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Greenwald: "[E]verything that is publicly known about Freeman makes it seem unlikely that he would have voluntarily withdrawn due to the shrieking criticisms directed at him.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."