4/9: Funky Math

As we reported on Tuesday, liberal bloggers reacted very positively to the defense budget proposed by Defense Sec. Robert Gates, which included "deep cuts in many traditional weapons systems but new billions of dollars for others, along with more troops and new technology to fight the insurgencies in Iraq and Afghanistan." To be sure, some lefty bloggers were disappointed that Gates's budget did not reduce overall defense spending (in fact, Gates's $537B budget represents an increase over the $513B appropriated in the final year of George W. Bush's presidency). However, most online progressives praised the budget anyway because they liked the spending shifts that Gates advocated (e.g., less money for missile defense programs and F-22 fighter jets, and more money for increasing the size of the Army and Marine Corps).

Consequently, liberal bloggers are upset that various journalists and politicians are portraying Gates's budget as a reduction in military spending when the budget's bottom line is actually higher than last year's. Steve Benen complains: "Neither Gates nor [Pres.] Obama are proposing defense 'cuts.' Maybe they should, but they're not. Conservatives -- including conservative Democrats -- who argue otherwise just aren't telling the truth."

What else is happening in the blogosphere?

• Conservative bloggers (Malkin, Klein, Morrissey) are warning that Obama will be making a big mistake if he pursues comprehensive immigration reform this year.
• Liberal bloggers (Aravosis, Hamsher) and conservative bloggers (Erickson, Hawkins) are complaining that political advocacy groups aren't advertising on their blogs.

DEFENSE BUDGET: Addition Means Subtraction?

Liberal bloggers are pushing back against the journalists and politicians who imply that Gates is cutting overall military spending:

• Balloon Juice's John Cole: "2009 Pentagon budget: $513 billion. 2010 proposed Pentagon budget: $534 billion. Seriously, I can't be the only person to notice that this 'gutting' of the military includes spending 21 billion more than this year. I remember back in the day when Republicans and conservatives would get upset when Democrats framed increases in spending as cuts. Guess I am just getting old."
• The Washington Monthly's Benen: "[T]his explains why Republican policymakers have so much trouble with budgeting. They've convinced themselves that $534 billion is less than $513 billion. It's long been apparent that GOP lawmakers are bad at governing; it now appears they're also surprisingly bad at arithmetic. It's hard to believe the political discourse could be this ridiculous. The Obama administration not only wants to spend more on the military than Bush did, it also wants to spend more than China, Russia, North Korea, and Iran spend on defense combined -- times three. Neither Gates nor Obama are proposing defense 'cuts.' Maybe they should, but they're not. Conservatives -- including conservative Democrats -- who argue otherwise just aren't telling the truth."
• TPM's Brian Beutler: "[B]y retooling the Pentagon, Obama and Gates plan to move a lot of money around, but they also plan to increase the overall defense budget. [...] But you'd never know that from the news coverage."

Daily Kos' Markos Moulitsas slams Rep. Dan Boren (D-OK) after he questioned Obama's commitment to "providing a strong national defense": "Expect to see shit like this from elected officials from states that live off the military-industrial complex, like Oklahoma. The Oklahoma officials are less concerned with national security, than in protecting a defense cash-cow -- the Future Combat Systems, a network of aerial- and ground-based systems that allow hitting enemy armor without having line-of-sight. [...] While in true defense contractor fashion, the program is being developed in 41 different states (the better to protect funding in Congress), the Oklahoma portion is worth $500 million over three years. [...] Problem is, today's battlefield is less about massive Soviet tank armies, and more about counter-terrorism and counter-insurgency. And existing weapon systems are still technically far superior to anything the Russians or Chinese would be able to field. It makes sense to shift funding from obsolete battleground systems to bolstering the capabilities we most need at this time. Last time anyone checked, Al Qaida or the Taliban aren't running around with T-90s or fielding any artillery heavier than mobile mortars."

Moulitsas continues: "[A]ssholes like Boren and [OK Sen. James] Inhofe, unable to defend the Future Combat Systems on its merits, have to resort to claiming that Obama is weakening national security, even as he bolsters the already bloated defense budget beyond 2008 figures. Rest assured, they care far less about America's security than their defense contractor buddies back home. Otherwise, they'd be fighting for a force configured to fight today's wars, and fighting to protect the investment American taxpayers make in their national security."

DEFENSE BUDGET II: You Should Know Better, Contessa

Liberal bloggers are singling out MSNBC's Contessa Brewer for special criticism after she asked ex-Defense Sec. William Cohen "about this cut in defense spending" (Cohen proceeded to correct her, saying, "it's not a cut; it's a four percent increase"):

• TPM's David Kurtz: "A few minutes ago, Contessa Brewer had on former Secretary of Defense William Cohen, one of that vanishing breed of moderate New England Republicans, and asked him 'about this cut in defense spending.' To his credit, Cohen corrected her: 'By the way, it's not a cut. It's a four percent increase.'"
• Benen: "I get the sense the train has the left the station, and it's not coming back. News outlets -- including real ones, not Fox News -- have already accepted the bogus notion that Gates' plan cuts defense spending. Republican lawmakers aren't just repeating the false claim, they're practically apoplectic about it. The political world has apparently skipped right over the 'some critics of the administration charge....' and gone right to accepting false GOP talking points as fact without debate. Our political discourse can be awfully frustrating sometimes."
• Beutler: "I should say, I don't think this tendency stems from an intentional malice -- it's more of an epiphenomenon rooted in years of being led to believe that the president is obligated to a). increase military spending, and b). do so in a way that preserves or expands all existing Pentagon programs, however wasteful. Anything else computes as a 'spending cut'."

