March 13, 2009

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."

Posted by Ian Faerstein at March 13, 2009 01:07 PM