May 2009 Archives

BLOGGER SPOTLIGHT: Matt Lewis

Today the Blogometer talks to Matt Lewis, who blogs at Townhall.com and PoliticsDaily.com.

(If you're looking for Friday's edition of Blogometer, click here).

Where did you grow up?
A great little place called Wolfsville, MD, which is about 20 miles northwest of Frederick, MD.

Where do you live now?
Just outside Old Town, Alexandria in a little community called Del Ray. I live near the Mayor of Alexandria (and am lobbying him to keep the Gitmo detainees from coming to town).

If you have an occupation other than blogging, what is it?
Blogging for PoliticsDaily.com is my primary focus these days. I should probably mention that everyone should check it out. It's a new site, and I am very pleased to be surrounded by talented writers like Lynn Sweet, Walter Shapiro, and Melinda Henneberger -- just to name a few. Aside from blogging, I sometimes take on projects advising conservatives on new media, etc. But writing is what I love.

What's on your iPod right now?
Johnny Cash, Ryan Adams, G-N-R, Gram Parsons, Cat Stevens...

What book do you think every person should read?
Aside from The Bible, maybe Barry Goldwater's "Conscience of a Conservative" or John Maxwell's "21 Irrefutable Laws of Leadership"

Please finish this sentence: "When I'm not blogging, you'll probably find me..."
Tweeting. ... just kidding. How about playing tennis...badly ...

What has been your favorite blog post, or your favorite story to write about?
Without a doubt, my favorite time as a blogger was covering the 2008 GOP Primaries for Townhall.com. Conservative bloggers were like gods then. A few high points included being a credentialled blogger at the 2008 GOP convention. I also think that Soren Dayton and I may have been the first conservative bloggers ever to ride on the Straight Talk Express -- we were definitely the first conservative bloggers on there in 2008. Can't wait for the 2012 race to heat up...

Which blogger(s) do you consider indispensable, if any?
Erick Erickson, not necessarily for his prose, though he is a good writer, but for his guts. "Indispensable" may be a bit strong way to describe any of us bloggers, but I do think there are quite a few vastly underrated bloggers out there -- and I would include Dan Flynn and the guys at AmSpecBlog in that category.

Who's your favorite non-conservative blogger?
There are non-conservative blogs??? ... Probably Marc Ambinder of The Atlantic. But if you're looking for liberal political bloggers, I've gotten to know and respect Bill Scher and Brian Beutler through "The Week in Blog" -- a bloggingheads.tv diavlog that Bill and I do weekly. I'm also quite impressed with the Virginia-focused blog, Not Larry Sabato.

Who's your favorite active politician? Least favorite?
Being this involved in politics means it's hard to have any romantic notions about the greatness of politicians. The politicians I like least aren't Democrats, but RINO's.

What would you realistically like to see Republicans accomplish in 2009?
Electorally, to win in Virginia and New Jersey. Legislatively, to block socialized health care and a carbon tax.

If you could give President Obama advice, what would it be?
Drive everybody mad by just doing what is right, despite political considerations and Democratic sacred cows. Here's one example: Build some nuclear plants. They are good for the environment and help provide domestic energy ...

What keeps you up at night?
The loud snoring of my two adorable pugs.

Please feel free to ask and answer your own question.
Now that you've won the Oscar, who would you like to thank for helping you get to the point that National Journal's Hotline would want to interview you???
Wow, tough question, but I'm glad you asked... There are so many ... I'd have to say one is Morton Blackwell, the founder of the Leadership Institute. Morton is one of the most honorable and decent human beings I've ever met. He is truly a class act, and I am grateful for everything he has taught me over the years. Another is John Dunagan -- a public relations/grassroots lobbying guru -- who has been a mentor and friend for about a decade now. Lyn Nofziger, the former [Ronald] Reagan aide, was very kind to me and taught me much. Former Ohio Secretary of State Ken Blackwell has been a terrific friend and source over the years. Ken is one of the nicest guys you'll ever meet. And lastly, my dad, Marvin 'Tex' Lewis had the most influence on me. He was a great man, and I still sometimes almost pick up the phone to call him when I have some exciting news -- or need advice ...

