March 05, 2009

3/5: The Senate Centrists Strike Again

Liberal bloggers are angry that a group of moderate Dem senators is planning to push back against "the massive spending and tax increases" in Pres. Obama's budget. The netroots are disgusted by what they perceive to be the selective outrage of "these self-alleged budget watchdogs," since "none of these people made so much as a peep when [George W.] Bush got his Iraq War funding shoved 'off-budget'." Lefty bloggers are directing most of their criticism at Sen. Evan Bayh (D-IN), who specifically criticized Obama's proposal to raise taxes on the wealthiest Americans. Lefty bloggers argue that Bayh's primary concern is "to keep the rich as rich as possible," since Obama's proposed tax increases will only affect the top 5% of earners. Markos Moulitsas snarks: "[Bayh] is protecting the honor of all those pretend 5 percenters that live in wealthy Indiana, to the detriment of the regular folk that actually live in Indiana and would see a tax cut under Obama's buget." Meanwhile, Elana Schor asks: "[C]ould someone remind Bayh that he voted against the Bush tax cuts that he's now unwilling to see expire?"

What else is happening in the blogosphere?

• Liberal bloggers (Moulitsas, Yglesias, Benen, Drum) are angry that Sen. Robert Menendez (D-NJ) is holding up two of Obama's science nominees in an effort to maintain a hardline policy toward Cuba.
• Conservative bloggers (Holmes, Morrissey, Liebau, Spencer, Hinderaker) are criticizing Dems for deliberately trying to portray Rush Limbaugh as the face of the GOP. Liberal bloggers (Morrill, Orton, Aravosis, Sargent) deny that Dems are responsible for the media attention that Limbaugh has been receiving lately.
• Conservative bloggers (Lord, Reynolds, Hinderaker) are excited about the fact that Limbaugh challenged Obama to debate him on his radio show, while liberal bloggers (Yglesias, watertiger) think Obama would be foolish to accept Limbaugh's challenge.

SENATE MODERATES: Moderation In Defense Of Rich People Is No Vice

Liberal bloggers are angry that a group of moderate Senate Dems (along with CT Sen. Joe Lieberman) is planning to push back against "the massive spending and tax increases" in Obama's budget:

• Think Progress' Matthew Yglesias: "Are you one of the 95 percent of Americans whose taxes would be cut under Barack Obama's budget? Does the thought of that tax cut being paid for by tax increases on the wealthiest 2 percent of the population strike terror into your heart? If so, you're in [luck], because it's not just Republicans who are eager to spare you from this nightmare; moderate Democrats such as Evan Bayh and [NE Sen.] Ben Nelson want to keep the rich as rich as possible too."
• Daily Kos' Moulitsas: "So 'centrist' Democrats want the budget busted? Leading the charge is our old friend Evan Bayh, who is protecting the honor of all those pretend 5 percenters that live in wealthy Indiana, to the detriment of the regular folk that actually live in Indiana and would see a tax cut under Obama's buget. And incidentally, [LA Sen.] Mary Landrieu is among them -- yes, the same person who happens to be the top Democratic earmarker. She's a hypocrite."
• Firedoglake's Phoenix Women: "Funnily enough, none -- none -- of these people made so much as a peep when Bush got his Iraq War funding shoved 'off-budget'. Even funnier: Some of them, these self-alleged budget watchdogs complaining about the spending in this budget, are themselves among its biggest beneficiaries -- all the earmarks that Obama asked to be kept out of the stimulus bill found their way into the budget bill, and the senators bringing home the biggest hunks of bacon are mostly either conservative Democrats or hyper-conservative Republicans."
• dday: "Once again, the path for a Democratic President must go through Democratic fiscal responsibility scolds. And this is coming in the middle of a Great Recession, where investment is non-existent, trade is stalled, and consumer spending isn't going anywhere, meaning that ONLY GOVERNMENT IS SPENDING. Cutting that spending translates directly into losing thousands of jobs. That's reality for the next year or so."

Open Left's Chris Bowers is disgusted: "So, a group of Senators are now working, behind closed doors, on how to shift congressional legislation to the right on the ideological spectrum. While these Senators happen to the Democrats, how, exactly, is this different from what Republicans do? When a group of politicians work together in an attempt to pull the legislation of the governing party closer to that of the opposition party, than that group is doing the exact same thing as the opposition party. Besides their oppositional work, I don't know why these Senators get to be called 'moderates,' given that President Obama's spending proposals are wildly popular. Given current popular opinion, either these Senators are actually right-wing, or about 60% of the country is now to the left of moderates."

SENATE MODERATES II: What About The Other 95%?

