interest Chinese democracy promotion."
• Firedoglake's Spencer Ackerman: "[T]his is clearly a win for advocates of Chinese human rights and liberalism and empiricism, and not other issues; Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) is obviously playing for votes in Chinatown."
• Think Progress' Matthew Yglesias: "Chinese human rights activists everywhere are now high-fiving."

Freeman's critics are denying that Freeman's criticism of Israel was what cost him the appointment:

• The New Ledger's Pejman Yousefzadeh: "Doubtless, Senator Schumer will be accused of being Jewish -- guilty! -- without Freeman defenders considering that perhaps, Freeman's one-sided views on Mideast peace and China's interactions with dissidents might have done more than the Israel Lobby ever could have done to cause Freeman's withdrawal."
• RedState's Streiff: "You're going to hear a lot of hooey about how the 'Jewish lobby' scuttled an utter savant of diplomacy because of their slavish subservience to Israel and Israel's interests. Don't believe it. Chas Freeman is withdrawing because he, to the untrained observer, appears to be a wholly owned subsidiary of the Saudi government."
• The New Republic's Jonathan Chait: "Of course I recognize that the Israel lobby is powerful, and was a key element in the pushback against Freeman, and that it is not always a force for good. I just don't ascribe to it the singular, Manichean, different-category-than-any-other-lobby status that its more fevered critics imagine."

FREEMAN III: Good Riddance

Freeman's critics are applauding his exit:

• Power Line's Scott Johnson: "[The] Saudi/Manchurian candidate bites the dust."
• The New Republic's Marty Peretz: "Good riddance. [...] Freeman can now go back to his sinecures at the Middle East Policy Council and the China National Offshore Oil Corporation. He has long since passed their ideological tests."
• Streiff: "Barack Obama's first choice to head the National Intelligence Council has withdrawn his name for consideration. We can be thankful for his doing so. Freeman is a member of that school of diplomacy that sees the United States as being the root of a lot of the evil in the world."
• Michelle Malkin: "I wrote five days ago about the gathering firestorm over Saudi/China water carrier Charles Freeman's crappy nomination to serve as chairman of the group that prepares the U.S. intelligence community's most sensitive assessments. Well, he's gone."

Other conservative bloggers are expressing concerns about the judgment of the people who selected Freeman:

• Commentary's Jennifer Rubin: "There is no cause here for celebration. Rather there is only cause for concern. How in the world was this man ever chosen and what took so long to dump him?"
• NRO's Andy McCarthy: "Freeman['s] exit [is] great. But there remains the fact that the top intelligence official in the U.S., [Admiral] Dennis Blair, brought Freeman in, figuring he'd be a perfect fit to head the National Intelligence Council. Freeman is gone, but Blair will be with us for years to come. The problems with Freeman were far from hidden. What is it about Blair's worldview that inspired him to think Freeman was a good choice to be shaping intelligence estimates and framing the information consumed by the president?"

FREEMAN IV: See? Our Fears Were Justified!

Freeman's critics are also blasting his statement about his exit, in which he decried "the tactics of the Israel Lobby...[which] include character assassination, selective misquotation, the willful distortion of the record, the fabrication of falsehoods, and an utter disregard for the truth":

• Peretz: "[Freeman's statement] is all about the Jews who were out to get him, awaiting their marching orders from Jerusalem and their slippery daring from each other, the elders of Zion. If all of the statements previously cited in the debates did not condemn him as a bigot then his own poisoned words today certainly do."
• NRO's Hemingway: "Though the primary strike against Freeman always seemed to be that he was pro-Saudi, if you were concerned he might be irrationally anti-Israel, he certainly goes a long way to validating that criticism here."
• Power Line's Paul Mirengoff: "[Q]uite apart from Freeman's links with the Saudis and the Red Chinese, is it not frightening that the National Intelligence Council was nearly headed by a man who purports to view opposition to his selection to that post as evidence that 'it is not permitted for anyone in the United States' to complain about the Israel lobby?"
• Power Line's John Hinderaker: "Was that a narrow escape, or what? Freeman's farewell is bordering on demented; it makes one wonder how much Barack Obama understood of his views when he selected him for a key intelligence post, and how many others who share Freeman's world-view have already found a home in the Obama administration."
• Hot Air's Ed Morrissey: "[Freeman's statement contains] a particularly unsubtle reference to the Joooooooooos, and to the secret Jewish conspiracy to control foreign policy, and of course to the unpatriotic nature of his critics. It ignores the objections to his Tiananmen Square analysis (that the Chinese took too long to stomp on the protesters) and his connections to CNOOC, which seemed to do more damage on Capitol Hill than anything else. That's just what we needed on the National Intelligence Council: a wallower in paranoid conspiracy theories. Who will they pick to replace him -- Philip Berg?"

EMPLOYEE FREE CHOICE ACT: The Battle Begins

The future prospects of the Employee Free Choice Act is dominating much of the discussion in the political blogosphere. Liberal bloggers strongly support the EFCA, and many of them have written lengthy posts analyzing the bill's prospects for passage. Conservative bloggers, meanwhile, are excited about the fact that moderate Dem senators such as Ben Nelson (D-NE) appear to be wavering. However, liberal blogger Markos Moulitsas argues that it's irrelevant whether or not these moderate Dems vote for the EFCA, as long as they vote for cloture: "Dems don't need 60 votes to pass EFCA. They need 50. They may need 60 votes for cloture, but is there any indication that some senators who might vote against the bill would vote against cloture? There's none in this article, nor any other I've seen, and those are certainly two entirely different issues."

Marshall isn't so sure: "I hope [Moulitsas is] right because EFCA is extremely important. But I'm not as optimistic as he is that 60 isn't the threshold. Two of the key votes are [Blanche] Lincoln and [Mark] Pryor from Arkansas, a very lightly unionized state where Walmart is headquartered. Walmart doesn't care about optics on this. This is the real deal for them, as the Citigroup downrating makes clear. I don't see them being thrown by pulling a [Joe] Lieberman and voting 'wrong' where it counts and 'right' where it doesn't count."

On a related note, several conservative bloggers are speculating about whether moderate Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA) will change his position on the EFCA in order to fend off his likely 2010 primary challenger, conservative ex-Rep. Pat Toomey. Moulitsas thinks Specter should consider switching parties:

"I've now heard from multiple sources that the AFL-CIO and other labor unions have promised to stand firmly with Pennsylvania Sen. Arlen Specter if he becomes a rare crossover Republican vote on EFCA when that issue hits the floor of the Senate. This is a life-and-death issue to unions, many of which are dwindling in membership, and they're willing to give cover to one of the most endangered Republicans if it helps passage. Rather than criticize a marker which seems short-sighted to me, I'll accept it as a political reality. It's no secret in Pennsylvania that Gov. Ed Rendell is also rather fond of Specter, the two sharing a warm relationship. With Rendell and the Keystone State's strong labor community firmly behind him, it really makes little sense for him to engage Club for Growth honcho Pat Toomey in a Republican primary he is more than likely to lose. The pieces are really falling in place for Specter to make the leap and switch parties."

EMPLOYEE FREE CHOICE ACT II: Citigroup Fires A Warning Shot

Liberal bloggers are also buzzing about the fact that Citigroup lowered its rating on Wal-Mart to "hold" from "buy," citing concern that passage of the Employee Free Choice Act would promote unionization and hurt Wal-Mart's competitiveness.

• Firedoglake's Jane Hamsher: "It's hard to view this as anything other than a reckless and overt political act on the part of a company, Citigroup, that has made stupendously bad business decisions with dire economic consequences necessitating billions in taxpayer bailouts, at a time when the market can ill-afford it. Even Bank of America admitted in an internal memo that increased wages for working people would mean 'increased spending power of lower income consumers,' which would mean that even if Wal-Mart was successfully unionized -- a big if -- they could make up the cost of higher wages with an increase in sales."
• Klein: "There are two things worth saying on this. The first is that it's a useful moment when the interests of the stock market and the broader economy diverge. Citigroup's analyst is right to worry that shareholders would see smaller gains if Wal-Mart were unionized. Conversely, it would probably be a stimulative thing for the economy if Wal-Mart's massive low wage workforce suddenly enjoyed a quick boost in take-home pay. The interests of shareholders are not the same as the interests of workers [...] The second is that it's hard to recall another time when an analyst actually downgraded a stock on fears of legislation that few expect to pass. Indeed, many on the Left are arguing that this is more about generating a controlled stock market panic that will convince wavering senators to vote against EFCA than about accurately pricing Wal-Mart's stock."
• dday: "The Citigroup report is bad analysis, by the way. Shocking, I know, that someone at Citi would make a bad decision. As much as Wal-Mart having to pay reasonable wages and benefits would cut into their profits, the increase in overall wages as a result of unionization would bolster purchasing power for precisely the kind of people who shop at Wal-Mart. [...] If Wal-Mart and employers like them could spend two seconds looking past their own immediate self-interest, they would recognize that a strong middle class with good union jobs would lift everybody throughout the economy."

STIMULUS: Another One? You Can't Be Serious

Conservative bloggers are already expressing opposition to the idea of a second stimulus package:

• NRO's Jonah Goldberg: "Buy your cash-carrying wheelbarrows now. Because the Dems want another stimulus plan already. Funny how questioning the stimulus's efficacy the first time was an outrage. But doubting it in order to gin up another stimulus is so enlightened. Inflation here we come."
• Hot Air's Allahpundit: "I'm confused. The first stimulus, we were assured, 'created or saved' three million jobs. Do we need to create or save those jobs again so soon or will this new bill be creating or saving more?"
• RedState's Brian Faughnan: "One question for [House Speaker Nancy] Pelosi: what level of debt would be too much to put on the backs of our children and grandchildren?"

JONES: The Netroots Approve

Liberal bloggers are praising Obama for appointing Van Jones as an adviser on green jobs:

• Daily Kos' Scout Finch: "An inspiration and a true visionary, he is perfect for this role in the Obama administration -- at a time when we need it most. Congratulations, Van Jones!"
• Al Giordano: "Jones' appointment brings a double breath of air. First, he's going to make sure the stimulus money for renewable energy won't get diverted by federal and state agencies to mere pork and patronage projects and is going to be spent as intended. [...] Second, his ascendance ends the era when the environmental movement could be seen as a luxury of the privileged and educated. Jones has already done more than anybody else I can think of to forge a new language for that movement, one that speaks to the self interest of the workers and the poor; the very groups that corporations and governments have long divided from environmental concerns by pitting short term economic interests against the health of our children and neighborhoods."
• digby: "I've heard Van Jones speak several times and have always been impressed and inspired by his ideas so it's great news that he's going to work in the administration. His rhetoric is a little edgier than what we've come to expect from national politics and I hope he doesn't end up getting booted for speaking the truth as Joycelyn Elders was. He's super smart and very creative and hopefully they'll move some of his ideas."
• Daily Kos' Meteor Blades: "[This is] change we can triple-cheer. Who filled this post in the Cheney-Bush administration? That would be nobody."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Cuz It's Never Too Early To Speculate About 2012...

Allahpundit thinks ex-MA Gov. Mitt Romney might be the current favorite to win the GOP presidential nod in 2012:

"[Romney] won the CPAC straw poll, of course, and as I write this he leads the field on InTrade with 24 percent, followed by [LA Gov. Bobby] Jindal at 19 and [AK Gov. Sarah] Palin at 15, neither of whom I expect will run. He'll have an advantage in the early primaries in 2012, too: [Mike Huckabee] will win Iowa thanks to evangelicals, but Romney should take New Hampshire and Michigan easily now that there's no [John] McCain-type around to run to his left. The question is what happens in South Carolina, where Huck nearly knocked off McCain thanks to Christian voters. If he beats Romney there, it's anyone's race. And while in theory Mitt should have an easy time with him in blue-state primaries like New York, economic circumstances may be such that the rich guy is a hard sell compared to the folksy populist, regardless of which one of them has more financial expertise. Maybe [SC Gov. Mark] Sanford will get in and end up acting as a stalking horse for Mitt, stealing SC away from Huck and splitting enough social-con votes with him elsewhere to give Romney a clear path. Romney/Sanford 2012? I could live with it, and Sanford would take that deal in a heartbeat. He'll only be 52 and landing on the ticket would give him the national exposure he'll need to have any chance against Jindal or Palin in 2016."

LEST WE FORGET: Year Of Law School Now Mandatory For Nation's 25-Year-Olds

From The Onion:

"WASHINGTON -- Under the provisions of a bill approved by Congress and signed into law Tuesday, every 25-year-old American, regardless of prior life commitments, is now legally obligated to enroll in a full year of study at one of the nation's accredited law schools. 'This new measure gives us the means to compel 25-year-olds to simultaneously placate their parents, impress their friends with complex-sounding legal jargon, and effectively avoid any real-world responsibilities for another full year,' said Rep. Steve Buyer (R-IN). 'We can think of no better way for our young people to squander their postcollegiate aimlessness.' Congress is reportedly seeking further legislation that would provide for an additional nine months of grumbling over LSAT prep, and up to five years of whining about paying off student loan debt."

3/10: Piling On The President

It seems like nobody in the political blogosphere is happy with Pres. Obama's efforts to deal with the financial crisis thus far. On the left side of the blogosphere, many are complaining that Obama isn't being forthright about the money he's giving to insolvent banks, while others are frustrated by what they perceive to be the overall lack of a plan. On the right side of the blogosphere, bloggers are buzzing about the "ineffectiveness" of Obama's efforts to improve the economy and wondering whether Obama "has crashed the markets on purpose" or if he's simply "incompetent."

What else is happening in the blogosphere?

• Liberal bloggers (Marshall, Moulitsas, Benen, Aravosis) are buzzing about Rep. Patrick McHenry's (R-NC) admission that the GOP's goal "is to bring down [the] approval numbers" of congressional Dems.
• Conservative bloggers (Kudlow, Impomeni, Ponnuru, Hengler) are criticizing Obama's decision to reverse George W. Bush's restrictions on federal funding for human embryonic stem cell research.

BANKS: Where's Our Money Going, Mr. President?

Several liberal bloggers are complaining that the Obama admin. isn't being forthright about the money it's giving to insolvent banks:

• Firedoglake's Jane Hamsher: "In an interview published in yesterday's New York Times, President Obama says that it could take another $750 billion to bail out the banks beyond the $700 billion already approved. Yet serious questions surround the money already distributed to Wall Street, and attempts to determine how it was disbursed have been stonewalled. [...] Before Congress approves any more funds, the public needs to know where all our money has gone. The government needs to tell us what happened to the AIG money and open the books on its other lending facilities. They need to move swiftly to re-regulate a system whose rules have been written by bank lobbyists for their own benefit, and until they do, there will be no public confidence in our financial system. Restoring that trust is critical in getting our economy back on its feet, and additional funds should be forthcoming until that happens."
• Arianna Huffington: "While we're rewarding the risk-taking shareholders of various zombie banks -- not to mention the mysterious, unconfirmed counterparties to AIG's serial recklessness -- how about rewarding the taxpayers, if not with an actual return on our bailout investment then at least with information about what exactly is being done with our money? [...] Instead, we're greeted with a wall of manufactured complexity by the people whose job it is to make known unknowns into known knowns. There is nothing complex about the way CEOs like John Thain, Ed Liddy, Lloyd Blankfein, John Mack, Vikram Pandit, and Ken Lewis turned bailout billions into Wall Street bonus money -- and no justification for keeping taxpayers in the dark about the giveaways."

