March 06, 2009

3/6: What's The Hold-Up?

Liberal bloggers are criticizing GOP senators for holding up the confirmations of economists Austan Goolsbee and Cecilia Rouse to the WH Council of Economic Advisers. Lefty bloggers believe that these senators "don't have any actual objections to Goolsbee or Rouse -- they're just after payback." Josh Marshall complains: "The Republicans seem pretty candid about the fact that this is pay back for stuff that happened back in the [George W.] Bush era. But aren't we in the throes of a catastrophic economic crisis?"

Meanwhile, conservative bloggers continue to blame Pres. Obama for the stock market's poor performance. Some righty bloggers are even suggesting that Obama is "deliberately sabotaging the United States economy" in order to provide a rationale for his liberal agenda. John Hawkins writes: "[F]or Obama, the only thing worse than having the economic crisis go on too long would be having it end too soon, before they can get all these programs through that have been on the Democratic wish list for decades."

What else is happening in the blogosphere?

• Liberal bloggers (McCarter, Beeton, Klein, Yglesias) are buzzing about yesterday's Health Care Summit, while others (Dworkin, Willis) are pointing to a new CNN poll which found that 72% of Americans favor "increasing the federal government's influence over the country's health care system." Meanwhile, conservative bloggers (Cannon, Carroll, Morrissey) are criticizing Obama's plans to reform the health care system.
• Conservative bloggers (Morrissey, Johnson, Russell) are criticizing Obama for giving British PM Gordon Brown 25 DVDs as part of their traditional gift exchange following Brown's visit to Washington.
• Both conservative and liberal bloggers think that Pat Toomey's anticipated primary challenge to Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA) means that Specter will probably vote against the Employee Free Choice Act in order to protect his right flank.

SENATE: Hey Senators, Are You Aware That We're In The Middle Of An Economic Crisis?

Liberal bloggers are criticizing Senate GOPers for holding up the confirmations of Goolsbee and Rouse to the WH Council of Economic Advisers:

• TPM's Marshall: "The senate Republicans are refusing to give a vote to two of President Obama's key (hopefully soon to be) economic advisors -- Austan Goolsbee and Cecilia Rouse. So for the moment they're barred from advising the president at all. The Republicans seem pretty candid about the fact that this is pay back for stuff that happened back in the Bush era. But aren't we in the throes of a catastrophic economic crisis?"
• Think Progress' Matthew Yglesias: "[Senate GOPers] don't have any actual objections to Goolsbee or Rouse -- they're just after payback. And their position is so indefensible that the people doing the holding up -- in the middle of an economic crisis! -- won't say in public who's doing it. Aside from the particulars of this case, it's once again a reminder that nobody can ever explain a good reason for allowing these 'anonymous holds.'"
• The Washington Monthly's Steve Benen: "Everyone agrees that Goolsbee and Rouse are qualified and ready to get to work, but Republicans are looking for some cheap payback. [...] Imagine if, in late 2001, George W. Bush were putting together a team of national security advisors, and Senate Democrats put anonymous holds on his well-qualified choices because of something that may or may not have happened during [Bill] Clinton's presidency. Most political observers would consider this crazy, and they'd be right. And yet, here we are."
• Obsidian Wings' hilzoy: "As Josh [Marshall] said: Please Grow Up. [...] I can see allowing individual Senators to hold a nomination up for a day or two, to make sure that they have time to present any concerns they have about a nominee to their colleagues. But there is no justification at all for allowing one Senator to hold nominations up indefinitely."

OBAMA: It's All Part Of His Master Plan!

For the past few months, there has been a growing consensus on the right that the market's poor performance is a direct consequence of Obama's economic policies. Now, several conservative bloggers are suggesting that Obama is deliberately trying to hurt the economy in order to provide a rationale for enacting a liberal agenda:

• Right Wing News' Hawkins: "[S]ince the Obama administration surely knows that it's causing havoc in the stock market, it begs a very obvious question: could they doing it on purpose? [...F]or Obama, the only thing worse than having the economic crisis go on too long would be having it end too soon, before they can get all these programs through that have been on the Democratic wish list for decades."
• Pajamas Media's Roger Kimball: "Remember, shortly before the election, Obama boasted to his mesmerized supporters that 'We are five days away from fundamentally transforming the United States of America.' Is that not what he has set about doing -- with a vengeance? [...] What we need now is some clever legal talent to show how deliberately sabotaging the United States economy counts as Treason, a high Crime, or at least a Misdemeanor. Any takers?"
• Glenn Reynolds: "Michael Boskin: 'Obama's Radicalism Is Killing the Dow'. Paul Krugman says Obama's killing the Dow by dithering. So the question keeps coming up: Incompetence or malevolence? Either way, that people are asking is a bad sign..."

Power Line's John Hinderaker doesn't buy this theory: "There's a school of thought that the Obama administration is deliberately damaging the economy and gutting the stock market, on the theory that doing so will make more people dependent on the government and pave the way for a far-left regime. [...] It is, I admit, an intriguing theory, but I don't buy it. Obama can't possibly want to be a one-term failure. That's what happened to Jimmy Carter, and Obama must know that it will happen to him, too, if his policies are perceived as dragging down the economy. More likely the explanation is that Obama is an economic illiterate..."

OBAMA II: What's He Got Against Gordon Brown?