BooMan is frustrated: "Even though Obama's proposed Pentagon budget is more expensive than last year's budget, the Republicans insist on calling it a huge cut in defense spending. [...] I'd prefer to slash the Pentagon's budget by about 20% over Obama's first-term, but re-prioritizing defense spending is just as important as cutting. Obama's defense budget is an improvement in spite of its overall higher pricetag. But if the pricetag is higher to fend off criticism, the only way that will work is if the national media is willing to tell the people the truth without hedging. And when has that ever happened?"

IMMIGRATION: You Sure You Want To Do This Now, Obama?

Conservative bloggers are buzzing about a New York Times article (which was heavily promoted by Matt Drudge) alleging that Obama "plans to begin addressing the country's immigration system this year, including looking for a path for illegal immigrants to become legal." Most righty bloggers think Obama will be making a big mistake if he tries to pass comprehensive immigration reform during an economic recession:

• Michelle Malkin: "Since the last immigration battle, more and more citizens and local and state officials have begun to recognize the ravages of lax enforcement. When Obama moves forward with his official shamnesty legislation, he better be prepared. We've been there. Done that. And the White House should know that we are ready to stop the Open-Borders Express again."
• Power Line's John Hinderaker: "I suppose the Democrats figure they can pass anything they want, so they may as well take advantage of the time from now until 2010. Maybe they've forgotten the groundswell of opposition that arose a couple of years ago when President Bush tried to work with Congress to achieve comprehensive immigration reform. Bush's approval numbers never recovered from that effort; the reaction now, with unemployment much higher and the federal government already in disfavor due to bailouts, deficits, etc., is likely to be even stronger. As with so much that the Obama administration does, whether this is a good thing or a bad thing depends on whether you focus on the well-being of the country, or of the Democrats' political opposition."
• AmSpec Blog's Philip Klein: "The NY Times report that President Obama is planning to address immigration reform this year is pretty surprising. And by surprising I don't mean that it's unexpected that Obama would support legalizing illegal immigrants, but that he would risk a backlash on such a passionate issue that could seriously hinder is ability to achieve other aspects of his agenda. With unemployment at 8.5 percent, Republicans more likely to oppose a path to legalization now that a Democrat is president, and with Democrats having gained seats in a lot of conservative districts by talking tough on immigration, the political environment does not seem conducive to legalizing millions of illegal immigrants."
• Hot Air's Ed Morrissey: "With America bleeding jobs at the moment and unemployment at 8.5% and rising, the sympathy for blessing those who drive wages downward will not flow easily. [...] Democrats elected in traditionally conservative districts will lose those seats in 2010 if they push Obama's view of immigration reform, while Obama doesn't have to face voters for another two years. It could provide a game-changer for the mid-terms, and even [Speaker] Nancy Pelosi has to be smart enough to know that."

On the other hand, Gateway Pundit is nervous: "Democrats will push to legalize millions of illegal immigrants this year thus enslaving America under their socialist agenda for decades. This comes as no surprise. [...] They've got the votes. They've got the media to back them. They've got millions of new voters in the palm of their hand. It's only a matter of time now."

Right Wing News' John Hawkins thinks Obama is bluffing: "I have absolutely no doubt that Barack Obama would love to push amnesty through; however, my gut instinct is that he's going to turn out to be all talk and no action on this issue. Why? Well, I think Obama feels a need to throw a bone to the liberal Hispanic groups that helped get him elected. So, he's bringing this up to give them the impression he's working hard on an issue they care about."

BLOG ADVERTISING: Where's The Love?

As the economic recession takes its toll on online ad spending, liberal bloggers are complaining that political advocacy groups aren't advertising on their blogs. The Washington Post's Greg Sargent reports:

"Some of the leading liberal bloggers are privately furious with the major progressive groups -- and in some cases, the Democratic Party committees -- for failing to spend money advertising on their sites, even as these groups constantly ask the bloggers for free assistance in driving their message."