AMERICAblog's Chris in Paris is frustrated by what he perceives as the Obama admin.'s overall lack of a plan: "What's the plan for the US banking industry? Nationalizing and cleaning them up? Letting them collapse? Breaking them up to prevent too big to fail? [Treasury Sec. Tim] Geithner is going to have to wake up sometime soon or Obama is going to need to make a change because the banking situation -- which Geithner was supposed to be watching in recent years -- looks no better today than it did last year, maybe worse. Having a plan is not such a bad idea, but that doesn't look like anything exists right now."

Meanwhile, other liberal bloggers are discussing the various difficulties associated with nationalizing insolvent banks.

OBAMA: He's A Failure Already?

Although Obama still possesses fairly high approval ratings, conservative bloggers are portraying his first fifty days as an abject failure (primarily because of his inability to reverse the economy's downward spiral):

• Townhall's Hugh Hewitt: "The Floundering, Fumbled First Fifty Days: Lots of rookies bat below the Mendoza line in their first two months in the big leagues, so past performance by the new president is no guarantee that he won't get his swing fixed. But lots of the inside-the-Beltway folk are worried."
• RedState's Jeff Emanuel: "An Utter Lack of Testing: Will President Obama Become an Object Lesson in What's Wrong With Our Presidential Selection Process? [...] President Obama is already showing the strain and exhaustion that come from being burdened with the highest office in the land -- and it's only been seven weeks. With him, we could very well be heading for an object lesson in the utter lack of testing and preparation we require our candidates for the Presidency to undergo."
• Right Wing News' John Hawkins: "During the 2008 presidential campaign, people speculated whether someone like Barack Obama, who has never really run anything or had any major achievements other than winning political office, could handle a three AM crisis call. Well, as it turns out, Obama has been such a bumbling incompetent that he probably couldn't handle a trip through a Wendy's drive-in window without a teleprompter telling him what to order and whether he wants a Coke or a Mountain Dew. Even though Obama has been in office less than two months, he has already made more boneheaded errors than most Presidents do in an entire term."
• Townhall's Carol Platt Liebau: "[G]iven the ineffectiveness so far of his efforts to turn the economy around -- indeed, the role his administration has played in driving the market down -- the American people are entitled to tell the President to slow down: Let's see how he performs in healing the economy, before we start authorizing his plans for sweeping change across the board."
• Hot Air's Ed Morrissey: "Just as [Kevin] Hassett makes the claim that Obama has crashed the markets on purpose, one can make the case that he's incompetent -- completely out of his league and clinging to his ideology rather than financial acumen."
• NRO's Victor Davis Hanson: "Obama's awkward corrective call to the NY Times that 'Bush is the socialist, not me!' comes after claiming that the Brit protocol disaster was due to his weariness and the frenzy of the job. That claim comes after the White House orchestrated attack on Rush [Limbaugh]. Yet the problem for Obamians is not in the stars, but in themselves, mostly a result of that classically unfortunate combination of hubris and inexperience. The Obamians need to get a life and govern the country, rather than blaming their gaffes on Bush, Rush, life, etc. ..."

MCHENRY: Thanks For Clarifying, Patrick!

Liberal bloggers are criticizing Rep. McHenry for telling National Journal that the GOP's goal "is to bring down [the] approval numbers" of congressional Dems:

"'We will lose on legislation. But we will win the message war every day, and every week, until November 2010,' said Rep. Patrick McHenry, R-N.C., an outspoken conservative who has participated on the GOP message teams. 'Our goal is to bring down approval numbers for [Speaker Nancy] Pelosi and for House Democrats. That will take repetition. This is a marathon, not a sprint.'"

Most liberal bloggers weren't surprised by McHenry's admission:

• TPM's Josh Marshall: "I mentioned a few days ago that congressional Republicans were simply not part of the conversation on saving the American economy. The policies they're pushing don't even amount to conservative. In most cases they're pushing stuff that's just transparently ridiculous. Like a federal spending freeze in the face of massive economic downturn and possible deflationary spiral. And now Greg Sargent has dug up a quote where a leading Republican admits that this is in fact their strategy. It's not about coming up with policies to save the country; it's all about pulling down Nancy Pelosi's and her caucus's favorability ratings. [...] That's not really surprising. But it's a bit stunning, though perhaps also refreshing, to see them say it out loud."
• The Washington Monthly's Steve Benen: "The quote certainly won't surprise anyone who's paid any attention to the House Republican caucus over the last several years. Of course their goal is to bring down Democrats' approval numbers. Of course they're more concerned with winning the daily 'message war' than shaping public policy. [...] I can appreciate why all of this seems to be in the water-is-wet category for obviousness, but it's a reminder of why Democratic leaders are making a mistake if they plan on looking to the minority party as credible and sincere governing partners. As Joe Klein recently argued, the president 'should have no illusions about the good faith of his opponents.'"

That said, liberal bloggers were still highly critical of the GOP strategy as described by McHenry:

• Oliver Willis: "Patrick McHenry, a Republican rep from North Carolina, has told the press that his primary goal in Washington is to bring down approval ratings for Democrats. Now, my guess is that the people in his district in North Carolina sent him there to -- oh, I dunno -- represent North Carolina and not just use the House of Representatives as a campaign arm of the GOP."
• AMERICAblog's John Aravosis: "[The] GOP legislative priority isn't to pass any legislation to help America, it's to drive down Democratic poll numbers. [...] I guess when you're guaranteed a government-paid salary of $170k or so a year -- and get a raise just two months ago -- you can afford to focus on more important things than the health of the nation."

Daily Kos' Markos Moulitsas thinks the GOP's strategy makes sense and that Dems should respond by "cut[ting] them out":

"This is what opposition parties do. They strive to make clear distinctions with the party in power, giving the American people a clear idea of how things might be different if the other guys were in power. Democrats had a hard time with this concept until 2005, when they finally found their voice opposing social security privatization, and 2006, when they did the same with Iraq. Republicans have never lost sight of their role, so good for them. [...] In 2010, the voters will pass judgment -- they'll either endorse Republican obstructionism by thinning the ranks of Congressional Democrats, or they'll punish recalcitrant Republicans by electing more Democrats. At that time, strategies can be adapted and evolved. But for now, the battle lines are clear, as are the strategies. Republicans aim to disrupt. Cut them out."

STEM CELL RESEARCH: The Rightroots Don't Agree With Nancy Reagan

Conservative bloggers continue to criticize Obama's decision to reverse Bush's restrictions on federal funding for human embryonic stem cell research:

• NRO's Larry Kudlow: "As a Catholic I oppose Obama's actions. How can you destroy a life in order to save one? That's a key question Pres. Obama is not answering as he aborts Pres. Bush's ban on federal funding for embryonic-stem-cell research. We already have existing stem-cell lines, plus blood cells and skin cells. So why must we seek new stem-cell lines from human embryos? [...] And why is taxpayer money necessary for this? That means those of us who oppose embryonic-stem-cell research -- for ethical, moral, or religious reasons -- must finance it. Why not leave all this to the private sector and private capital? That wouldn't make me any happier from a moral standpoint. But at least I wouldn't be paying for this research with my tax dollars."
• RedState's Mark Impomeni: "[T]he policy reversal exercised by the Obama Administration hasn't the least bit to do with ethics or science. If it did, Obama would likely have only modified the Bush policy slightly. Today's decision is about repaying the abortion industry, that's right I said industry, for its support of the most radically pro-abortion president in history."
• NRO's Ramesh Ponnuru: "To put taxpayer dollars behind the destruction of nascent human lives in research is monstrous. But Congress has long backed this policy, Barack Obama campaigned on it, and so it was only a matter of time before this evil day came. The decisions not to place any ethical limits on this subsidy and to rescind Bush's executive order encouraging ethical stem-cell research were, however, wholly gratuitous. President Obama did not have to do either thing out of political necessity. Evidently he just wanted to go as far down this road as he can. The likely next step is taxpayer support for research involving both the creation and the destruction of embryonic human lives."
• Townhall's Greg Hengler: "Science is amoral. It does not have anything to tell us about right or wrong, good or bad, etc. The bottom line is not scientific, it is whether the experimentation on human embryos (by the way, you were one at one point of your life) is right or wrong. Pres. Obama, please don't tell me about 'the science behind your decisions,' tell me about the morality behind your decisions. This lift [of Bush's restrictions on federal funding for embryonic stem cell research] is definitely change but not one I believe in."

Townhall's Matt Lewis thinks Obama's decision "will ultimately be viewed as a political miscalculation": "First, it stands to reason that Obama should be focused like a laser beam on fixing the economy. Yet, whether it is health care or embryonic stem cells (each day brings a new distraction from the economy), Obama continues to focus attention away from the economy. [...] Second, in 2008 Barack Obama won many young Evangelical votes by casting himself as a centrist. He also benefited from the fact that, in recent years, the culture wars have receded from the public attention. What Obama fails to understand is that cultural conservatives have only been successful when liberals were guilty of overreaching. [...] Third, while a minority of Americans may oppose this decision, polls fail to measure the intensity of those who oppose it."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Japan's "Lost Decade" Looks Better In Retrospect

The New York Times' Paul Krugman:

"For a decade or so Japan's lost decade has been the great bugaboo of modern macroeconomics. Economists constantly warned that you mustn't do X or you must do Y, because otherwise we'll turn into Japan. And policymakers congratulated themselves in advance for not being like their Japanese counterparts, who dithered and drifted, refusing to make hard decisions.

Well, I'm sure I'm not the only person to notice this: Japan doesn't look so bad these days. For one thing, the famed sluggishness of Japanese policy -- the refusal to face up to banking system losses and pour in the funds needed to recapitalize the system, the refusal to let zombie banks die, the stop-go nature of fiscal policy, with concerns about rising debt warring with concerns about the economy -- all of that seems entirely comprehensible now, doesn't it? Even with the knowledge of what happened to Japan to motivate us, so far we're following exactly the same path.

And given what the next couple of years are likely to look like, Japan's lost decade -- yes, growth was slow, but there wasn't mass unemployment or mass suffering -- is actually starting to look pretty good. We may or may not be about to face our own lost decade, but the sheer misery millions of Americans will face in the near future probably exceeds anything that happened in Japan during the 90s. I still hope we can do better than the Japanese did, but it's not at all obvious that we will."

LEST WE FORGET: Twitter/Facebook Syndrome

ESPN's Bill Simmons:

"In 15 years, writing went from 'reflecting on what happened and putting together some coherent thoughts' to 'reflecting on what happened as quickly as possible' to 'reflecting on what's happening as it's happening' to 'here are my half-baked thoughts about absolutely anything and I'm not even going to attempt to entertain you,' or as I like to call it, Twitter/Facebook Syndrome. Do my friends REALLY CARE if I send out an update, 'Bill is flying on an airplane finishing a mailbag right now?' (Which is true, by the way.) I just don't think they would. I certainly wouldn't. That's why I refuse to use Twitter.

As for Facebook, I don't mind getting status updates and snapshots of what my friends' lives are like...as long as they aren't posting 10 times a day or writing something uncomfortable about their spouse/boyfriend like '(Girl's name) is...trying to remember the last time she looked at her husband without wanting to punch him in the face' or '(Girl's name) is...just going to keep eating, it's not like I have sex anymore.' Keep me out of your personal business, please. Other than that, the comedy of status updates can be off the charts. Like my college classmate who sends out status updates so overwhelmingly mundane and weird that my buddies and I forward them to each other, then add fake responses like, '(Guy's name)...snapped and killed a drifter tonight' and '(Guy's name)...would hang myself if the ceilings in my apartment weren't too short.' It kills us. We can't get enough of it. We have been doing it for four solid months. And really, that's what Facebook is all about -- looking at photos of your friend's kids or any reunion or party, making fun of people you never liked and searching for old hook-ups and deciding whether you regret the hook-up or not. That's really it. All in all, I like Facebook."

3/9: Discontent On The Left

Like Paul Krugman, liberal bloggers are growing increasingly frustrated with Pres. Obama's approach to the financial crisis. Most lefty bloggers believe that the stimulus package was too small, as evidenced by the fact that unemployment keeps rising. The netroots also believe that Treasury Sec. Tim Geithner doesn't have a clear plan and that he's simply "throwing money at the banks". A growing number of liberal bloggers believe that nationalizing insolvent banks is the only solution, and they're frustrated that the Obama admin. "has thus far resisted" this option. Chris Bowers warns: "If President Obama moves forward in giving another $250 billion, or even $750 billion to Wall Street without temporary nationalization, his approval rating will drop under 50% in a matter of weeks."

What else is happening in the blogosphere?

• Liberal bloggers (Gardner, DarkSyde, Sudbay) are praising Obama for reversing George W. Bush's restrictions on federal funding for human embryonic stem cell research, while conservative bloggers are criticizing the move.
• Conservative bloggers (Morrissey, Hinderaker, Lane, Geraghty) are buzzing about a Daily Telegraph article asserting that Obama was "too tired" to give a proper welcome to British PM Gordon Brown when the latter visited Washington.
• Liberal bloggers (Drum, Yglesias, Bok) are criticizing Senate Energy Cmte Chair Jeff Bingaman (D-NM) for saying that Congress is unlikely to pass a cap-and-trade bill that would auction 100% of the government's pollution permits. Liberal bloggers are strongly opposed to the idea of giving away permits, which they believe would drastically reduce the effectiveness of any cap-and-trade system.
• Conservative bloggers (Morrissey, Johnson, Rubin, Rubin) and hawkish centrist bloggers (Goldberg, Peretz) are criticizing Obama's new National Intelligence Commission Chair, Charles Freeman. Liberal bloggers (Marshall, Yglesias, Klein, Fallows) are defending Freeman.

And in case you missed Friday's interview with Daily Kos' David Waldman (aka Kagro X), check it out here!

STIMULUS: Vindication For Progressives?

Liberal bloggers see the soaring unemployment numbers as evidence that progressives such as Krugman were correct in warning that the initial stimulus package was too small:

• Think Progress' Matthew Yglesias: "At the time it was proposed, many liberals thought the stimulus plan was too small. Or to be more precise, I think what we thought was that it was imprudently small. A fiscal expansion that turned out to be 'too big' would waste some money and require the Fed to counteract the error with higher interest rates. Not great, but not so terrible either. By contrast, a too-small stimulus while we're already up against the zero-bound on interest rates could cause significant problems if the underlying economic situation turns out to be worse than anticipated. And as Neil Irwin and Annys Shin write in The Washington Post that's exactly what seems to be happening as job loss numbers come in at a frightening pace."
• TPM's Josh Marshall: "In Washington over the last two months, the debate was over whether the Stimulus Bill was too large. But the math -- that is to say, expected fall in aggregate demand compared with offsetting stimulus spending -- suggested a completely different problem. Namely, that it was too small, probably offsetting a half or less than half of the demand sucked out of the economy by the collapse of the housing bubble. And as the Post reports on tomorrow's front page, the verdict seems to be in: yep, it was too small."
• dday: "Obama released an initial bill that was too small for the task, perhaps assuming that the package would get bigger, as most spending bills do, as it made its way through Congress. Therefore they would not be saddled with the impression that they were expanding government as much as Congressional Democrats would. That's not what happened, and as a result, the stimulus is looking too small for the task."

Liberal bloggers are also buzzing about a recent Media Matters study which found that network news broadcasts rarely included "discussion of whether that package was big enough, despite statements from many economists that it may not be [...]." Lefty bloggers hope that this media dynamic doesn't repeat itself if and when Congress considers a second stimulus bill.