Conservative bloggers are criticizing Obama for giving Brown 25 DVDs as part of their traditional gift exchange following Brown's visit to Washington:

• Hot Air's Ed Morrissey: "[T]his seems like a rather deliberate insult, or at best diplomatic incompetence. It's one thing to cheap out on a gift for a friend or relative at Christmas, but the British have stood by the US for many long decades, through some very dark times. Despite unpopularity at home, they remained at our side in Iraq and Afghanistan. They deserve a little more effort from this administration, and a hell of a lot more appreciation."
• Power Line's Scott Johnson: "Compared to the gifts brought for Obama by Brown, the DVDs are an embarrassment. Couldn't Obama at least have thrown in an an autographed copy of The Audacity of Hope?"
• AmSpec Blog's Nicole Russell: "Brown, apparently, is not a film buff and was underwhelmed by the generosity of the new American President. I'm sure Brown realizes it's only a result of our tough economy. While Obama is busy fixing it, he can watch a few movies."

SPECTER: Time To Move Right?

Now that Toomey is reportedly challenging Specter in the 2010 PA Senate primary, conservative bloggers are speculating that Specter will move to the right:

• RedState's Brian Faughnan: "If Arlen Specter faces a primary challenge from Pat Toomey, he has to turn right, doesn't he? It may be too late for him to earn meaningful points with conservatives, but he has to try. Does that mean he moves from being silent on Card Check to officially opposing it? Such a betrayal would make him enemies in the unions, but would give Specter helpful headlines about how his change of position saved the secret ballot. That would fit his agenda quite well -- weakening him in the general election, where he's a favorite, but strengthening him in the primary -- where he really needs help."
• RedState's Moe Lane: "...Specter's independence from his own caucus just took a big hit. This poll suggests that PA Republicans aren't happy with Specter's vote on the recent debt bill, and he barely survived Toomey last time. If Toomey gets the nomination, then we get to run a complete slate of candidates in 2010 who didn't vote for the Democrats' debt bill."

Liberal blogger Yglesias has a similar take: "This is very bad news for anyone hoping to see the Employee Free Choice Act passed in this congress. Specter voted for cloture on EFCA in the previous congress, which should be understood in part as payback for receiving labor support in his 2004 general election. But a vote for EFCA could be an enormous liability in a GOP primary race. Ordinarily, most establishment types in the GOP/business nexus would back an incumbent against a challenger, but your typical executive would sooner strangle his children with his bare hands than sign a collective bargaining agreement."

Yglesias goes on to suggest that Specter switch parties: "As I've said before, one possible answer would be for Specter to back Obama's budget and EFCA and switch parties. To be a happy Democrat he would need to reposition himself ideologically somewhat, but he's meandered quite a bit ideologically over the years. This, however, is what tends to happen with party switchers. [Ex-Sen.] Jim Jefford went from a voting record that would have been extremely conservative for a Democrat to being a standard-issue Vermont liberal after he switched parties. And you saw something similar with some Clinton-era D-to-R party switchers."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: The Case Against "Senate Moderates"

Yglesias unloads with both barrels:

"Thinking about the fine whine [NE Sen.] Ben Nelson, [IN Sen.] Even Bayh, and others are currently enjoying over the dastardly idea of returning the marginal tax rate on the richest two percent of the population to where it was back when Bill Clinton was destroying the economy, I'm growing concerned that the Obama administration may have made a mistake by putting forward such a reasonable budget proposal. I can see why they did it. The key administration players -- Larry Summers, Peter Orszag, Tim Geithner, Jason Furman, etc. -- are nothing if not reasonable, moderate people. But the key legislative players aren't reasonable, moderate people; they're 'reasonable' 'Senate moderates.' A 'Senate moderate' is someone who takes his party's proposals, objects to them, waters them down a bit, and then congratulates himself on a job well done. Which is great if his party's proposals are unduly immoderate. But it's big-time trouble if his party puts a reasonable, moderate agenda on the table.

After all, you don't maintain the painstakingly achieved Nelson/Bayh 'Senate moderate' brand by clapping politely. You need to bitch and moan and be quoted in inside-baseball only media outlets that none of your constituents pay attention to, and hold conferences and have meetings at the White House where people hold your hands. You need to be praised by the opposition party, and extract your pound of flesh from the proposal. Then when it looks like it might go down to defeat, you can vote for the somewhat-watered-down version and be the hero who saved the day and nobody will mention that you saved the day from yourself.

But you really do need to do that stuff. You can't just say 'well, this is a reasonable proposal so I'll back it.' Then your moderate license gets taken away. [So] I think that means that proposals need to deliberately overshoot the mark. Say Obama had proposed a top marginal tax rate of 43 percent. Well Evan Bayh couldn't stand for that! He might propose some reasonable alternative like letting the Bush tax cuts expire so that post-recession rates will be back where they were in the 1990s. How reasonable! How moderate! How judicious!"

LEST WE FORGET: Some Days Are Like That...

From FMyLife.com:

• Today, I was sitting beside this cute guy on a bench. Suddenly, he goes, "I know we don't know each other very well, but would you like to have dinner on Saturday?" I turn to him with a goofy smile, and exclaim "I'D LOVE TO!" He gives me a weird look, turns his head and points to his Bluetooth. FML.
• Today, my dad woke me up at 6, told me to take a shower, and drove me to school only to say "just kidding, happy snowday!" FML.
• Today, I found out my angry ex girlfriend put Nair in my shampoo before moving out of my dorm. I'm now balding at 19. FML.
• Today, I decided to be a good driver and not run through the yellow light. As soon as I stopped my car another came and rear-ended me. The guy told me to go in the parking lot so we can exchange information. So I drove into the parking lot, I turned my head and watched him drive away. FML.
• Today, I got my braces on. When we got in the car my dad looked over and said "well at least we don't have to worry about boys for the next two years." FML.

Posted by Ian Faerstein at March 6, 2009 01:05 PM