April 06, 2009

4/6: But Why, Bayh?

Sen. Evan Bayh (D-IN) has taken a lot of heat from the netroots ever since he announced the creation of a moderate caucus intended to push back against Pres. Obama's budget proposals. On Friday, Bayh incited a fresh round of blogger criticism when he and Sen. Ben Nelson (D-NE) became the only two Senate Dems to vote against Obama's budget. Liberal bloggers are calling Bayh "the new Lieberman" and are blasting him for siding with the GOP "on the most important domestic policy vote of his career." Lefty bloggers don't buy Bayh's claim that he voted against Obama's budget out of genuine concern about the growing deficit, since he also voted for an amendment that would cut taxes on multimillion-dollar estates (and deprive the government of an estimated $250B in revenue). Matthew Yglesias points out that "someone horrified by the prospect of increased deficits wouldn't be pushing for estate tax cuts," while Ezra Klein observes that Bayh's voting record seems to swing to the left or the right depending on what office he's running for.

What else is happening in the blogosphere?

• Conservative bloggers (Huston, Boot, Johnson) are accusing Obama of demonstrating weakness in his response to North Korea's rocket launch.
• Conservative bloggers (Whelan, Dreher, Erickson) are decrying the Iowa Supreme Court's decision to strike down a state law limiting marriage to a man and a woman.
• Liberal bloggers (Drum, Yglesias, Bok, Dayden) are urging the Obama admin. to release the classified Bush-era interrogation memos.

BAYH: Hypocrisy, Thy Name Is Bayh

Liberal bloggers are criticizing Bayh after he and Nelson became the only two Senate Dems to vote against Obama's budget. Lefty bloggers are also angry that Bayh and Nelson voted for Sen. Mike Johanns' (R-NE) amendment, which "would have resulted in a budget that all-but-froze non-defense discretionary spending":

• The Washington Monthly's Steve Benen: "Yes, Bayh is the new [Joe] Lieberman."
• Oliver Willis: "Evan Bayh and Ben Nelson should just be Republicans. Because not only did they vote against the President's budget, they voted for the Republican budget from planet insane. On a defining document like that, to be against the ideology of what we're trying to do here is just simple betrayal and a desire to put your own political capital ahead of fixing the country. I feel totally justified that my 'Oh Hell No' sense went off the charts when Bayh was being bandied about by the media as a possible veep choice."

Bayh defended his "no" vote by arguing that the budget would cause our national debt to "skyrocket." However, liberal bloggers aren't buying Bayh's rhetoric about fiscal responsibility, since he also voted for the Lincoln-Kyl amendment that would cut taxes on multimillion-dollar estates (and deprive the government of an estimated $250B in revenue):

• dday: "So how did [Bayh and Nelson], who voted affirmatively for a Republican budget, justify their votes? They said it costs too much. [...] These same two Senators, the ones whining and crying about fiscal responsibility, voted last night to shield millionaires from taxes on their estates, costing the government $250 billion dollars."
• Think Progress' Yglesias: "[S]omeone horrified by the prospect of increased deficits wouldn't be pushing for estate tax cuts. More broadly, someone specifically horrified by deficits would be concerned not only about reducing spending but about increasing revenues. I, for one, am inclined to agree that the long-term deficits envisioned in the Obama administration's budget plan are too high. I would advocate lower spending on the defense side than Obama's envisioning, and more revenue through any of a number of possible mechanisms. Bayh, by contrast, seems to have a rather one-sided aversion to spending on domestic programs. That's not a unique sentiment in the United States congress, but it's a curious belief set for a Democrat."
• Klein: "I understand Evan Bayh's decision to vote against the budget. In a Senate with 59 Democrats, the opportunity to emerge as the marquee swing vote is undeniably attractive. It brings with it real power over policy and real celebrity in Washington. And there's even a legitimate argument that Bayh developed in his statement today. [...] But then why vote -- on the very same day -- for the Kyl-Lincoln bill lowering the tax rate on estates over $7 million from 45 percent to 35 percent and reducing charitable giving? That's $250 billion more debt over 10 years. It's in direct conflict with Bayh's statement on the budget. It makes him look insincere."
• Obsidian Wings' hilzoy: "I really do have to give a special shout-out...to those Senators who go on and on about fiscal responsibility and yet found it in their heart to vote for [the Lincoln-Kyl] amendment."

BAYH II: What's Really Motivating Him?