BANKS: Growing Frustration With Geithner

Liberal bloggers are growing increasingly frustrated with the Obama admin.'s approach to the financial crisis -- particularly its resistance to nationalizing insolvent banks:

• TalkLeft's Big Tent Democrat: "Enough with the playacting. Time to take action. Time for temporary takeovers of banks like Citi. It's the only choice now."
• AMERICAblog's Chris in Paris: "It's time Obama gets his economic team straightened out and moving forward. The start has been atrocious, including the multiple failed attempts to build a team around Geithner. If the economy is as important as everyone thinks it is, quit poking around and start working. The problem is too serious for any more of this."
• Balloon Juice's DougJ: "I'm not normally one to agree with [Megan McArdle]] or Slate fraudster Henry Blodget and I don't know enough to say that it's time to start thinking about firing Tim Geithner. But everything I've read from [Paul] Krugman and Atrios about Geithner's (lack of a) plan for banks scares the hell out of me and Blodget puts together a pretty compelling indictment."
• Sadly, No!'s Brad: "Obama is seriously screwing up the banking crisis. [...] Essentially, Geithner is re-proposing the Hank Paulson cash-for-trash scheme again with new bows and ribbons added to make it look less completely shitty. But it is completely shitty and no serious economist thinks it's a good idea. Ferchrissake, James Effing Baker even thinks temporarily nationalizing the banks is the only way we're ever going to get out of this mess. [...] Here's the deal, dudes: if the economy is not recovering by mid-2010, you can kiss the Democrats' hold on the House of Representatives bye-bye. If the problem persists beyond that, you can say hello to President Moose-Eater in 2012."
• The Huffington Post's Ann Pettifor: "By throwing money at the banks, and by refusing to take full charge of how they are run; by refusing to lower borrowing costs, US Treasury officials and the Fed Reserve are dodging the big issue: corporate and household insolvency."
• Open Left's Bowers: "Newsweek asked the country if they are cool with the 'Swedish model' of temporary bank nationalization. A clear majority responded 'yep.' [...] Even with with these [possible] objections, the poll does show that temporary nationalization is a much more popular plan than the current bailout model. [...] If President Obama moves forward in giving another $250 billion, or even $750 billion to Wall Street without temporary nationalization, his approval rating will drop under 50% in a matter of weeks."

Some liberal bloggers believe that (1.) the Obama admin.'s resistance to nationalizing the banks is based on political considerations, and (2.) these political considerations are unfounded, since a recent Newsweek poll found that 56% of Americans favor bank nationalization. However, Ezra Klein and Yglesias believe that Obama is resistant to nationalizing the banks for other reasons.

BANKS II: Let 'Em Fail

Liberal bloggers are criticizing Sen. Richard Shelby (R-AL), the ranking member of the Senate Banking Cmte, for declaring that he wants to "close" insolvent banks, not nationalize them:

"I don't want to nationalize them, I think we need to close them. Close them down, get them out of business. If they're dead, they ought to be buried. We bury the small banks; we've got to bury some big ones and send a strong message to the market. And I believe that people will start investing [again] in banks."

Liberal bloggers think Shelby's statement is naive and irresponsible:

• Marshall: "Something like this is both heartening and insanely distressing at the same time because what exactly does he think people are talking about when people talk about nationalization? They're talking about some form of FDIC-like takeover, though probably one that would take longer and be much more complicated since you simply can't find another bank that is going to buy up most or all of Citi's assets at some knock-down price over the weekend -- certainly not in the present climate. You either clean the bank up (which would require what amounts to a de facto bankruptcy proceeding) and sell it back into private hands or break it up and sell it off in individual pieces -- likely some combination of the two. It would be one thing if Shelby were just one more Fox News robot. But he's the ranking member of the friggin' Banking Committee."
• digby: "I guess [Shelby] thinks the banks are like GM and should just go bankrupt. Maybe we should close the FDIC too. This is why financial lobbyists are able to run rings around the congress and set themselves up years ahead of time, as they did in the bankruptcy bill."
• Chris in Paris: "The banks the Senator Shelby is suggesting to fail are the mega banks that are well known around the world. Those banks are in fact, too big to fail. (Year to date the US has closed at least 17 banks, so plenty have failed.) At this point in time it's only going to make matters worse if the US was to allow a Bank of America or Citi-like bank to fail."
• Mother Jones' Kevin Drum: "[T]he FDIC can't run Citigroup and nobody in their right mind wants to buy them. On the other hand, with Citi's stock hovering around a dollar, their shareholders have already lost nearly their entire investment. Allowing Citi to fail would hardly cause them any more damage than they've already suffered. So why not just let them go under, as Shelby wants? The answer is that we could do this. This was the gamble [Fed Chair] Ben Bernanke and Henry Paulson took last September when they allowed Lehman Brothers to fail -- dammit, it's time to enforce some market discipline on these guys! -- and their gamble failed spectacularly. The global financial system nearly collapsed even though Lehman wasn't all that big. [...] This is precisely the kind of imbecilic, high-stakes gambling that got us into this mess in the first place. Maybe Shelby ought to think twice before deciding that the hair of the dog might get us out."

Balloon Juice's John Cole: "Seriously -- the welfare queens on Wall Street keep asking what Obama can do to 'regain the confidence of Wall Street' (and I really can not describe how angry those statements make me -- Obama needs to have you regain confidence in him? You were the rocket scientists who caused this mess.) He could start by sending Sen. Shelby to Gitmo every Friday through Monday so he can't appear on any more weekend shows. There may be drastic steps that need to be taken shortly, but the last damned thing the jittery market needs right now is Senators running around publicly suggesting we need banks to die. By the way -- which member of the CNBC brain trust will blame Obama for Citigroup's cliff dive tomorrow?"

On the right side of the blogosphere, John Hawkins agrees with Shelby: "[Y]es, we should let the banks fail. We should let the Big 3 head to Chapter 11. We should let foreclosures go forward. Will people get hurt? Yes. Will it be pleasant? No. But, is it likely to produce a better outcome than allowing D.C. to micromanage our economy? History definitively says, 'yes.'"

OBAMA: Elections Have Consequences

Liberal bloggers are praising Obama for reversing Bush's restrictions on federal funding for human embryonic stem cell research:

• Oliver Willis: "Science returns to America."
• Daily Kos' SusanG: "What a day for celebration, as we move yet another step further away from the Dark Ages of the Bush Administration."
• Daily Kos' DarkSyde: "This move is a winner politically as well as scientifically, even making inroads among registered Republicans and self professed conservatives according to some polls. It's also a potent reminder that elections do indeed have consequences. And this is one consequence that's been overdue for a long, long time."
• AMERICAblog's Joe Sudbay: "When historians and humanitarians look back at the abuses of George Bush, his refusal to let scientists find cures for diseases will be viewed as one of his worst decisions. I know Obama hasn't even been president for two months, but the Bush years almost seem long ago and out of a different, distant, dark time. Science matters again. And, caring for the sick does, too."

On the right side of the blogosphere, RedState's Dan Spencer criticizes Obama's move: "Just as the federal government doesn't fund abortions, it shouldn't fund embryonic stem cell research which results in the destruction of human embryos. Simply because more of those polled say they want it than say they don't, doesn't make it right for the federal government to pay for research which requires the destruction of human embryos. There is nothing which restricts privately funded embryonic stem cell research. It is no surprise that Obama would permit federal funding for research which will require the destruction of human embryos. After all, Obama is the most radically pro-abortion president in history."

OBAMA II: In Over His Head?

Conservative bloggers are buzzing about a Daily Telegraph article asserting that Obama was "too tired" to give a proper welcome to British PM Brown:

• Hot Air's Ed Morrissey: "I'm not sure which is worse. At least if he meant to snub Brown, it would suggest a certain competence at this brand of diplomacy. Instead, we're told that the Obama White House and their staff are just a bunch of incompetents who got in over their heads. Which is, of course, the point we made continuously over the last two years."
• Power Line's John Hinderaker: "Where to begin? Obama, after two years of expressing smug contempt for the Bush administration, is 'surprised at the sheer volume' of work the President has to do. And he's too tired to deal competently with one of the most important foreign officials he will meet during his term in office. So: maybe he should cut down on the late-night White House partying?"
• RedState's Moe Lane: "Mr. President? Man up. You see, I don't give a tinker's dam if you're feeling overwhelmed. I could care less if your stress levels are elevated. If I came across you puking in the White House toilet from the nervous tension, my only response would be to flip the switch that turns on the fan before I went to find another bathroom. That's because you wanted this job that you now have, and if you didn't know that it was a killing job then you should have asked somebody. [...] PS: Find the person who made that statement to the Telegraph, thus embarrassing the country, myself, and (least importantly) yourself. If that person works for you, fire that person. Fire that person filthy."
• NRO's Jim Geraghty: "'Obama is overwhelmed.' Perhaps it's just some Obama ally speaking out of school. But these are probably some of the most terrifying words to come from an unidentified source in some time."

BINGAMAN: Way To Preemptively Sell Out, Jeff!

Liberal bloggers are upset that Sen. Bingaman said that the Senate is unlikely to pass a cap-and-trade bill that would auction 100% of the government's pollution permits:

"[Bingaman] said earlier that any climate bill that passes the Senate is unlikely to adhere to the administration's plan that the government auction all the permits to emit greenhouse gases because such a plan would be too harsh on big industry. Instead, Bingaman said any Congressionally developed system capping and trading emissions probably will include carbon allowances given to polluters like cement factories and coal-burning power plants, along with permits that are sold."

Liberal bloggers are strongly opposed to the idea of giving away pollution permits, which they believe would drastically reduce the effectiveness of any cap-and-trade system:

• Drum: "I see that Sen. Jeff Bingaman (D–NM), chairman of the Energy and Natural Resources committee, has decided to preemptively surrender on global warming. [...] There are loads of special interests who hate the idea of a 100% auction, of course. But once you start giving away permits, you'll never stop. It is, plain and simple, a massive giveaway to existing power plants, and as the Europeans learned it makes a mockery of any serious cap-and-trade plan. This all sounds very wonky, but it's a hill to die for if you care about reducing greenhouse gases. Without a 100% auction, cap-and-trade is a bad joke. Somebody needs to tell Bingaman to start listening to the coal lobby a little less and start caring about effective public policy a little more."
• Obsidian Wings' hilzoy: "This is a very, very bad idea. The problem isn't that the government would get less money if it gave permits away than it would if it auctioned them. A good cap and trade system will involve sending some or all of the money back to people. It's that once you start giving away permits, it's open season for lobbyists and special interests. If Congress wants to help cement factories and coal-burning power plants, it can send them money directly and face the political consequences. Giving away permits under a cap and trade system does exactly the same thing, but without forcing Congress to admit what they are doing."

Yglesias mocks Bingaman for "perfect[ing] the art of the conditional sellout": "When you're a Democratic Senator, you often face a conflict of interests. On the one hand, you would really like to sell out to anti-reform special interests. On the other hand, you can't openly portray yourself as someone who wants to sell out. One appealing option is to do what Bingaman does here and just cite unspecified political obstacles. Not that the obstacles aren't real. But in the U.S. Senate they're also people, with names. But instead of naming names, Bingaman's just offering the vagueness play. He'd love to do the right thing, but it's 'unlikely' to happen. And everyone can do this. Nobody needs to be the Senator who's against a public plan in health care, or who's against a 100 percent auction. Instead, everyone's just being practical for the sake of someone else."

Klein: "This is also one reason many environmental advocates prefer a carbon tax: You can do a lot of complicated things to cap and trade legislation that kill the impact of the bill. A carbon tax is harder -- though still not impossible -- to muck with."

FREEMAN: Hostile To Israel?

Conservative bloggers (and several hawkish centrist bloggers) are criticizing Obama's new National Intelligence Commission Chair, Charles Freeman:

• The Atlantic's Jeffrey Goldberg: "I get the sense that some of Freeman's defenders want to see him in government not because he's a professional contrarian but precisely because he's viscerally anti-Israel."
• The New Republic's Marty Peretz: "Much has also been written by others about Freeman's hostility to Israel, to Jews generally and to friends of Israel. [...] Freeman's affinity with and loyalty to the Chinese Communists also has ancestry in Washington. [...] Can it really be true that Barack Obama is putting this man at the center of our intelligence apparatus?"
• Morrissey: "Talk about a failure in vetting! [Admiral] Dennis Blair's choice to head the National Intelligence Council and to create the critical NIEs that guide our security policies looks worse by the day. [...] We can't have anyone this clueless in charge of our intelligence analyses. The Senate needs to tell Barack Obama in no uncertain terms to dump Chas Freeman, and fast."
• Power Line's Scott Johnson: "[Martin] Kramer evokes Freeman's standing as the Saudi/Manchurian candidate with quotes faithfully toeing the Saudi line on al Qaeda. Freeman baldly contradicts himself like a Communist fellow traveler following the twists and turns of the Soviet Union's line on Nazi Germany."
• NRO's Michael Rubin: "Freeman is certainly contrarian; hence his admiration for Mao. [...] But being contrarian is not a substitute for being a good analyst or being wise. One can say the world is flat. That may be contrarian, but it is also stupid. One celebrate Tiananmen; that too is wrong. The sad fact is that when journalists say Freeman should be lauded, they are simply celebrating a man because they agree with him."
• Commentary's Jennifer Rubin: "[W]hy is the White House dragging this out? It is inexplicable that the administration, a supposedly sophisticated political operation, would not only allow Freeman to slip in, but then prolong the agony as more and more politicians, Democrats included, step forward to raise objections. Perhaps they are trying to soothe some constituency or resist the appearance of caving into pressure. But, on a decision this horrible, it is better to cut your losses quickly."

A number of liberal bloggers (and Andrew Sullivan) are defending Freeman. Sullivan writes: "This is Freeman's cardinal sin among his critics: to blame Israel, even in part, for the plight it finds itself in, and to ask that US foreign policy be more neutral with respect to the parties in the Middle East. This is the third rail no one is allowed to touch and have access to real power in Washington. [...] I repeat: if there are serious financial conflicts of interest, Freeman should withdraw. I also find some of Freeman's realist statements, even as contrarian, a little too brutal for my taste. But I also believe that someone whose views push the envelope against recent US policy in the Middle East is an important asset for the United States right now. And I find the hysterical bullying of this man to be repulsive."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: If Obama Wins, I'm Moving To Canada!

Hinderaker:

"My great-grandparents had to come to America from Norway in search of opportunity. It may well be, sadly, that my children or grandchildren will have to emigrate to some other country to maximize their opportunities in life. This, I'm afraid, may be the permanent legacy of the Obama administration and the Democrats' ascendancy in Washington. The Democrats would cut back on freedom world-wide, if they could. But they can't. So, if they realize their statist dreams in this country, the next generation of Americans will vote with its feet, just as enterprising Europeans who valued freedom did, generations ago."

LEST WE FORGET: Area Man Thinks He Was Fired Because Of Recession

From The Onion:

"CHICAGO -- Though there were more than a dozen just causes -- including tardiness, gross incompetence, and poor hygiene -- to terminate Louis Palmer from his position as an accountant at Brillstein & Altman CPA, PC, the 29-year-old told reporters Monday that he believes he was fired due to economic conditions beyond anyone's control. 'Nobody's safe from this recession, man,' said Palmer, who might have noticed that his employer actually posted a 12 percent growth in 2008 had he not so frequently been asleep at his desk. 'I'm going to miss the two-hour lunch breaks and all the free office supplies, but what are you going to do? The economy's a total wreck.' Palmer returned home that evening to discover that his wife had left him, which he attributed to the war in Iraq."

