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?'"