Several liberal bloggers are speculating about Bayh's motives for voting against the budget:

• The Democratic Strategist's Ed Kilgore: "Best as I can tell, Bayh's vote was motivated by a sincere horror of deficits and debt, which is so strong that he doesn't mind abandoning his party and indeed, his fellow 'centrists' on what was, after all, the most epochal budget vote since at least 1993 and probably since 1981. For that very reason, he ought to step back from his leadership role in the Senate 'centrist' group, in favor of senators whose agreement with and loyalty to the Obama agenda is much less in question. If this group remains the 'Bayh group,' it will struggle to achieve the credibility it needs to become anything other than a crude power bloc looking to shake down the administration and the congressional leadership for personal, ideological, and special-interest favors."
• Atrios: "Bayh already announced that he and the rest of the Bayh Dogs have no agenda, which means he gathered a bunch of people together and said, 'Here's my plan to make us more powerful and give us more leverage.' Maybe they'll figure out an actual agenda eventually, but for the moment the agenda is whatever Bayh says it is. Whether his yapping puppies follow along on a regular basis remains to be seen..."
• Klein: "[Bayh]'s running for reelection in Indiana this year, but this is also the year that Indiana's tectonic plates shift and the state chooses that Obama guy. So I'm not going to pretend that I fully understand the motivations behind the sharp swings in Bayh's voting record. But they're undeniably present, and seem to be keyed to political campaigns. Bayh is much steadier during the 107th and 108th Congresses, when no elections loom."
• BooMan: "Ezra Klein wants to know why Evan Bayh was uncharacteristically liberal in 2005-2008 and why he is uncharacteristically conservative now. Simple. Between 2005 and 2008, Evan Bayh was either thinking of running for president or auditioning for vice-president. As such, he did not want to appear too conservative. When he got passed over by Obama for the veepee nod, he decided to exert his revenge by organizing a caucus of 'moderates' to screw everything up and maximize his influence."

Yglesias: "I've heard some see this as an act of political cowardice on Bayh's part, but I think that's wrong. Obama carried Indiana. There are many Senate Democrats in more vulnerable states who voted 'yes.' Bayh just made a decision of conscience and principle to stand with [KY Sen.] Mitch McConnell and [SC Sen.] Jim DeMint on the most important domestic policy vote of his career. It's not clear to me where this leaves the Bayh Bunch of 'practical' moderates, since virtually none of its members followed their leader."

OBAMA: A Weak Response?

Conservative bloggers are accusing Obama of demonstrating weakness in his response to North Korea's rocket launch:

• RedState's Warner Todd Huston: "Behold the fecklessness of Obama's foreign policy. On the heels of the Bush administration kicking the North Korea can down the road, we get The One's tepid response [...] After his love letter to Iran not long ago, now we get this from The One...'STOP it or we will say STOP it again!' The world is getting more dangerous every day and this fool is touring the world on vacation while it happens."
• Commentary's Max Boot: "'Rules must be binding. Violations must be punished. Words must mean something,' Obama thundered. Yet at the same time North Korea's violation of existing United Nations sanctions was being met with toothless debate at the UN, to be followed apparently by an announcement that the Department of Defense will cut funding for missile defense. Meanwhile, the administration has affirmed its willingness -- nay, burning desire -- to conduct one-on-one talks with Tehran and Pyongyang, thereby in effect legitimizing those criminal regimes regardless of all their provocations and violations of existing treaties. This approach sends a dangerous message of American weakness in the face of growing nuclear threats."
• Power Line's Scott Johnson: "Given North Korea's existing nuclear weapons, the launch presents a threat to the the United States. Working in tandem with Iran, North Korea helped Syria install the nuclear reactor that Israel bombed last year. Iran's nuclear program is itself on the verge of producing a nuclear weapon. With the Obama administration now working feverishly to conciliate Iran, one senses that we are sleepwalking toward the precipice."

OBAMA II: Release The Torture Memos!

Liberal bloggers are urging the Obama admin. to release the classified Bush-era interrogation memos, even though nat'l security advisor John Brennan is "fiercely lobbying" against the release of these memos:

• Mother Jones' Kevin Drum: "Brennan's argument is that release of the memos might embarrass allies who helped us torture prisoners. He might even be right. But if that makes foreign intelligence services more cautious about helping us commit war crimes in the future, that would be a argument in favor of releasing the memos, not against it."
• Yglesias: "As Kevin Drum says if the best argument against releasing the last still-classified Bush-era torture memos is that doing so might embarrass people, countries, and institutions that were involved in war crimes, then that's not really much of a reason at all. That's embarrassing, shameful stuff. That's why you need to release the memos."
• hilzoy: "Fear of embarrassing countries who cooperated with us cannot possibly be the reason for not releasing the memos. The solution is too simple: just redact their names and any identifying details. Are we supposed to believe that this has not occurred to [CIA dir. Leon] Panetta or [AG Eric] Holder? Or that there is some identifying detail that is so thoroughly intertwined with the legal arguments that it cannot possibly be edited out? Give me a break. President Obama: let us see what our public servants defended as lawful, and the arguments they used. If necessary, don't name the countries who, to their shame, decided to assist us. But don't insult our intelligence by pretending that you and your administration have never heard of White-Out."
• dday: "Clearly, Brennan wants to keep open the option of torturing in secret, or at the least save his pals some heartburn. Boy, I know I'm sure glad liberal bloggers fought the good fight and denied Brennan an important voice inside the Administration. We sure showed him, right?"
• TalkLeft's Big Tent Democrat: "President Obama needs to make clear that he stands against torture as a legitimate policy. He must order these memos released."