5/29: Oh, Tancredo

The debate over SCOTUS nominee Sonia Sotomayor continues to roil the political blogosphere. Throughout the week, liberal bloggers have been pushing back fiercely against what they perceive to be racially-tinged attacks on Sotomayor. They've been particularly critical of conservative pundits who are calling Sotomayor an "affirmative action" beneficiary (Pat Buchanan, Fred Barnes) or a "racist" (Rush Limbaugh, Newt Gingrich). Now lefty bloggers are blasting ex-Rep. Tom Tancredo (R) for criticizing Sotomayor's affiliation with the National Council of La Raza, a Latino civil rights group which Tancredo dubs "a Latino KKK." Jeralyn Merritt declares that "Tom Tancredo has officially lost his marbles" while Dave Meyer calls on Sens. John McCain (R-AZ) and Mel Martinez (R-FL) to denounce Tancredo's remarks, since both of them have addressed the NCLR in the past. Meanwhile, several conservative bloggers think Tancredo needs to be quiet. Patrick Ruffini writes: "Republicans cannot shy away from legitimate critcisms of Sotomayor's job performance and judicial philosophy [...] At the same time, we will need to ostracize those who would bring ethnicity into the equation."

What else is happening in the blogosphere?

• Liberal bloggers (Bowers, McCarter, Silver) are citing a new Gallup poll indicating that Americans' initial reactions to the Sotomayor nomination "are decidedly more positive than negative." However, conservative bloggers (Emanuel, Erickson, Klein) continue to criticize Sotomayor's 2001 suggestion "that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life."
• After RedState founder Erick Erickson continued to criticize NRSC Chair John Cornyn for endorsing Gov. Charlie Crist over ex-state House Speaker Marco Rubio in the FL GOP Senate primary, Cornyn wrote a blog post on RedState defending the Crist endorsement.
• Liberal bloggers (Bowers, Benen, Orton) continue to discuss Rep. Joe Sestak's prospects in the PA SEN Dem primary, should he decide to challenge Sen. Arlen Specter. In other SEN news, liberal bloggers (Singiser, Sudbay) are buzzing about the news that MO SEN candidate Roy Blunt (R) owes $6,820 in back taxes on his D.C. home.
• In GOV news, conservative blogger Moe Lane interviews SC GOV candidate Nikki Haley (R), while liberal blogger Jerome Armstrong slams VA GOV candidate Terry McAuliffe (D).
• Liberal bloggers (Benen, McCarter, Dayen, Sudbay) are pleased that Sen. Ben Nelson (D-NE) reversed his position on including a public option in health care reform (Nelson initially called it a "deal-breaker", but he now says that he's "open" to it). Lefty bloggers are attributing Nelson's switch to a $10K ad campaign launched by Change Congress, an advocacy group founded by Stanford prof. Lawrence Lessig and Dem strategist Joe Trippi.

Finally, please check back later today for our interview with Matt Lewis!

TANCREDO: Too Much?

Liberal bloggers are slamming Tancredo for claiming that Sotomayor is a member of "a Latino KKK":

• TPM's Josh Marshall: "[I]t's painfully revealing how conservatives simply cannot helping going hard on the race front with Sotomayor or, as David Kurtz just put it, can't help imagining that everyone else is as racist as many of them are. For those who aren't familiar with it, La Raza is basically a Latino equivalent of B'nai Brith or the NAACP. Garden variety and uncontroversial unless you thinks it's a public safety issue if more than a handful of Mexicans or Puerto Ricans get together in one place at the same time."
• The Washington Monthly's Steve Benen: "It's like we're watching a test play out in real time -- can the right criticize a Democratic president's Supreme Court nominee on the merits, and steer clear of racism? Just three days into the process, it's a test too many on the right are failing. Badly. I suspect some Republican leaders will distance themselves from Tancredo's madness today, which would be wise. But it obviously throws the GOP off message -- instead of going on the offensive, party leaders will have to spend time keeping one of the their own at arm's length."
• MyDD's Charles Lemos: "It is disturbing to see the criticism of La Raza rear its ugly head. As someone who self-identifies as Hispanic, it concerns me that some of these attacks are little more than an open season on Americans of Hispanic origin."
• TalkLeft's Merritt: "Tom Tancredo has officially lost his marbles."

Other lefty bloggers are calling on Sens. McCain and Martinez to denounce Tancredo's remarks, since both of them have addressed the NCLR in the past.