Two of the liberal bloggers quoted in Sargent's piece -- AMERICAblog's John Aravosis and Firedoglake's Jane Hamsher -- wrote additional posts elaborating on the issue:

• Aravosis: "There is the perception on the right that all of the top liberal blogs are funded by George Soros. I wish. We, for example, are funded by advertising and by your individual donations. Both are dropping in a terrible economy. No one subsidizes my blog. I wish they did. But they don't. [...] The immediate concern, that led to Greg's article above, is the plethora of liberal organizations who ask us for help -- wanting us to promote their pet cause, or simply their executive director's latest uttering -- but who never think of asking us if there's any way they can help us in return. These groups would never, in a million years, ask another liberal organization to post one of their press releases on the other group's Web site. In fact, they'd pay another organization, and do, for access to its members. But these same groups come to the blogs, time and again, and beg for our help, for free, and never give it a thought."
• Hamsher: "If you're Christian Dior and you want your clothes in Vogue, you have an interest in making sure Vogue is there tomorrow and the next day, so you buy advertising. If the New York Times Book Review section is an important part of your plan to sell books, there is a symbiotic interest in making sure your products are on display there, it isn't an attempt to purchase a positive review. So when the AARP announces a million dollar ad campaign to promote health care, and then sends us a press release assuming they'll get free exposure on the blogs, what's wrong with this picture?"

BLOG ADVERTISING II: Throw Us A Frickin' Bone Here

Conservative bloggers are voicing similar complaints:

• Robert Stacy McCain: "What Hamsher and the other progressive bloggers complain about, of course, is true on the Right, too. A conservative 501(c) outfit would much rather hire a 26-year-old dweeb with a master's degree in political science as a policy analyst -- figuring total cost of annual salary and benefits, at say, $80,000 -- than to give $4,000 a year in online grants to 20 right-leaning blogs. Exactly why that's true, I don't know, since $4,000 annually would buy a lot of linky-love, but it is true."
• RedState's Erick Erickson: "One area where the left has done a much better job than the right online is investing in blogs as a component of left-wing activism. [...] In the past few years, SEIU, AFL-CIO, NEA, DCCC, and a host of other left-wing organizations have been buying ads on left of center blogs keeping those blogs going -- allowing the bloggers on the left some financial incentive to keep blogging for the left. In addition to all of that, you've got the Soros gang and SEIU engaging in a host of left-wing activities online that recruit and fund online writers -- bloggers, journalists, etc. The right has not made the investment. In fact, I dare say RedState is one of the very few places where real collaborative work and outreach goes on among right of center organizations. And even here there is no real investment in advertising, etc."
• Hawkins: "We have deep pocketed think tanks and very few of them (Americans for Prosperity and the Sam Adams Alliance are notable exceptions) promote, link, or spend money on blogs. There are loads of deep pocketed donors in the GOP who toss around millions of dollars to fund huge ad budgets -- but, how many of them spend money on blogs? Not many. I got a promo from one of them, that shall remain nameless, a few days back. They were bragging that they were running a million dollar ad campaign. While that's great, as far as I can tell, they're not spending a cent of that ad campaign on conservative blogs -- and do you know how much it would cost to run an ad on every single blog in the conservative advertising network at Blogads for a week? At the moment, only $5,686. That's roughly 1/176 of the amount they're going to spend on this campaign, but they're not even willing to go that far to support the Rightroots that are out in the trenches every day."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Are The Rightroots Emulating Code Pink's Tactics?

Moulitsas thinks conservative bloggers are wasting their time by putting so much effort into the "teaparty" protests:

"Back in our early years, we had better things to do with our time, like organizing for upcoming elections -- the things that actually matter in our modern political system. But the wingers have never been much for electoral organizing, what with their dreams of becoming the next Rush Limbaugh-style media sensation. Their single-minded obsession with punditry leaves little room for the hard work of fighting for an electorally viable Republican Party. And given that it's their ideology specifically that has made them toxic to the voters, they'd have to come up with ideas and whatnot. That wouldn't exactly play to their strengths, know what I'm saying? I mean, their best idea right now is to wave tea bags.

So the poor saps at the Next Right -- the closest thing on the Right they have to what we were doing back in 2002 -- are pretty much ignored and marginalized, while the rest of the conservative netroots is reading from Code Pink's playbook, working hard to replicate their stunning failure at relevancy. Bizarre, but hilarious."

LEST WE FORGET: "You're Fired" -- No, Really

The Hollywood Reporter describes the latest Fox reality show:

"'You're fired' -- but for real.

Fox has ordered a one-hour unscripted series that turns real-life company layoffs into a reality contest. The show's working title is 'Someone's Gotta Go.' Employees are called to a meeting and informed there will be layoffs, but with a reality show twist: The staff will be allowed to determine who is fired. The employees will have access to the company's internal information -- budgets, HR files, salaries, etc. -- to help make their decision.

It's the anti-'Apprentice': Instead of contestants vying for a dream job, they're fighting to keep the lousy one they already have."

The Hater's Amanda Gillette is disgusted:

"Kudos, Fox. In addition to making lay-offs that much more humiliating, you've now forced people to come up with a new low to hyperbolically say that reality television is close to sinking to. 'What's next? Televised executions?' doesn't quite cut it in the wake of Someone's Gotta Go.

How about: 'What's next? Televised slaughter of bald eagles, kittens, and the merciless de-winging of the last pegasus?' Or 'What's next? Who Wants To Be Hobbled?. Or 'What's next? Someone's Gotta Bomb This Orphanage?'"