The Atlantic's Andrew Sullivan: "'Holy hell has broken loose over this,' is how one of Mike Isikoff's sources has described John Brennan's attempt to prevent release of three damning OLC memos drafted by the Bush administration in its systematic program for torturing terror suspects. One begins to realize how deeply important it was that Brennan didn't get the top CIA job. You see now his attachment to the torture regime he pretended to oppose and his fierce loyalty to CIA officers who may have committed war crimes and now seek to prevent the American people from finding out what was done in secret, against the law, in their name."

IOWA: Damn Activist Judges!

Conservative bloggers are decrying the Iowa Supreme Court's decision to strike down a state law limiting marriage to a man and a woman:

• NRO's Ed Whelan: "The lawless judicial attack on traditional marriage and on representative government continues."
• Belief Net's Rod Dreher: "Thus does seven men and women overturn the meaning of an ancient and fundamental social institution, in a single stroke."
• RedState's Erick Erickson: "Iowa and the other state courts that have overturned legislatively enacted bans on marriage have done so by substituting the judges' policy preferences for the legislatures. In doing so, they have then stretched beyond meaning or intention the constitutions of the various states. [...] Until we make a regular habit in this nation of impeaching activist judges who put their personal policy preferences ahead of the constitutions of the several states and nation, we will just keep bowing lower and lower to our black robed masters."

Conservative bloggers are also speculating about how the ruling will affect the 2012 IA GOP caucus:

• RedState's Josh Painter: "While it's still a bit early to be counting votes (straw or otherwise) in Iowa, the action by that state's Supremes should indeed make the race more interesting. Look for [ex-MA Gov.] Mitt Romney to be talking up his opposition to gay marriage in the coming months."
• The Next Right's Soren Dayton: "This [ruling] could lead to a further minimization of the Iowa Caucus. My understanding is that Mitt Romney, who must be considered the front-runner, is already trying to figure out how to avoid Iowa or somehow reshuffle the deck. A number of candidates could reasonably try to skip it."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: The Tide Of History

Anonymous Liberal reacts to the Iowa Supreme Court's gay marriage ruling:

"When you take a step back and look at the basic legal argument behind these cases, the correct answer is remarkably clear. So clear, in fact, that I'm quite certain that future generations of lawyers and law students will look at these cases and wonder why it took so long for the courts to reach such an obvious conclusion, particularly in light of the extensive (and directly analogous) case law dealing with miscegenation laws and segregation. Once you accept the premise that there is nothing wrong with being gay (a premise which, I think, the vast majority of people -- especially educated people like judges -- accept), it becomes nearly impossible to make a principled legal argument in defense of laws that prohibit gay people from being married. It's just such an obvious and straightforward violation of equal protection.

I'll go out on a limb and predict that -- within 10 years -- the U.S. Supreme Court, in an opinion authored by Justice [Anthony] Kennedy, will issue a landmark ruling striking down prohibitions on gay marriage. I also believe that the next Democratic presidential nominee will be unapologetically pro gay marriage, and it's not inconceivable that at some point during his time in office, President Obama himself will publicly reverse his position on this issue. The political and legal trajectory of this issue is pretty easy to chart out at this point. And when it reaches its logical endpoint, with full marriage equality across the country, we're all going to look back and wonder why it took so damn long to recognize something so obvious."

LEST WE FORGET: He Has A Great Jump Shot, But What About His Eye Spacing?

ESPN's Bill Simmons posts the following e-mail from "Kevin" in Boulder, Colorado:

"Anyone who watches the Discovery Channel knows that a predator's eyes are in the front so they can gauge the distant to their prey, while a herbivore's eyes are on the sides of their head so they can watch for predators. Look at a picture of Tracy McGrady and tell me that his eyes aren't on the sides of his head. The guy is clearly built to graze, not to hunt. Eye separation is going to be the new wingspan. Mark my words, 15 years from now Jay Bilas will be raving about Lil' Lebron's 'eye spacing.'"

Posted by Ian Faerstein at April 6, 2009 01:22 PM