March 12, 2009

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?

Posted by Ian Faerstein at March 12, 2009 01:05 PM