BLOGGER SPOTLIGHT: David Waldman

Today the Blogometer talks to David Waldman (aka Kagro X), a Contributing Editor at Daily Kos and the Editor-in-Chief of Congress Matters.

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

Where did you grow up?
West Orange, NJ

Where do you live now?
Sterling, VA

If you have an occupation other than blogging, what is it?
These days, that’s it.

You used to be a Hotline staff writer -- care to share a memory from your Hotline days?
We were visited one day by [TN Sen.] Lamar Alexander, who was a consulting client of Hotline founder Doug Bailey. Alexander was astonished to learn that the mighty Hotline was written, at that time, in the attic workspace of an old house converted to office space in Falls Church, VA, by a bunch of haggard-looking twenty-somethings who looked as if they’d rolled out of bed at 4 a.m. Of course, we had, because that’s when you had to get up to pick up the day’s papers. I imagine The Hotline is still written that way, but you don’t have to drive to the distributors at 4:30 anymore, do you? (No, fortunately! -- ed.)

What's on your iPod right now?
My iPod is empty. I loaned it to my mother, who tried to but an audio book on it, and it got wiped out.

What book do you think every person should read?
The one my mom put on my iPod. I certainly wish she had just read it instead.

Please finish this sentence: “When I’m not blogging, you’ll probably find me…”
…shuttling the kids to school, Tae Kwon Do, swimming lessons, etc. Maybe wishing I could find a reliable way to blog from a golf course.

What has been your favorite blog post, or your favorite story to write about?
I really enjoyed blogging about the 2005 “nuclear option” showdown in the Senate. Researching it was a great crash course in Senate history and procedure.

Which blogger(s) do you consider indispensable, if any?
I tried to answer this, but so many people do so many different things so well, I couldn’t do it. I will say I’ve been tremendously impressed with Steven Aftergood at Secrecy News and Ryan Singel at Wired’s Threat Level blog, though they lie outside of what we tend to think of as the blogosphere. But it would be absolutely nuts of me to try to distinguish between the gradations of indispensability of the people inside it.

Who's your favorite non-liberal blogger?
I realize I’m supposed to demonstrate a certain sort of fair-mindedness and show that I’m open to reading non-liberal bloggers, but there’s no point in finessing it. I’m open to it, I just don’t find anything there that interests me, and many of them doubtless feel the same way. I’m sure there are plenty who are smart and readable, but I don’t read science fiction, and I don’t read conservative blogs.

What would you realistically like to see Democrats accomplish in 2009?
Congressional Democrats? Realistically, I’d just like to see them stop ceding power to the executive branch. Of course, I’d love to see some progress in turning the economy around, and have them find a way not to be caught by surprise by any more outrageous uses of any of the various bailout funds now in operation. I’m more focused on seeing grassroots Democrats accomplish things in 2009. Specifically, making the transition from opponents of the Bush “administration” to knowledgeable and effective advocates for progressive policy changes.

If you could give President Obama advice, what would it be?
I would like to see him open up to the possibility that the “Truth Commission” type proposals from [VT Sen.] Pat Leahy and [MI Rep.] John Conyers is as much about looking to the future as about the past. That’s been his knock on it, but I think that if you take into consideration the Watergate to Iran-Contra to Bush II trendline, it becomes very difficult to argue coherently that taking a close look at the way the George W. Bush White House tried to expand executive power doesn’t have forward-looking relevance, and isn’t about the future. Even if you believe that Democratic presidents don’t or won’t engage in the same activities, the reality is we’re not going to have Democratic presidents forever. An a rule of law that depends on which party is in the White House is no kind of rule of law at all.

What keeps you up at night?
The likelihood that President Obama will not take the above advice, and that we’ll see some new administration pick up right where the last one left off, because nobody thought it would or could ever happen again.

Please feel free to ask and answer your own question.
Do you want to promote your blog, Congress Matters, by telling everyone what you’re up to over there?
Well, since you asked, yes I do. A large part of what we’re doing is seeking to answer the question of what’s next for the liberal progressive blogosphere now that Democrats control both Congress and the White House. We’re trying to use the community platform to create an interactive space where grassroots activists can become better educated in the processes and procedures used to actually make changes in policy. Rules and procedure are a big mystery to most people, and that presents a barrier to participation in the follow-through that converts campaigning for change into actually creating change. We want to try to clear that up as much as possible, so that activists can make their voices heard effectively in that mysterious Bermuda Triangle-like space in between casting their votes on election day and the day they pick up the phone to call their Congressman on the day of a critical floor vote. Those are the two points at which people are most comfortable speaking up, but it’s in between where the fine-tuning is done, and where even a relatively few informed voices can help make big changes.

3/6: What's The Hold-Up?

Liberal bloggers are criticizing GOP senators for holding up the confirmations of economists Austan Goolsbee and Cecilia Rouse to the WH Council of Economic Advisers. Lefty bloggers believe that these senators "don't have any actual objections to Goolsbee or Rouse -- they're just after payback." Josh Marshall complains: "The Republicans seem pretty candid about the fact that this is pay back for stuff that happened back in the [George W.] Bush era. But aren't we in the throes of a catastrophic economic crisis?"

Meanwhile, conservative bloggers continue to blame Pres. Obama for the stock market's poor performance. Some righty bloggers are even suggesting that Obama is "deliberately sabotaging the United States economy" in order to provide a rationale for his liberal agenda. John Hawkins writes: "[F]or Obama, the only thing worse than having the economic crisis go on too long would be having it end too soon, before they can get all these programs through that have been on the Democratic wish list for decades."

What else is happening in the blogosphere?

• Liberal bloggers (McCarter, Beeton, Klein, Yglesias) are buzzing about yesterday's Health Care Summit, while others (Dworkin, Willis) are pointing to a new CNN poll which found that 72% of Americans favor "increasing the federal government's influence over the country's health care system." Meanwhile, conservative bloggers (Cannon, Carroll, Morrissey) are criticizing Obama's plans to reform the health care system.
• Conservative bloggers (Morrissey, Johnson, Russell) are criticizing Obama for giving British PM Gordon Brown 25 DVDs as part of their traditional gift exchange following Brown's visit to Washington.
• Both conservative and liberal bloggers think that Pat Toomey's anticipated primary challenge to Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA) means that Specter will probably vote against the Employee Free Choice Act in order to protect his right flank.

SENATE: Hey Senators, Are You Aware That We're In The Middle Of An Economic Crisis?

Liberal bloggers are criticizing Senate GOPers for holding up the confirmations of Goolsbee and Rouse to the WH Council of Economic Advisers:

• TPM's Marshall: "The senate Republicans are refusing to give a vote to two of President Obama's key (hopefully soon to be) economic advisors -- Austan Goolsbee and Cecilia Rouse. So for the moment they're barred from advising the president at all. The Republicans seem pretty candid about the fact that this is pay back for stuff that happened back in the Bush era. But aren't we in the throes of a catastrophic economic crisis?"
• Think Progress' Matthew Yglesias: "[Senate GOPers] don't have any actual objections to Goolsbee or Rouse -- they're just after payback. And their position is so indefensible that the people doing the holding up -- in the middle of an economic crisis! -- won't say in public who's doing it. Aside from the particulars of this case, it's once again a reminder that nobody can ever explain a good reason for allowing these 'anonymous holds.'"
• The Washington Monthly's Steve Benen: "Everyone agrees that Goolsbee and Rouse are qualified and ready to get to work, but Republicans are looking for some cheap payback. [...] Imagine if, in late 2001, George W. Bush were putting together a team of national security advisors, and Senate Democrats put anonymous holds on his well-qualified choices because of something that may or may not have happened during [Bill] Clinton's presidency. Most political observers would consider this crazy, and they'd be right. And yet, here we are."
• Obsidian Wings' hilzoy: "As Josh [Marshall] said: Please Grow Up. [...] I can see allowing individual Senators to hold a nomination up for a day or two, to make sure that they have time to present any concerns they have about a nominee to their colleagues. But there is no justification at all for allowing one Senator to hold nominations up indefinitely."

OBAMA: It's All Part Of His Master Plan!

For the past few months, there has been a growing consensus on the right that the market's poor performance is a direct consequence of Obama's economic policies. Now, several conservative bloggers are suggesting that Obama is deliberately trying to hurt the economy in order to provide a rationale for enacting a liberal agenda:

• Right Wing News' Hawkins: "[S]ince the Obama administration surely knows that it's causing havoc in the stock market, it begs a very obvious question: could they doing it on purpose? [...F]or Obama, the only thing worse than having the economic crisis go on too long would be having it end too soon, before they can get all these programs through that have been on the Democratic wish list for decades."
• Pajamas Media's Roger Kimball: "Remember, shortly before the election, Obama boasted to his mesmerized supporters that 'We are five days away from fundamentally transforming the United States of America.' Is that not what he has set about doing -- with a vengeance? [...] What we need now is some clever legal talent to show how deliberately sabotaging the United States economy counts as Treason, a high Crime, or at least a Misdemeanor. Any takers?"
• Glenn Reynolds: "Michael Boskin: 'Obama's Radicalism Is Killing the Dow'. Paul Krugman says Obama's killing the Dow by dithering. So the question keeps coming up: Incompetence or malevolence? Either way, that people are asking is a bad sign..."

Power Line's John Hinderaker doesn't buy this theory: "There's a school of thought that the Obama administration is deliberately damaging the economy and gutting the stock market, on the theory that doing so will make more people dependent on the government and pave the way for a far-left regime. [...] It is, I admit, an intriguing theory, but I don't buy it. Obama can't possibly want to be a one-term failure. That's what happened to Jimmy Carter, and Obama must know that it will happen to him, too, if his policies are perceived as dragging down the economy. More likely the explanation is that Obama is an economic illiterate..."

OBAMA II: What's He Got Against Gordon Brown?

Conservative bloggers are criticizing Obama for giving Brown 25 DVDs as part of their traditional gift exchange following Brown's visit to Washington:

• Hot Air's Ed Morrissey: "[T]his seems like a rather deliberate insult, or at best diplomatic incompetence. It's one thing to cheap out on a gift for a friend or relative at Christmas, but the British have stood by the US for many long decades, through some very dark times. Despite unpopularity at home, they remained at our side in Iraq and Afghanistan. They deserve a little more effort from this administration, and a hell of a lot more appreciation."
• Power Line's Scott Johnson: "Compared to the gifts brought for Obama by Brown, the DVDs are an embarrassment. Couldn't Obama at least have thrown in an an autographed copy of The Audacity of Hope?"
• AmSpec Blog's Nicole Russell: "Brown, apparently, is not a film buff and was underwhelmed by the generosity of the new American President. I'm sure Brown realizes it's only a result of our tough economy. While Obama is busy fixing it, he can watch a few movies."

SPECTER: Time To Move Right?

Now that Toomey is reportedly challenging Specter in the 2010 PA Senate primary, conservative bloggers are speculating that Specter will move to the right:

• RedState's Brian Faughnan: "If Arlen Specter faces a primary challenge from Pat Toomey, he has to turn right, doesn't he? It may be too late for him to earn meaningful points with conservatives, but he has to try. Does that mean he moves from being silent on Card Check to officially opposing it? Such a betrayal would make him enemies in the unions, but would give Specter helpful headlines about how his change of position saved the secret ballot. That would fit his agenda quite well -- weakening him in the general election, where he's a favorite, but strengthening him in the primary -- where he really needs help."
• RedState's Moe Lane: "...Specter's independence from his own caucus just took a big hit. This poll suggests that PA Republicans aren't happy with Specter's vote on the recent debt bill, and he barely survived Toomey last time. If Toomey gets the nomination, then we get to run a complete slate of candidates in 2010 who didn't vote for the Democrats' debt bill."

Liberal blogger Yglesias has a similar take: "This is very bad news for anyone hoping to see the Employee Free Choice Act passed in this congress. Specter voted for cloture on EFCA in the previous congress, which should be understood in part as payback for receiving labor support in his 2004 general election. But a vote for EFCA could be an enormous liability in a GOP primary race. Ordinarily, most establishment types in the GOP/business nexus would back an incumbent against a challenger, but your typical executive would sooner strangle his children with his bare hands than sign a collective bargaining agreement."

Yglesias goes on to suggest that Specter switch parties: "As I've said before, one possible answer would be for Specter to back Obama's budget and EFCA and switch parties. To be a happy Democrat he would need to reposition himself ideologically somewhat, but he's meandered quite a bit ideologically over the years. This, however, is what tends to happen with party switchers. [Ex-Sen.] Jim Jefford went from a voting record that would have been extremely conservative for a Democrat to being a standard-issue Vermont liberal after he switched parties. And you saw something similar with some Clinton-era D-to-R party switchers."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: The Case Against "Senate Moderates"

Yglesias unloads with both barrels:

"Thinking about the fine whine [NE Sen.] Ben Nelson, [IN Sen.] Even Bayh, and others are currently enjoying over the dastardly idea of returning the marginal tax rate on the richest two percent of the population to where it was back when Bill Clinton was destroying the economy, I'm growing concerned that the Obama administration may have made a mistake by putting forward such a reasonable budget proposal. I can see why they did it. The key administration players -- Larry Summers, Peter Orszag, Tim Geithner, Jason Furman, etc. -- are nothing if not reasonable, moderate people. But the key legislative players aren't reasonable, moderate people; they're 'reasonable' 'Senate moderates.' A 'Senate moderate' is someone who takes his party's proposals, objects to them, waters them down a bit, and then congratulates himself on a job well done. Which is great if his party's proposals are unduly immoderate. But it's big-time trouble if his party puts a reasonable, moderate agenda on the table.

After all, you don't maintain the painstakingly achieved Nelson/Bayh 'Senate moderate' brand by clapping politely. You need to bitch and moan and be quoted in inside-baseball only media outlets that none of your constituents pay attention to, and hold conferences and have meetings at the White House where people hold your hands. You need to be praised by the opposition party, and extract your pound of flesh from the proposal. Then when it looks like it might go down to defeat, you can vote for the somewhat-watered-down version and be the hero who saved the day and nobody will mention that you saved the day from yourself.

But you really do need to do that stuff. You can't just say 'well, this is a reasonable proposal so I'll back it.' Then your moderate license gets taken away. [So] I think that means that proposals need to deliberately overshoot the mark. Say Obama had proposed a top marginal tax rate of 43 percent. Well Evan Bayh couldn't stand for that! He might propose some reasonable alternative like letting the Bush tax cuts expire so that post-recession rates will be back where they were in the 1990s. How reasonable! How moderate! How judicious!"

LEST WE FORGET: Some Days Are Like That...

From FMyLife.com:

• Today, I was sitting beside this cute guy on a bench. Suddenly, he goes, "I know we don't know each other very well, but would you like to have dinner on Saturday?" I turn to him with a goofy smile, and exclaim "I'D LOVE TO!" He gives me a weird look, turns his head and points to his Bluetooth. FML.
• Today, my dad woke me up at 6, told me to take a shower, and drove me to school only to say "just kidding, happy snowday!" FML.
• Today, I found out my angry ex girlfriend put Nair in my shampoo before moving out of my dorm. I'm now balding at 19. FML.
• Today, I decided to be a good driver and not run through the yellow light. As soon as I stopped my car another came and rear-ended me. The guy told me to go in the parking lot so we can exchange information. So I drove into the parking lot, I turned my head and watched him drive away. FML.
• Today, I got my braces on. When we got in the car my dad looked over and said "well at least we don't have to worry about boys for the next two years." FML.

