March 26, 2009

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.

Posted by Ian Faerstein at March 26, 2009 01:00 PM