Liberal bloggers are particularly annoyed that Sens. Bayh and Nelson are specifically complaining about Obama's plans to "raise taxes," which they think misrepresents Obama's proposals:

• Ezra Klein: "If the majority of Americans are facing a tax decrease, then are 'taxes' going up? Revenues might be rising because the rich are paying more. But for most people, taxes are going down. I'd be interested to hear Nelson's answer."
• The Washington Monthly's Steve Benen: "Obama's economic stimulus package included one of the largest, if not the very largest, tax cut in American history. His broader economic plan does exactly what was promised during the campaign -- it cuts taxes on the middle class, and raises taxes on the wealthy. The tax increase on the wealthy wouldn't kick in until 2011, and simply returns the top rate to where it was before Bush/Cheney took office. Many seem to have internalized conservative, conventional thinking on taxes -- Obama wants to 'raise' them, centrists and Republicans don't like the idea. But the details matter here, and it's simply inaccurate to characterize the White House plan as a tax increase when most Americans are getting a tax cut. Maybe someone should let Sens. Bayh and Nelson know."

Meanwhile, Moulitsas issues a "Memo to the media":

"Dear media,

95 percent of Americans are getting a tax cut with Obama's budget. So framing this as a tax hike makes you look pretty stupid. And dishonest. And wrong. So stop it.

Hugs and kisses,

kos

BAYH: Isn't Indiana A Working-Class State?

Lefty bloggers are directing much of their criticism at Bayh, who recently wrote a Wall Street Journal op-ed criticizing the omnibus budget bill (and who, as many bloggers are pointing out, voted against the Bush tax cuts that Obama wants to repeal):

• TPM's Schor: "[C]ould someone remind Bayh that he voted against the Bush tax cuts that he's now unwilling to see expire?"
• Atrios: "Wanker of the Day: Evan Bayh."
• Obsidian Wings' Eric Martin: "Evan Bayh is leading the charge of the soi disant Democratic moderate caucus in opposing Obama's plans to raise taxes 'on the wealthy' by allowing prior cuts to expire on schedule. But what Bayh doesn't mention is that he voted against [George W.] Bush's tax cuts when they were introduced to the legislature way back when. At the time, voting against those tax cuts was moderate. Now, allowing them to expire is...extremist?"
• Yglesias: "[T]he median household income in Indiana is $42,000 a year. Families making that much would not see tax increases under Obama's plan. Families making double the Indiana median household income would not see tax increases under Obama's plan. Families making double that would not see tax increases under Obama's plan. Only families making almost six times the median household income of Indiana would see increases; increases that would essentially take us back to the rates that prevailed during the more prosperous 1990s. But never fear, if you're dramatically richer than most Indianans and sociopathically unconcerned with the well-being of your fellow citizens, then Evan Bayh is fighting for you."

MENENDEZ: Because The Cuba Embargo Has Worked So Well, Right?

Liberal bloggers are angry that Sen. Menendez is holding up two of Obama's science nominees in an effort to force the removal of several provisions from the budget bill "that would allow Cuban-Americans to visit relatives on the island once a year and end limits on the sale of American food and medicines in Cuba." Lefty bloggers believe that Menendez is harming the Obama admin.'s efforts to address climate change in an attempt to preserve a failed policy:

• Yglesias: "Kate Sheppard notes that just last year Menendez thought climate change was 'incredibly important.' But apparently not as important as defending America's insane Cuba policy status quo."
• Benen: "Menendez supports Obama's nominees, but won't let the Senate vote on them until after he's done complaining about a subtle change in a foreign policy that hasn't worked after more than five decades of attempts.Changing the U.S. policy towards Cuba is long overdue. Menendez's stunt gets the broader policy debate off to a discouraging start."
• Moulitsas: "So what do you do if you're an out-of-touch supporter of a policy that is now going on 50 years of failure? Apparently, you try and hold the Obama Administration hostage. [...] This isn't a partisan issue. The fault line is between a bipartisan handful of (mostly) Cuban-Americans too invested in a failed policy to change course, and pretty much everyone else. It's too bad seeing Menendez associating with the dead-enders, when he could be a valuable voice in crafting our post-embargo approach to Cuba."
• Mother Jones' Kevin Drum: "Jeebus. What is it about Cuba that drives people into decades-long fits of insanity? Even JFK, the guy who instituted the Cuba embargo in the first place, thought we were all kind of crazy on the subject. But 50 years later? Crazy doesn't begin to describe it. [...] Menendez should be ashamed of himself. It's time to grow up."

LIMBAUGH: The Vast Left-Wing Conspiracy To Demonize Limbaugh

Conservative bloggers are buzzing about yesterday's Politico article detailing how Dem strategists -- including various people in the Obama admin. -- are deliberately trying to portray Limbaugh as the face of the GOP:

• NRO's Amy Holmes: "So, now we know. President Obama's mentions of Rush Limbaugh are no accident. Democratic strategists have discovered that Rush has low approval ratings with the general public. So they have devised a strategy to paint Republicans with the Rush brush in order to marginalize conservatism and the Republican party. In the Nineties, they demonized Newt [Gingrich]. Now, they're after Rush. And the media is happily going along, as it so often does."
• Hot Air's Ed Morrissey: "If the first six weeks of the Barack Obama administration can be summed up in one sentence, it would be this: Obama fiddled with Rush Limbaugh while Wall Street burned. [...] It's a circus provided by Democrats to cover up their economic incompetence and massively ineffective spending programs. It's also a harbinger of things to come as this administration fumbles one issue after another, as they will only need to expand the personal attacks against critics rather than respond to the criticism itself."
• Townhall's Carol Platt Liebau: "[Dems] are spending their time and the government's resources trying to demonize a private citizen -- a radio talk show host who has the nerve to dissent from their political philosophy and object to their plans. Of course, it's easier to campaign against Rush than it is actually to govern -- but governing is what the Democrats signed on to do, and that's what the American people expect. Clearly, their behavior shows not only a lack of vision and commitment that should worry Democrat voters -- it also shows a profound insecurity on the part of the President and his team."
• Power Line's Paul Mirengoff: "If the Democrats' economic policies are considered to have failed, the Dems won't be able to save themselves by demonizing a conservative talk show host -- even a vastly influential one who said he didn't want Obama to succeed. And if their economic policies aren't seen as failing, the Dems won't need a scapegoat. Besides, when the next elections roll around, the Republican candidates, not Rush Limbaugh, will be 'the face of the Republican party.'"
• RedState's Dan Spencer: "Isn't there something wrong with the White House coordinating this demonetization conspiracy? Regardless of the answer to that question, the Obama attack machine is making a mistake. The more attention they drive to Limbaugh the greater the number of people that are exposed to Limbaugh's articulation of conservatism -- one antidote to Obamaism."

Meanwhile, liberal bloggers are pushing back against the notion that Dems are responsible for the media attention that Limbaugh has been receiving recently.

LIMBAUGH II: You Picked The Wrong Guy To Mess With, Dems

Conservative bloggers are excited about the fact that Limbaugh challenged Obama to debate him on his radio show:

• AmSpec Blog's Jeffrey Lord: "Rush has just taken these bozos up and called them out. He has challenged Obama to a one-on-one debate on his radio show, no teleprompters please. With an ineptness that leaves one breathless, the Obama team has now effectively labeled Obama himself as 'paralyzed with fear' if in fact the President doesn't have the guts to accept Limbaugh's challenge. After all, if they claim that GOP chair Michael Steele and 'Republicans' are cowards for not taking on Rush, Obama himself will surely have the guts to do what they claim Steele and Republicans do not: take on Rush Limbaugh one-on-one."
• Glenn Reynolds: "[I]f Obama won't accept, Limbaugh can send a guy in a chicken suit to follow him around, and open each show with 'XXX days since Obama was invited to defend his ideas on the air...'"
• Power Line's John Hinderaker: "President Obama might come to regret the day that he set out to destroy Rush Limbaugh."
• RedState's E Pluribus Unum: "Democrats, you picked the wrong store to rob. You've put America's #1 conservative (not Republican) in the spotlight for all Americans to examine. That can't possibly end well for you."

Meanwhile, liberal bloggers think Obama would be foolish to accept Limbaugh's debate challenge. Yglesias writes: "[T]he stakes would be off-kilter. If they went at it, and 25 percent of people came away impressed by Rush while 40 percent were impressed by Obama and the remaining 35 percent deemed the whole thing dumb, that would be a net benefit for Rush (who's just a radio host, happy to have the allegiance of a large-and-impassioned minority) and a net loss for Obama (who's a national politician who needs a broad base of support) notwithstanding the fact that Obama would have 'won' in a strict sense."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Times Change, People Change

The Atlantic's Andrew Sullivan offers his thoughts on Hendrik Hertzberg's post about the ideological evolution of Charles Krauthammer:

"I don't think it's necessarily a sign of insincerity that someone's views have evolved over the years. The danger is always, rather, calcification of thought and socialized group-think -- what we used to call the neocon slide (the ten minutes when a liberal-becoming-a-conservative was interesting). In the polarized politics of the past couple of decades, it has been very hard to sustain a complicated politics and have a social life in Washington. In that respect, I don't think Charles has changed that much. He remains a believer in science and evolution, I'm pretty sure he's an atheist or what the English might call a High Jew (no, not Bill Maher), he just wrote an article suppporting a big increase in the gas tax (not exactly a base-pleaser) and does not fire-breathe against gays. Yes, he went soft on Bush's fiscal liberalism -- but given Bush's total support for Israel and launching of the Iraq war, it was not a hard call. Yes, there's something rich about Krauthammer's hand-wringing about socialism now. But it's not quite as preposterous as it is coming from some others. [...]

It's just very hard to be that integrated into the Washington Republican Right and be able to resist the orthodoxies the party needs or the mood the party is in. It's subtly corrosive of truly independent thought. Some would argue such thought is naive for political life. I haven't given up that much yet. And all my closest friends have nothing to do with politics. That helps."

LEST WE FORGET: Kids These Days...

From Overheard in New York:

Upper East Side mom: Jackie, you have so many friends! I'm so happy for you!
Six-year-old girl: Mommy, those aren't my friends. Those are my entourage.

Posted by Ian Faerstein at March 5, 2009 01:31 PM