3/5: The Senate Centrists Strike Again

Liberal bloggers are angry that a group of moderate Dem senators is planning to push back against "the massive spending and tax increases" in Pres. Obama's budget. The netroots are disgusted by what they perceive to be the selective outrage of "these self-alleged budget watchdogs," since "none of these people made so much as a peep when [George W.] Bush got his Iraq War funding shoved 'off-budget'." Lefty bloggers are directing most of their criticism at Sen. Evan Bayh (D-IN), who specifically criticized Obama's proposal to raise taxes on the wealthiest Americans. Lefty bloggers argue that Bayh's primary concern is "to keep the rich as rich as possible," since Obama's proposed tax increases will only affect the top 5% of earners. Markos Moulitsas snarks: "[Bayh] is protecting the honor of all those pretend 5 percenters that live in wealthy Indiana, to the detriment of the regular folk that actually live in Indiana and would see a tax cut under Obama's buget." Meanwhile, Elana Schor asks: "[C]ould someone remind Bayh that he voted against the Bush tax cuts that he's now unwilling to see expire?"

What else is happening in the blogosphere?

• Liberal bloggers (Moulitsas, Yglesias, Benen, Drum) are angry that Sen. Robert Menendez (D-NJ) is holding up two of Obama's science nominees in an effort to maintain a hardline policy toward Cuba.
• Conservative bloggers (Holmes, Morrissey, Liebau, Spencer, Hinderaker) are criticizing Dems for deliberately trying to portray Rush Limbaugh as the face of the GOP. Liberal bloggers (Morrill, Orton, Aravosis, Sargent) deny that Dems are responsible for the media attention that Limbaugh has been receiving lately.
• Conservative bloggers (Lord, Reynolds, Hinderaker) are excited about the fact that Limbaugh challenged Obama to debate him on his radio show, while liberal bloggers (Yglesias, watertiger) think Obama would be foolish to accept Limbaugh's challenge.

SENATE MODERATES: Moderation In Defense Of Rich People Is No Vice

Liberal bloggers are angry that a group of moderate Senate Dems (along with CT Sen. Joe Lieberman) is planning to push back against "the massive spending and tax increases" in Obama's budget:

• Think Progress' Matthew Yglesias: "Are you one of the 95 percent of Americans whose taxes would be cut under Barack Obama's budget? Does the thought of that tax cut being paid for by tax increases on the wealthiest 2 percent of the population strike terror into your heart? If so, you're in [luck], because it's not just Republicans who are eager to spare you from this nightmare; moderate Democrats such as Evan Bayh and [NE Sen.] Ben Nelson want to keep the rich as rich as possible too."
• Daily Kos' Moulitsas: "So 'centrist' Democrats want the budget busted? Leading the charge is our old friend Evan Bayh, who is protecting the honor of all those pretend 5 percenters that live in wealthy Indiana, to the detriment of the regular folk that actually live in Indiana and would see a tax cut under Obama's buget. And incidentally, [LA Sen.] Mary Landrieu is among them -- yes, the same person who happens to be the top Democratic earmarker. She's a hypocrite."
• Firedoglake's Phoenix Women: "Funnily enough, none -- none -- of these people made so much as a peep when Bush got his Iraq War funding shoved 'off-budget'. Even funnier: Some of them, these self-alleged budget watchdogs complaining about the spending in this budget, are themselves among its biggest beneficiaries -- all the earmarks that Obama asked to be kept out of the stimulus bill found their way into the budget bill, and the senators bringing home the biggest hunks of bacon are mostly either conservative Democrats or hyper-conservative Republicans."
• dday: "Once again, the path for a Democratic President must go through Democratic fiscal responsibility scolds. And this is coming in the middle of a Great Recession, where investment is non-existent, trade is stalled, and consumer spending isn't going anywhere, meaning that ONLY GOVERNMENT IS SPENDING. Cutting that spending translates directly into losing thousands of jobs. That's reality for the next year or so."

Open Left's Chris Bowers is disgusted: "So, a group of Senators are now working, behind closed doors, on how to shift congressional legislation to the right on the ideological spectrum. While these Senators happen to the Democrats, how, exactly, is this different from what Republicans do? When a group of politicians work together in an attempt to pull the legislation of the governing party closer to that of the opposition party, than that group is doing the exact same thing as the opposition party. Besides their oppositional work, I don't know why these Senators get to be called 'moderates,' given that President Obama's spending proposals are wildly popular. Given current popular opinion, either these Senators are actually right-wing, or about 60% of the country is now to the left of moderates."

SENATE MODERATES II: What About The Other 95%?

Liberal bloggers are particularly annoyed that Sens. Bayh and Nelson are specifically complaining about Obama's plans to "raise taxes," which they think misrepresents Obama's proposals:

• Ezra Klein: "If the majority of Americans are facing a tax decrease, then are 'taxes' going up? Revenues might be rising because the rich are paying more. But for most people, taxes are going down. I'd be interested to hear Nelson's answer."
• The Washington Monthly's Steve Benen: "Obama's economic stimulus package included one of the largest, if not the very largest, tax cut in American history. His broader economic plan does exactly what was promised during the campaign -- it cuts taxes on the middle class, and raises taxes on the wealthy. The tax increase on the wealthy wouldn't kick in until 2011, and simply returns the top rate to where it was before Bush/Cheney took office. Many seem to have internalized conservative, conventional thinking on taxes -- Obama wants to 'raise' them, centrists and Republicans don't like the idea. But the details matter here, and it's simply inaccurate to characterize the White House plan as a tax increase when most Americans are getting a tax cut. Maybe someone should let Sens. Bayh and Nelson know."

Meanwhile, Moulitsas issues a "Memo to the media":

"Dear media,

95 percent of Americans are getting a tax cut with Obama's budget. So framing this as a tax hike makes you look pretty stupid. And dishonest. And wrong. So stop it.

Hugs and kisses,

kos

BAYH: Isn't Indiana A Working-Class State?

Lefty bloggers are directing much of their criticism at Bayh, who recently wrote a Wall Street Journal op-ed criticizing the omnibus budget bill (and who, as many bloggers are pointing out, voted against the Bush tax cuts that Obama wants to repeal):

• TPM's Schor: "[C]ould someone remind Bayh that he voted against the Bush tax cuts that he's now unwilling to see expire?"
• Atrios: "Wanker of the Day: Evan Bayh."
• Obsidian Wings' Eric Martin: "Evan Bayh is leading the charge of the soi disant Democratic moderate caucus in opposing Obama's plans to raise taxes 'on the wealthy' by allowing prior cuts to expire on schedule. But what Bayh doesn't mention is that he voted against [George W.] Bush's tax cuts when they were introduced to the legislature way back when. At the time, voting against those tax cuts was moderate. Now, allowing them to expire is...extremist?"
• Yglesias: "[T]he median household income in Indiana is $42,000 a year. Families making that much would not see tax increases under Obama's plan. Families making double the Indiana median household income would not see tax increases under Obama's plan. Families making double that would not see tax increases under Obama's plan. Only families making almost six times the median household income of Indiana would see increases; increases that would essentially take us back to the rates that prevailed during the more prosperous 1990s. But never fear, if you're dramatically richer than most Indianans and sociopathically unconcerned with the well-being of your fellow citizens, then Evan Bayh is fighting for you."

MENENDEZ: Because The Cuba Embargo Has Worked So Well, Right?

Liberal bloggers are angry that Sen. Menendez is holding up two of Obama's science nominees in an effort to force the removal of several provisions from the budget bill "that would allow Cuban-Americans to visit relatives on the island once a year and end limits on the sale of American food and medicines in Cuba." Lefty bloggers believe that Menendez is harming the Obama admin.'s efforts to address climate change in an attempt to preserve a failed policy:

• Yglesias: "Kate Sheppard notes that just last year Menendez thought climate change was 'incredibly important.' But apparently not as important as defending America's insane Cuba policy status quo."
• Benen: "Menendez supports Obama's nominees, but won't let the Senate vote on them until after he's done complaining about a subtle change in a foreign policy that hasn't worked after more than five decades of attempts.Changing the U.S. policy towards Cuba is long overdue. Menendez's stunt gets the broader policy debate off to a discouraging start."
• Moulitsas: "So what do you do if you're an out-of-touch supporter of a policy that is now going on 50 years of failure? Apparently, you try and hold the Obama Administration hostage. [...] This isn't a partisan issue. The fault line is between a bipartisan handful of (mostly) Cuban-Americans too invested in a failed policy to change course, and pretty much everyone else. It's too bad seeing Menendez associating with the dead-enders, when he could be a valuable voice in crafting our post-embargo approach to Cuba."
• Mother Jones' Kevin Drum: "Jeebus. What is it about Cuba that drives people into decades-long fits of insanity? Even JFK, the guy who instituted the Cuba embargo in the first place, thought we were all kind of crazy on the subject. But 50 years later? Crazy doesn't begin to describe it. [...] Menendez should be ashamed of himself. It's time to grow up."

LIMBAUGH: The Vast Left-Wing Conspiracy To Demonize Limbaugh

Conservative bloggers are buzzing about yesterday's Politico article detailing how Dem strategists -- including various people in the Obama admin. -- are deliberately trying to portray Limbaugh as the face of the GOP:

• NRO's Amy Holmes: "So, now we know. President Obama's mentions of Rush Limbaugh are no accident. Democratic strategists have discovered that Rush has low approval ratings with the general public. So they have devised a strategy to paint Republicans with the Rush brush in order to marginalize conservatism and the Republican party. In the Nineties, they demonized Newt [Gingrich]. Now, they're after Rush. And the media is happily going along, as it so often does."
• Hot Air's Ed Morrissey: "If the first six weeks of the Barack Obama administration can be summed up in one sentence, it would be this: Obama fiddled with Rush Limbaugh while Wall Street burned. [...] It's a circus provided by Democrats to cover up their economic incompetence and massively ineffective spending programs. It's also a harbinger of things to come as this administration fumbles one issue after another, as they will only need to expand the personal attacks against critics rather than respond to the criticism itself."
• Townhall's Carol Platt Liebau: "[Dems] are spending their time and the government's resources trying to demonize a private citizen -- a radio talk show host who has the nerve to dissent from their political philosophy and object to their plans. Of course, it's easier to campaign against Rush than it is actually to govern -- but governing is what the Democrats signed on to do, and that's what the American people expect. Clearly, their behavior shows not only a lack of vision and commitment that should worry Democrat voters -- it also shows a profound insecurity on the part of the President and his team."
• Power Line's Paul Mirengoff: "If the Democrats' economic policies are considered to have failed, the Dems won't be able to save themselves by demonizing a conservative talk show host -- even a vastly influential one who said he didn't want Obama to succeed. And if their economic policies aren't seen as failing, the Dems won't need a scapegoat. Besides, when the next elections roll around, the Republican candidates, not Rush Limbaugh, will be 'the face of the Republican party.'"
• RedState's Dan Spencer: "Isn't there something wrong with the White House coordinating this demonetization conspiracy? Regardless of the answer to that question, the Obama attack machine is making a mistake. The more attention they drive to Limbaugh the greater the number of people that are exposed to Limbaugh's articulation of conservatism -- one antidote to Obamaism."

Meanwhile, liberal bloggers are pushing back against the notion that Dems are responsible for the media attention that Limbaugh has been receiving recently.

LIMBAUGH II: You Picked The Wrong Guy To Mess With, Dems

Conservative bloggers are excited about the fact that Limbaugh challenged Obama to debate him on his radio show:

• AmSpec Blog's Jeffrey Lord: "Rush has just taken these bozos up and called them out. He has challenged Obama to a one-on-one debate on his radio show, no teleprompters please. With an ineptness that leaves one breathless, the Obama team has now effectively labeled Obama himself as 'paralyzed with fear' if in fact the President doesn't have the guts to accept Limbaugh's challenge. After all, if they claim that GOP chair Michael Steele and 'Republicans' are cowards for not taking on Rush, Obama himself will surely have the guts to do what they claim Steele and Republicans do not: take on Rush Limbaugh one-on-one."
• Glenn Reynolds: "[I]f Obama won't accept, Limbaugh can send a guy in a chicken suit to follow him around, and open each show with 'XXX days since Obama was invited to defend his ideas on the air...'"
• Power Line's John Hinderaker: "President Obama might come to regret the day that he set out to destroy Rush Limbaugh."
• RedState's E Pluribus Unum: "Democrats, you picked the wrong store to rob. You've put America's #1 conservative (not Republican) in the spotlight for all Americans to examine. That can't possibly end well for you."

Meanwhile, liberal bloggers think Obama would be foolish to accept Limbaugh's debate challenge. Yglesias writes: "[T]he stakes would be off-kilter. If they went at it, and 25 percent of people came away impressed by Rush while 40 percent were impressed by Obama and the remaining 35 percent deemed the whole thing dumb, that would be a net benefit for Rush (who's just a radio host, happy to have the allegiance of a large-and-impassioned minority) and a net loss for Obama (who's a national politician who needs a broad base of support) notwithstanding the fact that Obama would have 'won' in a strict sense."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Times Change, People Change

The Atlantic's Andrew Sullivan offers his thoughts on Hendrik Hertzberg's post about the ideological evolution of Charles Krauthammer:

"I don't think it's necessarily a sign of insincerity that someone's views have evolved over the years. The danger is always, rather, calcification of thought and socialized group-think -- what we used to call the neocon slide (the ten minutes when a liberal-becoming-a-conservative was interesting). In the polarized politics of the past couple of decades, it has been very hard to sustain a complicated politics and have a social life in Washington. In that respect, I don't think Charles has changed that much. He remains a believer in science and evolution, I'm pretty sure he's an atheist or what the English might call a High Jew (no, not Bill Maher), he just wrote an article suppporting a big increase in the gas tax (not exactly a base-pleaser) and does not fire-breathe against gays. Yes, he went soft on Bush's fiscal liberalism -- but given Bush's total support for Israel and launching of the Iraq war, it was not a hard call. Yes, there's something rich about Krauthammer's hand-wringing about socialism now. But it's not quite as preposterous as it is coming from some others. [...]

It's just very hard to be that integrated into the Washington Republican Right and be able to resist the orthodoxies the party needs or the mood the party is in. It's subtly corrosive of truly independent thought. Some would argue such thought is naive for political life. I haven't given up that much yet. And all my closest friends have nothing to do with politics. That helps."

LEST WE FORGET: Kids These Days...

From Overheard in New York:

Upper East Side mom: Jackie, you have so many friends! I'm so happy for you!
Six-year-old girl: Mommy, those aren't my friends. Those are my entourage.

3/4: Melting Steele

Michael Steele's stock has plummeted in the conservative blogosphere in the wake of his dust-up with Rush Limbaugh. While righty bloggers aren't calling for Steele's resignation (yet), it's clear that they're unhappy about his tenure as RNC Chair thus far. The most common complaint in the conservative blogosphere is that Steele's "biggest asset" was supposed to be his communication skills, yet his TV appearances are precisely what have gotten him in trouble.

To make matters worse for Steele, his criticism of Limbaugh isn't the only thing that happened during his interview with CNN's D.L. Hughley that angered the rightroots. A number of conservative bloggers are criticizing Steele for failing to dispute Hughley's claim that the GOP convention "looked like Nazi Germany." Ed Morrissey complains: "Republicans get enough lunatics on the Left equating us with Nazis; we don't need it from our party chairman." Will Steele have to offer another apology?