TANCREDO II: Cool It, Tom

Several conservative bloggers think Tancredo needs to be quiet:

• Hot Air's Allahpundit: "I realize that any concession to electoral reality is disdained by 'true conservatives' as the hallmark of a squishy RINO, but with Republicans nervous about alienating Hispanic voters by confronting Sotomayor, how wise is it for the most vociferous amnesty opponent in America to be doing the rounds on cable news throwing verbal grenades like this? You worked hard in Congress for a long time, Tanc. Take a break. Especially now that the GOP's got a tiny bit of traction in making Democrats squirm over her 'wise Latina' comment."
• The Next Right's Ruffini: "Republicans cannot shy away from legitimate critcisms of Sotomayor's job performance and judicial philosophy, just as we will have to learn to more effectively criticize [Barack] Obama. [...] At the same time, we will need to ostracize those who would bring ethnicity into the equation. If Republicans don't like the tenor of the opposition, we should not be afraid to nuke the bad actors on our side while amping up criticism of Sotomayor's legal record. The trick is not so much being delicate but being rough both with the left and certain people on the right to insulate against charges that our opposition is anything other than policy-based. The ideal messaging to my mind would be as follows: (1.) Tom Tancredo is an idiot. (2.) Sotomayor's decisions, her stated penchant for 'making policy' from the bench, and her high reversal rate among those she aspires to join all render her nomination profoundly troubling. (3.) Tom Tancredo is still an idiot."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Health Care Reform And Entrepreneurship

MIT prof. Jonathan Gruber (h/t Kevin Drum):

"Universal health insurance, far from suppressing entrepreneurship, could be a boon to it. The main reason for this is a phenomenon known as 'job lock,' a term coined during the last round of debate over universal health coverage in the early 1990s. Job lock refers to the fact that workers are often unwilling to leave a current job that provides health insurance for another position that might not, even if they would be more productive in that other position. This is because employer-provided insurance is traditionally the only reliable form of fairly priced private insurance coverage available in the U.S. The alternative is to purchase insurance in the nongroup market, where insurance prices and availability are typically not regulated, so insurance companies can drop individuals when they become ill or charge them exorbitant prices. As a result, individuals feel 'locked' into less productive jobs. [...]

[T]he most convincing research, by Alison Wellington, mirrors the findings of other job mobility studies: Americans who have an alternative source of health insurance, such as a spouse's coverage, are much more likely to be self-employed than those who don't. Wellington estimates that universal health care would therefore likely increase the share of workers who are self-employed (currently about 10 percent of the workforce) by another 2 percent or more. A system that provides universal access to health insurance coverage, then, is far more likely to promote entrepreneurship than one in which would-be innovators remain tied to corporate cubicles for fear of losing their family's access to affordable health care."

LEST WE FORGET: His Private Life Is Irrelevant, Counselor

From Overheard in the Office:

Attorney on conference call: Your honor, opposing counsel is beating a dead whore!

5/28: Rooting For The Admiral

While SCOTUS nominee Sonia Sotomayor remains the dominant topic in blogosphere discussions, the PA SEN race received some attention yesterday when TPM reported that Rep. Joe Sestak (D-07) intends to challenge Sen. Arlen Specter (D). Liberal bloggers, who have been urging Sestak to run ever since Specter switched parties, were delighted by the news. digby describes Sestak as "an improvement over Specter in every way" while Atrios (a Philly resident) immediately promised to donate $100 to Sestak as soon as he makes it official. Atrios went on to explain his feelings about the race: "While replacing the senior senator from Pennsylvania is certainly something I support in any case, even if Sestak doesn't succeed it's important for someone to be there to make sure Arlen behaves." Despite their enthusiasm for Sestak, lefty bloggers concede that he faces "an uphill climb" -- particularly now that the PA Dem party plans to support Specter.

What else is happening in the blogosphere?

• Conservative bloggers (Malkin, Ace of Spades, Hawkins, Painter, Bandes) are buzzing about allegations (which were first made by a conservative blogger and then by a Washington Examiner editor) that "the [Barack] Obama administration has systematically targeted for closing Chrysler dealers who contributed to Repubicans." Liberal blogger Nate Silver responds by noting that car dealers as a group are "overwhelmingly more likely to donate to Republicans than to Democrats" and concludes that "there's no conspiracy here, folks."
• Conservative bloggers (Hengler, McCain) are excited about reports that ex-AR Gov. Mike Huckabee (R) will endorse ex-state House Speaker Marco Rubio (R) in the FL SEN GOP primary. One righty blogger wonders if AK Gov. Sarah Palin (R) will be the next GOP heavyweight to endorse Rubio.
• Several liberal bloggers (Bowers, Silver) are discussing the news that businessman Merrick Alpert (D) will challenge Sen. Chris Dodd (D) in the CT SEN Dem primary, although they don't consider Alpert a reliable progressive.
• Conservative bloggers (Chesser, Mirengoff, Cianfrocca, Hinderaker) continue to hammer Sotomayor over her 2001 suggestion "that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life."
• Liberal bloggers (McCarter, Yglesias, Cole, O'Connor) are hitting back hard at Sotomayor's detractors. Many lefty bloggers (Greenwald, Lewison, Serwer, Benen) are pointing out that conservative SCOTUS Justice Samuel Alito emphasized his background as the descendant of Italian immigrants during his confirmation hearings. Other liberal bloggers (Adam B., Beutler, Blue Texan) are pointing out that President George H.W. Bush spoke about Clarence Thomas's "empathy" while nominating him for the SCOTUS.
• Liberal bloggers (Cook, Brad, Lange, Terkel, Drum) are mocking National Review blogger Mark Krikorian after he complained that "putting the emphasis on the final syllable of Sotomayor is unnatural in English...and insisting on an unnatural pronunciation is something we shouldn't be giving in to." Liberal bloggers (Yglesias, Foser, Serwer, White) are also blasting National Journal columnist Stuart Taylor for his criticism of Sotomayor.