What else is happening in the blogosphere?

• Liberal bloggers (Dworkin, Benen, Willis, Singer) are buzzing about the new NBC/Wall Street Journal poll indicating that "Pres. Obama's favorability rating is at an all-time high" while the GOP "finds its favorability at an all-time low."
• Conservative bloggers (Hawkins, Hinderaker), on the other hand, are buzzing about the new Rasmussen poll indicating that GOPers "have pulled to within two points of [Dems]" in the generic Congressional ballot.
• Liberal bloggers (Moulitsas, Cole, Drum) are accusing GOPers of hypocrisy in light of reports that 6 of the 10 Senators receiving the most earmarks in the omnibus budget bill are GOPers.
• Liberal bloggers (Chait, Marshall, Black, Drum, Aravosis) are blasting an ABC News article which they believe gives a false impression of Obama's tax plan.

STEELE: Losing Control Of His Image?

Steele is taking a lot of heat from conservative bloggers following his dust-up with Limbaugh:

• Power Line's John Hinderaker: "It's probably too early to give up on Steele, but I hope he understands that if he doesn't start sticking up for his fellow Republicans when he has the opportunity, his tenure at the RNC will be brief."
• AmSpec Blog's W. James Antle: "It's still very early in Steele's tenure, but the Limbaugh brouhaha doesn't bode well for his chairmanship. Steele's biggest asset was that he was an effective television spokesman for the Republican Party, not any turnaround at the Maryland Republican Party or GOPAC while he was running those party institutions. This was the area where he was really supposed to shine. I still maintain that Steele is more conservative than his critics allege, but he definitely has the apologetic blue-state Republican mentality. If this means a few years of vacillating between sucking up to D.L. Hughey and apologizing to Rush Limbaugh, it will be more of the same for the GOP."
• Hot Air's Allahpundit: "The RNC chair ideally needs to be good on TV and good at ingratiating himself with grassroots conservatives and their pocketbooks, and so far he's been terrible at both. [...] The party's not going to scramble to oust its first black chairman, but if Steele goes on embarrassing himself he'll become very easy to ignore, which will destroy his 'change' mandate."
• RedState's E Pluribus Unum: "Monday Michael Steele got taken behind the woodshed by Limbaugh, de-trousered and birched but good. To put it mildly, he had it coming, and I personally enjoyed it. However, if you heard Steele's 'apology' it's clear he didn't learn his lesson, and if he does not figure it out very quickly, he will set new records for 'Least Noticed Person In America'."
• Right Wing News' John Hawkins: "Just in case you're wondering -- yes, I do still support [Steele]. However, his recent performance has been worrisome for a number of reasons. Any Republican politico should know that you don't trash Rush Limbaugh. He's very popular with conservatives, he's a tremendous ally of the Republican Party, and in Steele's case, he has been one of his supporters. [...] Personally, I think Steele's biggest problem so far is that he seems to have caught that 'whipped dog syndrome' that so many Republicans in D.C. have been infected with. His first impulse always seems to be to apologize for things."

Meanwhile, The Washington Examiner's Byron York reports that "a number of Republican politicos around Washington...are worried that key jobs at the RNC are unfilled and the party's mission is unfocused, while Steele makes appearance after appearance on television, with sometimes controversial results."

STEELE II: How Could He Let That Charge Go Unanswered?

A number of righty bloggers are complaining about another moment from Steele's interview with Hughley, when he failed to dispute Hughley's claim that the GOP convention "looked like Nazi Germany":

• NRO's Andy McCarthy: "That Steele interview on CNN is really bad. [...] I wouldn't have thought it possible, but the video is much worse than described by Newsbusters' Michael Balan. He quotes a lot of what was said by the host, D.L. Hughley, about Republicans being like Nazis, but Balan goes on to report, incorrectly, that 'Steele did not verbally react to Hughley's Nazi characterization.' Steele not only did react but did so in a way that accepted Hughley's slanderous claim -- Steele's infuriating come-back was to suggest that this description of Republicans as racists was valid, but now he, Michael Steele, was here to set things right."
• Hawkins: "[I]t's worth noting that [Steele's criticism of Limbaugh] may have been his biggest flub, but it wasn't his only one. On the same show with D.L. Hughley, he let Hughley's comment that the Republican National Convention looked like Nazi Germany pass without comment. [...] If the Chair of a Republican Party isn't going to stand up and disagree when someone calls his side Nazis, then who is?"
• RedState's Erick Erickson: "A lot of readers sent me a link to Michelle's post on Steele, Hughley, and the Nazis. Good Lord did Steele really botch this interview. I thought he was an articulate spokesman. Hughley tells Steele the Republican Convention looked like a Nazi party gathering in Germany. Steele's response? [...] EPIC. FAIL."
• NRO's Kathryn Jean Lopez: "It is difficult not to get the impression that the man is in over his head. [...I]f his judgment is as poor as recent history suggests, it's going to take a miracle of a communications team to fix this problem. Nazis? That's not a communications issue, that's a judgment issue."
• Hot Air's Ed Morrissey: "Republicans get enough lunatics on the Left equating us with Nazis; we don't need it from our party chairman. The fact that Steele couldn't even stand up to Hughley and Chuck D doesn't bode well for Steele's ability to stand up to Democrats."

OBAMA: More Popular Than The Beatles?

Liberal bloggers are buzzing about the new NBC/Wall Street Journal poll indicating that "President Obama's favorability rating is at an all-time high" while the GOP "finds its favorability at an all-time low":

• Daily Kos' DemFromCT: "The new NBC/WSJ poll is out...and it ain't pretty if you're a Republican. 60% approve of Obama's performance [...], including the economy [56%]. 84% of the public thinks Barack Obama inherited the economic mess. And conservative attempts at linking Obama with yesterday's Dow aren't working."
• The Washington Monthly's Steve Benen: "Congressional Republicans are apparently under the impression that they're doing everything right. They're sticking to their far-right principles, refusing to cooperate with President Obama, embracing message discipline, and taking orders from right-wing radio hosts. [...] As it turns out, they've impressed themselves far more than they've impressed the country."
• Oliver Willis: "I'll gladly take America and the Democratic party under Barack Obama's leadership under the shrinking GOP run by a radio host. And America agrees."
• MyDD's Jonathan Singer: "[A]t this point, with President Obama seemingly benefiting from his ambitious actions and the Republicans sinking further and further as a result of their knee-jerked opposition to that agenda, there appears to be no reason not to push forward on anything from universal healthcare to energy reform to ending the war in Iraq."

Think Progress' Matthew Yglesias sounds a note of caution: "I think this confirms the basic point that the Democrats have a golden opportunity on their hands, but no kind of sure thing. Support for the Republicans has completely collapsed and people are generally supportive of the new administration. But even in the midst of whatever kind of honeymoon Obama's going to get, these numbers aren't going above fifty percent. If the Obama administration actually produces a return to prosperity they'll have a lock on re-election. But if their efforts don't work, then I bet these numbers will turn around fast. And while I've been very pleased with the social policy aspects -- health care, energy, education, etc. -- of the administration thus far I'm not at all sure that we can see recovery unless we get better finance policy and more effective international coordination of anti-recession efforts."

On the right side of the blogosphere, Allahpundit concedes that Obama is popular but thinks that "clouds are gathering": "So far [Americans are] willing to give him plenty of time to right the ship...I wonder what another six months of disintegrating Dow and rising unemployment would do to those numbers. Would the timeline be further extended or would people get impatient?"

Hawkins, on the other hand, thinks the NBC/WSJ pollsters "so heavily oversampled Democrats that their results are meaningless" and instead points to the new Rasmussen poll indicating that GOPers "have pulled to within two points of [Dems]" in the generic Congressional ballot. Hinderaker also points to this Rasmussen poll, which he sees as evidence that "voters have deep-seated reservations about the Democrats' current spending spree." Meanwhile, Glenn Reynolds sees several examples of "buyer's remorse" among Obama voters.

EARMARKS: Do As I Say, Not As I Do

Liberal bloggers are buzzing about the fact that 6 of the 10 Senators receiving the most earmarks in the omnibus budget bill are GOPers. These bloggers are concluding that GOPers are hypocrites for railing against earmark spending:

• Daily Kos' Markos Moulitsas: "As we know from the last presidential election and the conservative punditry, there are few greater evils than 'earmarks' -- the practice of elected officials explicitly directing, via legislation, spending to projects in their districts and states. So who are the worst offenders of this scourge of humanity? [...W]e see that six of the top 10 earmarkers (by dollar amount) are Republicans, including the top two being our good wingnutty friends in Mississippi. We also see that six of the top 10, and 11 of the top 20, come from red states. (And remember, there are far fewer Republicans in the Senate this year.) So yeah, hypocrisy and all that crap. But what's also interesting is that several of the Democrats on that list will undoubtedly flex their 'moderate' and 'centrist' muscles during the budget debate, crying about the size size of Obama's budget while seeking to slash it in the name of deficit reduction. The two Arkansas Democrats and [LA Sen. Mary] Landrieu, in particular, will likely fall in this category."
• Balloon Juice's John Cole: "What is the word I am looking for? Hypocrite, I think it is. [...] I guess it is not quite time for the Republicans to break out those dusty 'Fiscal Conservatism' foam fingers. Not only are earmarks less than 2% of the total omnibus bill, but Republicans are responsible for half of them (and this does not even take into account how much those states pay in taxes as compared to how much they receive nor does it note the fact that the minority party -- Republicans -- has a higher percentage of earmark per Senator). No doubt [RNC Chair] Michael Steele and [LA Gov.] Bobby Jindal will take to the airwaves to point out that Republicans have still 'lost their way.'"
• Mother Jones' Kevin Drum: "As it happens, I think all the hyperventilating over earmarks is kind of silly. Getting rid of them wouldn't reduce the federal budget by a dime (the earmarked money would just go elsewhere), and in any case I don't have a huge issue with senators having some say in where money is spent in their states. Still, there's plenty of hyperventilation on the subject, and you can certainly make a good case that it's gotten out of hand. So as a public service, Taxpayers for Common Sense has itemized all the earmarks in the current budget and tallied them up by senator. [...] The top ten earmarkers [include] six Republicans and four Democrats. Keep their names (and party affiliations!) in mind the next time the hyperventilating starts to reach fever pitch on your TV."

MEDIA CRITICISM: ABC News Steps In It

Liberal bloggers are unloading on ABC reporter Emily Friedman for writing an article explaining how people in the top income tax bracket are trying to reduce their income in an effort to save money under Obama's plan (which reflects a misunderstanding of how the tax system works):

• The New Republic's Jon Chait: "I've seen a lot of dumb news reports in my life, but I'm not sure anything can quite match this one from ABC News. The premise of the report is this: Barack Obama plans to raise taxes on people who make more than $250,000, so the reporter has gone and found people who earn a little more than that sum who plan to decrease their income so that they come in underneath the magic line. Now, the obvious objection here is that the tax code doesn't work that way. A tax increase affects the marginal dollar that a person gains. That's means only every dollar over $250,000 is taxed at a higher rate. Obama is not proposing a tax system whereby somebody who goes from $249,999 to $250,000 suddenly becomes poorer. Nobody has ever enacted a tax hike like that in the history of the United States."
• Atrios: "I guess I'm actually curious if the people working for ABC have any idea how the income tax works or not. Some times I can't tell if media outlets are playing stupid or if they are stupid."
• TPM's Josh Marshall: "[This is] both sad and funny. ABC reporter who doesn't understand how income taxes work finds rich people who don't know either and makes a story out of it."
• Drum: "Friedman's piece is a train wreck. What happened to ABC News' editors on this one?"
• AMERICAblog's John Aravosis: "Look, it's fair for someone not to know how the tax system works. For the longest time, I honestly didn't know how it works (still don't get a lot of it). But reporters usually have editors. And in this story, you also had sources explaining how it actually works. You'd think the reporter would have said 'uh oh' and canned the story."
• digby: "Apparently, even people who make over a quarter of a million dollars a year and are respected professionals don't know the most rudimentary things about their own finances. [...] This is a teachable moment, but the media gasbags are so stunningly uninformed themselves that they are incapable of doing it."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: It's A Trap!

While most conservative bloggers loved Limbaugh's CPAC speech, The Atlantic's Ross Douthat feels differently:

"Just imagine, for a moment, how conservatives would react if four months after the worst defeat liberalism had suffered in a generation, a [Keith] Olbermann (or a [Bill] Moyers or a Michael Moore or a Bill Maher or whomever) showed up to deliver the keynote address at a liberal equivalent of CPAC, and during the course of his speech he blasted every Democrat who disagrees with him as a miserable sell-out, suggested that conservatives are fascists and conservatism a psychosis, lectured the crowd on the irrelevance of policy ideas to liberalism's political prospects, and insisted that the only blueprint liberals need to win elections is the one that Lyndon Johnson used to rout Barry Goldwater. And then further imagine that both before and after this speech, a series of left-of-center politicians ventured criticisms of Olbermann, only to beat a hasty and apologetic retreat as soon as he turned his fire on them. Conservatives would be chortling -- and rightly so! Not because liberalism needs to purge or marginalize its Keith Olbermanns, or because impassioned liberal entertainers don't have a place in left-of-center discourse -- but because when your political persuasion faces a leadership vacuum, you don't want to have it filled by someone who appeals to an impassioned but narrow range of voters, and whose central incentive is to maximize his own ratings.

Remember when National Review ran a cover story about Howard Dean, entitled 'Please, Nominate This Man!'? That's how liberals feel about Rush Limbaugh at the moment: They can't get enough of him. I don't see any reason why conservatives should be playing into their hands."

LEST WE FORGET: Steele Loses His Street Cred

Last week The Atlantic's Ta-Nehisi Coates took Steele to task for his "unwarranted, unprovoked attack on Ebonics." Now Coates is criticizing Steele for backing down to Limbaugh:

"I'm not offended that Steele is kow-towing to Rush. I'm offended that Steele would wrap himself in the garb on hip-hop, and then apologize to Rush. Man listen: The first rule for establishing 'Off The Hook Urban-Suburban Hip-Hop Strategies' is if you gonna dis a mofo, then dis him. Don't come out the box quoting 'How You Like Me Now,' and then go and apologize to the guy who you just dissed. Could you imagine Moe Dee apologizing to LL? Kris apologizing to Shan? Shante apologizing to the Real Roxanne? Hillary Duff apologizing to Lindsay Lohan? Come on man. You ain't no wiling-out-for-the-night-fist-thrower:

'Mr. Steele called Mr. Limbaugh after the radio host belittled Mr. Steele on his show, questioning his authority and saying the new Republican leader was off "to a shaky start." [...]

"Mr. Steele: You are head of the R.N.C.," Mr. Limbaugh said. "You are not head of the Republican Party. Tens of millions of conservatives and Republicans have nothing to do with the R.N.C. and right now they want nothing to do with it."'

Shorter Rush Limbaugh -- 'Don't make me have to call your name out\Your crew is featherweight\My talk-show will make you levitate...'"

3/3: Steele Starts Fight With Limbaugh, Loses

In the verbal scuffle between RNC Chair Michael Steele and conservative talk show host Rush Limbaugh, the rightroots stand firmly behind Limbaugh. Righty bloggers are blasting Steele for describing Limbaugh's style as "ugly" and "incendiary"; several bloggers are even suggesting that Steele is no longer fit to lead the RNC. Erick Erickson complains: "[I]f Steele actually wants to support Obama, as Rush rightly pointed out, why the hell is he Chairman of the RNC instead of the DNC? And why should people give money to the RNC if they are going to be apologists?"

Liberal bloggers, of course, took great pleasure in watching the Limbaugh-Steele fight. As soon as Steele criticized Limbaugh, liberal bloggers asked "How long before Steele apologizes to Rush?" and "What's the over/under on how many days it takes Steele to apologize?" Once Steele apologized to Limbaugh, lefty bloggers made fun of the RNC Chair for backing down, calling him "castrated" and "a quivering lump of gelatin". Jed Lewison declares: "What this episode proves beyond any shadow of a doubt is that the GOP belongs to Rush Limbaugh and the dittoheads, and anybody who dares cross them had better get in line."

What else is happening in the blogosphere?

• Liberal bloggers (Hamsher, Waldman, Bowers, Sudbay) are accusing Rep. Ellen Tauscher (D-CA) and other members of the New Democrat Coalition of shilling for the banking industry as they try to "limit the scope of the bankruptcy bill as much as possible." Markos Moulitsas asks: "Does Rep. Ellen Tauscher really want a primary challenge this bad?"
• Conservative bloggers (Malkin, McLaughlin, Hinderaker) are mocking Obama after it was revealed that U.S. Trade Rep.-designate Ron Kirk owes $9,975 in back-taxes.

LIMBAUGH-STEELE: The Rightroots Stand With Rush

Conservative bloggers are blasting Steele and defending Limbaugh:

• NRO's Mark Steyn: "In two brief soundbites, Mr. Steele has managed to suggest to his own party base that he has a lazy disposition that reflexively shares the liberal biases, and to allow the wider world to portray him as a craven squish. This is not encouraging. At the very minimum, he does not appear ready for primetime."
• Dan Riehl: "It's not easy watching a black guy stumble around in the dark, but really, I'm trying. [...] The Republicans finally get an RNC Chairman of color and all they got was another dumb, potentially too moderate, gutless wonder of a Republican in the end. If nothing else, there is equality in that. How utterly sad."
• AmSpec Blog's Jeffrey Lord: "[W]ho is Michael Steele and what does he really believe? Not, apparently, conservatism. If the new GOP national spokesman doesn't have the horse sense to understand he needs to know when he is being baited to accept liberal templates (Rush is a bigot, tax cuts failed, big government works etc. etc. etc.) then the door opens on a conversation we shouldn't have to have but apparently must: why is this man the chairman of the RNC?"
• Power Line's John Hinderaker: "One wonders: even if Steele himself doesn't listen to Rush's show, he must understand that millions of Republicans do. So how could he have thought that insulting Rush could possibly be a good idea? By demonizing Rush, he insulted the party that he purports to lead. [...] If Michael Steele thinks that the way to respond to the White House's attack on Rush Limbaugh is to throw Rush under the bus, his understanding of the party's base and of the current political landscape -- not to mention his understanding of Limbaugh -- is too weak for him to continue as RNC Chairman."
• RedState's Erickson: "This sort of thing with Rush Limbaugh plays right into concerns many of us had about Steele. He called Rush's CPAC speech, which was very well received, 'incendiary' and 'ugly.' What was so ugly about it? What was so incendiary? Rush lit into Steele today on the radio. And he's absolutely right on this. First, Steele made a novice mistake. Of course the media is going to try to start a fight. Look at what they tried to do between Rush and [House GOP Whip Eric] Cantor. Steele took the bait. He should not have. Second, if Steele actually wants to support Obama, as Rush rightly pointed out, why the hell is he Chairman of the RNC instead of the DNC? And why should people give money to the RNC if they are going to be apologists?"
• Power Line's Paul Mirengoff: "Shortly after Michael Steele was named head of the RNC, I wrote a post called 'How Steely is Steele'. The post questioned how resolutely conservative Steele is. It noted that Steele is a creature of Washington, DC and, as such, seems occasionally to absorb the conventional wisdom of that town, which is never conservative. Steele's recent remarks about Rush Limbaugh confirm that Steele has again internalized the 'inside Washington' conventional wisdom. [...] The answer to the question, how steely [is] Steele, would seem to be 'not very.' That also appears to be the answer to question, how savvy is Steele..."
• Michelle Malkin: "There's nothing wrong with criticizing Rush Limbaugh. But if you are going to go on Obamedia outlets like CNN and throw around words like 'incendiary' and 'ugly,' you better back them up. You should also think more broadly about how this distraction feeds the White House/[Saul] Alinsky agenda -- and how better to avoid their traps."

Meanwhile, Erickson blasts Limbaugh's conservative critics (who include David Frum and Ross Douthat): "A question about Rush's 'conservative' critics: Are any of Rush's critics actual solid conservatives with a record of accomplishment? David Frum worked in the White House for about five minutes and is pro-abortion. Rod Dreher's writing bursts with contempt for middle America conservatives, Michael Steele is a Christine Todd Whitman Republican, Ross Douthat is busy redefining conservatism, etc. Rush has been fighting for us on the front lines for two decades and he has proven he can make a difference in elections and policy for the better. I love the guy just for making me smile on a daily basis. These other turds who want us to sideline our most proven warrior do nothing but tear down others to elevate themselves, and none of them have proven any lasting success that we can trust. They preach about big tents, inclusion and broad appeal, but they can't stop condescending to the majority of the Republican Party that consider themselves Rush Limbaugh conservatives. I'm so sick of these leeches. Oh, and have any of these critics ever actually won an election?"

Other righty bloggers are criticizing Frum's post in particular, in which Frum argued that Limbaugh "cannot be allowed to be the public face of the [GOP coalition]."

LIMBAUGH-STEELE II: Stop Falling For The Dems' Trap!

Other conservative bloggers are accusing Dems of creating this distraction in order to distract the public from their poor performance in office:

• The Next Right's Conn Carroll: "This should be the only talking point when conservative surrogates are brought on TV to talk about this completely fake controversy: The only reason the Obama White House is attacking Rush Limbaugh is because Obama already has been a complete failure in office. Since his election in November the market has lost 25% of its value and every singel one of his policy announcements has only been followed by hundreds of thousands of more lost jobs. Obama, the Democrats, and the left desperately want to change the subject from Obama's performance."
• Townhall's John Hanlon: "Democrats have a reason to be attacking Rush Limbaugh. They are in charge of the White House, the Senate and the House and yet the economy does not seem to be getting better. [...] Democrats do not want to talk about these economic worries or the concerns of the American people because they are accountable for what happens to the economy. Dems want to focus on who is in charge of the Republican Party instead. Republicans should stay focused on the major isssues facing this country and the major changes in government that President Obama is advocating."
• Ace of Spades: "This is simply not important enough for the Republican Party to go to war with itself over. Paper it over, let it pass, move on to important stuff. [...] If everyone wants to bang on Steele for dealing inartfully with Limbaugh's own inartful remarks, and play right into the media's and the Obama Administration's (but I repeat myself) game of stoking a full-on civil war in the party rather than kissing and making up, fine."

LIMBAUGH-STEELE III: Steele's Re-Education Is Complete

Lefty bloggers are mocking Steele for backing down so quickly:

• Daily Kos' Lewison: "Well that was quick."
• Oliver Willis: "Steele apologizes to Rush. Oh my, talk about castrated."
• Firedoglake's watertiger: "How long would it take for Steele, like Governor Mark Sanford (R-Coward) and Rep. Phil Gingrey (R-Yellow) before him, to prostrate himself before the Adipose Ego, begging forgiveness? Under half a day, it appears. The prospect of Limbaugh pounding his doughy chest in fury reduced the chair of the Republican National Committee to a quivering lump of gelatin."
• TPM's David Kurtz: "Steele's re-education [is] complete! The RNC chair issues groveling apology to...Rush Limbaugh. This is pathetic."
• digby: "[Limbaugh] is, as some of us have been pointing for years, the true leader of the Republican Party. [...] He can literally do no wrong. Sure enough, like clockwork, the head of the RNC just went crawling on his belly and begged for forgiveness for suggesting otherwise."
• The Reality-Based Community's Mark Kleiman: "It took Stalin months to re-educate Kamenev, and it took Mao years to re-educate Deng Xiaoping. But they were Communists, and we all now how inefficient Communism is. The patriotic, 100% American, free-enterprise GOP is not subject to such bureaucratic slow-downs; Rush Limbaugh re-educated Michael Steele in less than 24 hours, without ever laying a hand on him. Delicious irony: This all started with Steele on TV denying that Limbaugh is 'the de facto leader of the Republican Party.'"

The Atlantic's Andrew Sullivan: "Comrade Steele dutifully apologizes to the Great Leader and offers his regrets to his fellow comrades in the movement. Re-education camp will follow shortly. This climb-down marks the end of establishment Republican resistance to the Poujadist pontificator. It's Rush's party now. So why shouldn't he run for president in 2012? Make [Sarah] Palin his veep -- and be done with it."

LIMBAUGH-STEELE IV: This Is Limbaugh's Party, B*tches

Liberal bloggers are portraying this episode as the latest evidence that Limbaugh is the de facto leader of the GOP, regardless of what Steele says:

• Lewison: "What this episode proves beyond any shadow of a doubt is that the GOP belongs to Rush Limbaugh and the dittoheads, and anybody who dares cross them had better get in line."
• Willis: "Well, we know who is top dog on the right. I's like we've been saying: Rush Limbaugh. [...] A bigoted pill-popping knuckle dragging blow hard is running a major political party, and nobody over there has even half a ball to stand up to him."
• AMERICAblog's Joe Sudbay: "[Limbaugh] has shown the nation that yes, in fact, he does control the GOP. And, the Republican Party's operating principle is Rush's mantra: 'I want Obama to fail,' which really means 'I want the U.S. to fail.' At least we all know now."
• Firedoglake's Attaturk: "Forget policies, now all the GOP has left is insanity. Worshiping a thrice-married, Orson Welles-Estate-wearing, drug addicted, Dominican prostitute patronizing, butt-pimple service-avoiding, jackass and preemptively and indiscriminately apologizing to him without any reason at all."

Several liberal bloggers are arguing that Steele is a poor RNC chair:

• TPM's Josh Marshall: "[Steele] has to be about the worst, most embarrassing party chair we've seen in recent memory. It's embarrassing enough that Steele is like, what?...the third Republican to criticize Rush and then make it less than 36 hours before being forced to undergo the 21st century Republican version of a Maoist self-criticism session. It's sad for the Republican party that no one can criticize Rush without having to be hauled out for this sort of humiliation a day or so later. But for Steele not to have realized that or not to have been sufficiently in control of his mouth to avoid saying this just shows once again that this dude is really, really not ready for prime time."
• Moulitsas: "[T]he GOP's supposed leader, Steele, alternates between ridiculous hip hop fantasies and actual nuggets of wisdom (such as pointing out that 'unity' isn't the GOP's salvation, it's actually its biggest problem) -- yet it's all irrelevant because no one cares what he thinks or says. Well, they didn't until Steele called out Rush for what he is -- 'incendiary' and 'ugly'. Now, the backlash has begun, and Steele doesn't stand a chance in hell of surviving that battle with any shred of credibility intact. Not only has he lost the GOP's base, but he never had the establishment with him for support. He's gone out on a limb, and there's no one around willing to give him a hand."

NEW DEMOCRAT COALITION: Shilling For The Banks?

Liberal bloggers are criticizing Rep. Tauscher and other members of the New Democrat Coalition for trying to "limit the scope of the bankruptcy bill as much as possible." Jane Hamsher calls the New Democrats "tools of the banking lobby" while Moulitsas asks, "Does Rep. Ellen Tauscher really want a primary challenge this bad?"

• Firedoglake's Hamsher: "Lobbyist money is flowing into the coffers of Tauscher's New Democrat Coalition, and it's time to stop pretending that they are doing anything but representing corporate interests over those of their constituents. Kagro has a post on the congressional districts hardest hit by the foreclosure crisis, and included are New Democrats Bill Foster [D-IL], Gabby Giffords [D-AZ], Shelly Berkley [D-NV], Brian Baird [D-WA], Melissa Bean [D-IL], Patrick Murphy [D-PA], John Larson [D-CT], Dennis Moore [D-KS] and Jim Moran [D-VA]. [...] These same people killed efforts in 2007 to allow bankruptcy judges to write down mortgages at that time, which could have helped us from ever getting to this place. It's time they stop pretending that they care about their constituents when they're only being tools of the banking lobby."
• Daily Kos' David Waldman: "So the genius of Ellen Tauscher's (D-CA-10) position? Democrats need to side with the banks who converted their 2005 gift into the complete meltdown of the world financial order, then siphoned off trillions of public dollars to 'stabilize' themselves, and now want still more blood from the homeowners they killed in creating this mess. Really, Congresswoman? You're really hearing calls for Democrats to step in on behalf of the banking industry in this country? Seriously? Please, someone stop the populism! The 'moderates' are going to be crushed in a tidal wave of Thank You notes!"
• Open Left's Chris Bowers: "There seem to be only three instances where the New Democrats have made a public splash over the last six months: passing the $700 billion bailout, vowing to prevent too much regulation of the financial industry, and taking the industry's side in the current housing bankruptcy fight. The Wall Street connection between these three areas of policy is pretty obvious, and leads one to ask: do the New Democrats do anything, as a caucus, except funnel money to Wall Street and limit financial regulations? It is just a Wall Street protection racket?"
• AMERICAblog's Joe Sudbay: "When we find out who is blocking the agenda, we have to name names whether they are members, staffers or lobbyists. [...] Tauscher is one of those painful centrist Democrats (who is quite wealthy herself.) She has taken the lead on undoing the legislation to allow judges to reduce mortgage payments, which Chris Bowers explains in more detail here. This is vintage Tauscher..."
• Atrios: "Our discourse is so absurd when such people are termed 'moderates.' In 2010 if the economy hasn't turned around, savvy Republicans will easily be able to run with faux [Lou] Dobbs/[Rick] Santelli 'populism' against such 'moderates.'"
• Moulitsas: "Does Rep. Ellen Tauscher really want a primary challenge this bad?"

KIRK: More Tax Problems?

Conservative bloggers are mocking Obama after it was revealed that U.S. Trade Rep.-designate Ron Kirk owes $9,975 in taxes:

• Malkin: "Wouldn't be Monday without news of another Obama nominee who owes back taxes, huh? All he has to do is say 'sorry' for his little goof and he'll be on his way to joining the White House Team of Tax Cheats. [...] Screw up, move up!"
• RedState's Dan McLaughlin: "Is Obama vetting to ensure he picks people who do not pay taxes? This many cannot be an accident, can it? [...] The only alternative explanation, after all, is that there is something about the kinds of people Obama chooses to associate with and give power to that makes them think they don't need to make sure they pay their taxes. I leave it to you to judge."
• Hinderaker: "The Democratic Party has a culture of entitlement, greed and corruption. It is remarkable that, even though Obama's vetting team must be excruciatingly sensitive to the issue, it is evidently hard to find prominent, high-income Democrats who pay their taxes in full."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: A Disaster For The GOP?

The American Conservative's Daniel Larison:

"It is fairly disastrous for all involved when the chairman of the RNC and CPAC's keynote speaker can create a controversy that understandably inspires multiple comparisons to re-education camps. I am guessing that Steele's faux pas in challenging the Man with the Golden Microphone (comparisons to Blofeld are too easy and obvious) will more or less smother the chances for any reform ideas he may have had, and now that he has been denounced as little better than a RINO his tenure as chairman will continue to be rocky and not very effective. Fundraising must already be difficult because of the recession, and now it is going to get even more so.

Despite his best efforts to toe the line, and usually saying absurd things in the process, Steele is succumbing to the structural pressures that have brought the GOP and movement conservatism to their present states. Incredibly, the man who was floating the idea of withholding RNC funds from moderate Republicans who voted for the stimulus is now regarded as some sort of Obama collaborator! Meanwhile, Obama is not just having a good laugh at the expense of his imploding enemies, but he has to be feeling very pleased with himself. It seems as if all he had to do was say, 'Don't listen to Rush Limbaugh,' and in classic knee-jerk fashion activists and pols have gone running into Limbaugh's embrace, which is probably exactly what Obama wanted them to do. Now, thanks to the bizarre Limbaugh litmus test that everyone on the right is supposed to pass, conservative blogs are agog with their newfound contempt for the RNC chairman, which helps ensure that cooperation between the national party and online activists will continue to be poor. You might call this a triple bank-shot by Obama, except that all of it is self-inflicted by the Republicans."

LEST WE FORGET: Responsibilities Track Man Down Inside Dream

From The Onion:

"NATE WHITMAN'S SUBCONSCIOUS -- After an extensive search of local resident Nate Whitman's euphoric sleeping fantasy, a crack team of his most pressing responsibilities was finally able to locate the 29-year-old claims adjuster at 5:30 a.m., one hour before his alarm clock was set to go off. 'It looks like we arrived just in time,' said Whitman's two-month-old outstanding car payment, speaking on behalf of itself and several other responsibilities -- including his mother's upcoming birthday and next week's jury duty selection. 'He was being fellated by Scarlett Johansson while piloting a Jet Ski at high speeds. We're lucky we caught up to him before he started flying.' After leading him through a vivid fantasy of taking his work shirts into the dry cleaners, Whitman's responsibilities turned him over to several embarrassing moments from high school for his remaining 45 minutes of fitful slumber."

3/2: El Rushbo In The Spotlight

The big topic in the blogosphere this weekend was the 2009 Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC), and specifically Rush Limbaugh's fiery keynote speech. Conservative bloggers loved Limbaugh's speech, describing it as the "highlight" of the conference and predicting that it "will be talked about for years and even decades." RedState's Erick Erickson echoed Limbaugh's uncompromising message by urging his readers to sign a pledge that reads: "I want Barack Obama to fail and I want to help ensure he does." Meanwhile, other righty bloggers are hitting RNC Chair Michael Steele for calling Limbaugh's style "ugly" and "incendiary" (Steele should have learned by now that it doesn't pay for GOPers to criticize Limbaugh). Liberal bloggers, on the other hand, think GOPers are foolish to take Limbaugh's advice.

What else is happening in the blogosphere?

• Liberal bloggers (Yglesias, Giordano, Bok, Bowers) were delighted when Obama announced on Fri. that he plans to "remove all U.S. troops from Iraq by the end of 2011."
• Liberal bloggers (Benen, Dworkin) generally approve of Obama's decision to tap Gov. Kathleen Sebelius (D-KS) as HHS Sec., but some (Beeton, Klein) are disappointed that Sebelius won't run for Senate in 2010.
• Lefty bloggers (Walsh, BooMan, Benen, Giordano) loved Obama's feisty radio address, in which he vowed to vigorously defend his budget proposals.
• Righty bloggers (Reynolds, Malkin, Huston, Horner) are buzzing about the "tea party" movement, in which conservatives are gathering in cities across the country to protest Obama's economic agenda.
• Liberal bloggers (Marshall, Kleiman, Rosenberg) are accusing Gov. Bobby Jindal (R-LA) of lying in his response to Obama's speech to Congress. Conservative bloggers (Allahpundit, Yousefzadeh, Erickson) are fiercely defending Jindal.

LIMBAUGH: Rush Rocks The Hizzouse

Conservative bloggers are gushing over Limbaugh's keynote speech at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC):

• Townhall's Matt Lewis: "Rush Limbaugh rocked the house at the Conservative Action Conference (CPAC) today. [...] Clearly, Limbaugh's speech was the highlight of the 2009 CPAC."
• Townhall's Hugh Hewitt: "Rush gave a speech at CPAC today that will be talked about for years and even decades. The CNN commentators called him 'angry,' -- did that description ever attach to [ex-VT Gov.] Howard Dean or any of the leading Democrats in opposition to President [George W.] Bush? -- but what he actually was was passionate about freedom. And completely and utterly contemptuous of conservatives urging accommodation to the agenda of President Obama, especially those conservatives ashamed of the grassroots and their attachments to pastimes such as NASCAR and issues such as the dignity of every human life and the importance of marriage. [...] Long may he prosper."
• RedState's Erickson: "[T]his guy provides excellence on the radio day in and day out. He speaks without a script, from the heart processed through the head (a key step liberals miss). CPAC attendees recognize just how excellent he is -- they named him the most popular conservative out there. He is with reason. [...] Rush said the other side will never like us because we are conservatives. To be liked, we must not be conservatives. He's absolutely right. Our ideas are about freedom and liberty. They do not grow stale. And they only grow as weary as we do. We must fight on."

Conservative bloggers are also criticizing Steele for saying: "Rush Limbaugh, his whole thing is entertainment. Yes, it's incendiary. Yes, it's ugly."

• Townhall's Carol Platt Liebau: "Has Steele ever listened to Rush's show? How about trying to encourage [D.L.] Hughley's viewers to tune in and hear for themselves, rather than simply turning over and agreeing with unfair criticism of Rush? Whatever the way out of the wilderness is for Republicans, it doesn't come from bashing Rush Limbaugh. Let's hope the newly-elected chairman figures that out, and fast."
• AmSpec Blog's Wlady Pleszczynski: "Perhaps nothing captures the down-and-out condition of the GOP better than its having RNC chairman Michael Steele as a spokesman. On the one hand he trashes Rush Limbaugh. On the other he talks of withholding campaign funds from the [Arlen] Specter-[Susan] Collins-[Olympia] Snowe trio. If Republicans are lucky, Steele will revert to his Senate campaign tactic of never mentioning his party affiliation."

Meanwhile, Erickson is urging his RedState readers to sign a pledge declaring their desire to see Obama fail: "I want Barack Obama to fail and I want to help ensure he does. If Barack Obama is successful in implementing his stated agenda, America will fail and the American dream will die for millions. We already know Barack Obama's economic policy will fail, but it will hurt millions of hard working Americans. I will join the RedState Army of Activists and fight for freedom by working to undermine Barack Obama's agenda and helping him fail."

Power Line's Paul Mirengoff is also opposed to compromise, at least on domestic issues: "Conservatives must be equally single-minded in the defense of our country's way of life. There is no cooperating with Obama on domestic issues, and to the extent that Republican Senators like Arlen Specter cooperate, conservatives must do whatever we can to end their public careers."

LIMBAUGH II: Keep Digging, GOPers

Liberal bloggers think GOPers are foolish to elevate Limbaugh:

• The Reality-Based Community's Mark Kleiman: "Rush Limbaugh, albatross."
• Daily Kos' Jed Lewison: "Rush Limbaugh is like a drug to the GOP: he makes them feel better about themselves. But his advice for them is truly terrible. The last thing they need to do is stick with the same old ideas that have failed this country for the past 8 years, and the second-to-last thing they need to do is spend all their energy trying to destroy the Democratic Party. The way to win is by helping the country win. Rush Limbaugh's strategy for victory is to have the country fail. That's stupid, and it will lose every time."
• The Washington Monthly's Steve Benen: "The more Limbaugh talks, and the more he actively roots against the United States, the more Democrats like [WH CoS Rahm] Emanuel will be exploiting this for all it's worth. [...] Limbaugh can't wait to jump in front of the cameras and share his twisted ideology with anyone who'll listen. He is, in other words, making the Democrats' job easier."
• digby: "I'm watching the leader of the Republican Party, Rush Limbaugh, give his speech at CPAC on CNN, live and in its entirety, without commercials. If you doubted that he is the leader, you won't doubt it after you see the reception he's getting. He says his heart is broken that Obama is using his great talents to punish earners and portray America as a soup kitchen in a dark night. And it saddens him that the president of the United States wants to destroy America. I wish this were in prime time."

The Atlantic's Andrew Sullivan: "I'm actually sympathetic to the broad argument that government is usually not the solution to our problems, and I'm leery of the massive spending this president has proposed in a depression -- just as I was leery of the massive spending the last president accomplished in a bubble. But what I heard most of all from Limbaugh was the demonization of libruls, again and again and again. Limbaugh is attacking the motives and good faith of more than half the country -- and of a president just elected in a landslide. Limbaugh takes us right back to the 1980s and 1990s -- the old red-blue paradigm that has led to massive GOP losses. But Obama has reframed his opponents as the vested interests resisting reform. Who do you think will win on that battlefield?"

IRAQ: Someday This War's Gonna End

Liberal bloggers were delighted when Obama announced on Fri. that he plans to "remove all U.S. troops from Iraq by the end of 2011":

• Think Progress' Matthew Yglesias: "This is huge."
• Al Giordano: "Another day, another promise kept..."
• AMERICAblog's John Aravosis: "So, basically, all combat forces are out by August of next year, then a year later, everyone is out. This is very good."
• Obsidian Wings' hilzoy: "I find it hard to express how happy this makes me. [...] This horrible mistake of a war has cost so many people so much. It should never have been started. It will not be over for the Iraqis in 2011. But it will, at last, be over for us."
• Mother Jones' Kevin Drum: "[T]he bottom line is simple: all combat troops will be out within 18 months, and all troops will be out within 34 months. That's probably not as quickly as I'd like to see it done, but it's probably about as quickly as it was ever likely to happen given the inherent instability of the political situation. Keep your fingers crossed."
• Open Left's Chris Bowers: "This is what I have been waiting for: a commitment to end the residual force operation by the close of 2011. [...] Now that President Obama has made this pledge, in public, it will be difficult for him to go back on it. This is especially the case since turning back on a promise with a deadline of December 31st, 2011, means violating a pledge during 2012 -- the year President Obama will be running for re-election. Anti-war proponents need to be prepared to raise holy hell during 2012 if this promise is not kept."

SEBELIUS: So Much For That Kansas Senate Seat

Most liberal bloggers approve of Obama's decision to tap Gov. Sebelius as HHS Sec.:

• Benen: "Sebelius is a fine pick who will likely be easily confirmed. She's known for her strong managerial skills, has broad credibility with both parties, and has a background on healthcare that will no doubt serve her well."
• Daily Kos' DemFromCT: "Sebelius brings excellent credentials as former insurance commissioner and a Governor's perspective on where HHS should be spending its money. Kansas is no stranger to natural disasters, so that's a plus as well (anyone with that kind of experience has an innate appreciation for public health and government intervention where needed.) [...] Added: the fact that this takes her out of consideration for the Senate seat in KS vacated by Sam Brownback says volumes about this administration's commitment to health reform."

However, other lefty bloggers were disappointed that Sebelius won't be running for the vacant KS Senate seat in '10:

• MyDD's Todd Beeton: "There goes our best chance at the Kansas Senate seat."
• Ezra Klein: "Many people could have served admirably at HHS. No one but [Sebelius] could turn Kansas's 2010 Senate election into a Democratic pick-up opportunity. Moving to Washington this year makes that less likely. You wonder whether [NY Sen.] Chuck Schumer wants to throttle the White House this morning."

OBAMA RADIO ADDRESS: No More Mister Nice Guy

Liberal bloggers loved Obama's 2/28 radio address, in which he vowed to defend his budget proposals:

"...I know these steps won't sit well with the special interests and lobbyists who are invested in the old way of doing business, and I know they're gearing up for a fight as we speak. My message to them is this: So am I."

The netroots were delighted by Obama's populist tone:

• Salon's Joan Walsh: "I'm thrilled to hear President Obama ready for battle. I don't think anything has made me happier than what he said yesterday in his weekly radio address."
• Open Left's ai002h: "[T]he President has taken a decidedly more populist tone. When I first saw the budget outline I was completely shocked in how it was so different to Obama's approach to the stimulus. It was actually bold and shockingly consistent with his campaign promises and his rhetoric. [...] Whatever the reason, I'm happy for it. It's been more than 40 years since we saw 1600 Pennsylvania Ave as a threat to the status quo and special interest. Well that day may be here, and its a beautiful thing."
• BooMan: "Obama has dropped the nonconfrontational, bipartisan language he used to open his administration. This is not a bug in the system. His early, conciliatory tone was necessary to teach the American people lessons that would allow them to accept the ambitious and uncompromising tone he is taking now. The Republicans did him a favor by slapping away the olive branch and adopting a harsh, paranoid, dishonest, and delusional stance in opposition. Few people can still see any merit in an inclusionary, bipartisan approach."
• Benen: "The 'so am I' rhetoric is less than subtle. There's going to be a fight over the direction of the country, and the president is signaling his intention to mix it up a bit. This is a different message than the one preceding the debate over the economic stimulus, and may reflect the White House's judgment that the administration was not as aggressive as it could (should?) have been in mounting a defense."
• Giordano: "[H]ere's what I think just happened: The President has reframed the narrative from the stale dysfunction of Democrats demonizing Republicans and Republicans demonizing Democrats and stepped over that puddle of slime to create a more authentic narrative: The American people vs. the special interests (and note that the ones he mentions are universally from the corporate sector). [...] This is is quite huge. It hasn't been done by a president since FDR. And the populist campaign rhetoric by [John] Edwards, [Hillary] Clinton and even Obama in 2008 aside did not rise to this level of clarity by a longshot."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Socialization Of The News?

The Reality-Based Community's Michael O'Hare has an idea for how to save newspapers:

"There is a model, much underattended, originally designed for recorded music by Terry Fisher and described in his book Promises to Keep, with a lot of useful commentary in Lawrence Lessig's essential Free Culture. The key idea is an appropriation to the copyright office of the whole cost of newspapers, adjusted annually (for music, taking the entire sales of the music industry, it's about $30 per capita). When a page or article is hit, a counter clicks in the copyright office (without recording who caused the click) and at the end of the year, the appropriation is divided in proportion to clicks. This takes page hits as a proxy for value created; not perfect, but not too bad. It's government funding, in a sense, but with any bureaucratic or political judgment excluded; if you post something on the web and you get hits, you get paid; more hits, more pay. I could not make a living from this blogging, but Paul Krugman (yes, and George Will) will do nicely...and a lot of ink-stained wretches in between will put food on the table and see very good incentives as to what to write about, and how to write better.

This is a revolution, of course, and will definitely leave a lot of Darwinian debris. But I haven't come across another way. Weird and scary as it sounds, it's time for (mechanistic, bureaucratic, judgment-free) socialization of the news."

LEST WE FORGET: Buttons Just Don't Disappear, Reports Woman On Hands And Knees

From The Onion:

"ANN ARBOR, MI -- Although there is a slim chance the darn things might have rolled under the stove, Michigan resident Irene Sullivan, 50, stated conclusively Sunday that buttons, like the nice red ones on her favorite sweater, cannot simply vanish without a trace. 'I know they don't just sprout legs and walk away, that's for sure,' Sullivan told reporters from her position on all fours below the kitchen table. 'Oh, for crying out loud, is that a baby carrot under the fridge?' The mother of two could not provide any further information as to why these things always happen right before church, but did refer back to an earlier declaration that if it's not one thing, it's another."