PA SEN: Let's Go, Joe!

Liberal bloggers are pleased that Sestak is reportedly planning to challenge Specter:

• dday: "This is spectacular. Nobody, least of all Arlen Specter, should have a free ride to the halls of power. My personal feeling is that Joe Sestak is superior to Specter in just about every way, but even if he were not, I would support this for just about any and every seat. Primaries are healthy. They keep politicians honest. They allow the people to make the key decisions on who to represent them, instead of having the options shoved down their throats."
• Atrios: "While replacing the senior senator from Pennsylvania is certainly something I support in any case, even if Sestak doesn't succeed it's important for someone to be there to make sure Arlen behaves. I'm in for $100 once it's officially official."
• digby: "I think this is a very healthy development. If Specter wants to win as a Democrat, at least this way he'll have to prove he is one. I understand why the Party made promises, but they were promises they weren't empowered to make, so Sestak has every right to run and if he can raise the necessary money and win good for him. He would be an improvement over Specter in every way."
• Think Progress' Matthew Yglesias: "Party leaders, and especially outfits like the DSCC, tend to be highly primary averse. But I think there's little in the way of solid evidence that primaries are bad for a political party. Of course under certain circumstances primary challenges can be destructive -- as when a party's base demands ideological orthodoxy in a district or state that an orthodox candidate can't win -- but neither Sestak nor Specter is a down-the-line liberal, and Pennsylvania's a left-of-center state so from a progressive point of view it strikes me as desirable that there be some competition for the nomination."
• The Washington Monthly's Steve Benen: "It's fair to say Sestak would enter the contest as the underdog. [...] But I wouldn't bet against Sestak. He's proven himself a capable lawmaker; he has an impressive military background; he's a life-long Dem; he has some money in the bank; and Pennsylvania Democrats are far from sold on Specter, who has given them plenty of reasons lately to question his fealty to his new party."

MyDD's Josh Orton is more ambivalent about a potential Sestak candidacy: "Two sides to this. On the one hand, I don't want Sestak to run and fail hard without support -- SEIU backed WAY off and Arlen's enjoying the President's fundraising machine. On the other hand, Specter's a pretty weak Democrat -- his party change was all politics. Plus, primaries are healthy and Pennsylvania Democrats are less than thrilled with him. If Sestak runs a decent race with the goal of nudging Specter left, it could be a good thing."

Meanwhile, Daily Kos' Steve Singiser notes that a Sestak candidacy "would be an uphill climb," since numerous polls show Specter leading Sestak by a large margin.

On the right side of the blogosphere, Hot Air's Allahpundit welcomes the news, although he still thinks Specter will win the Dem nod: "It's a longshot -- Specter leads [Sestak] by 40 points thanks to the advantage in name recognition -- but this'll at least make him squirm a little on his way to the nomination. It helps [GOP Rep. Pat] Toomey, too, since Sestak supports card check and will run to Specter's left; the more Benedict Arlen attacks him from the center, the more likely disgruntled lefties and union members will hold a grudge during the general election."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: The Richness Of One's Experience

The American Conservative's Daniel Larison defends Sotomayor's expressed hope "that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life":

"Suppose for a moment that a conservative Catholic man in a similar position said that he hoped that the richness of his religious tradition would inform and shape his judgments that would more often than not help him to make better judgments than someone without that background. Such a person might reasonably and legitimately claim this. No doubt there would be a comparable freak-out in certain circles on the left that theocracy was on the march, while conservatives would declare it outrageous (indeed, the imposition of a religious test!) that anyone would object to a statement about the importance of the man's faith to his formation and thinking. She is not asserting that Latinas are naturally superior judges, nor is she even saying that they are necessarily better on account of their experiences, but that she hopes that they would be. One might almost think that her recognition that impartiality is something to be pursued, but that it is never fully achievable, would be considered a refreshingly honest admission that judges have biases and are shaped by their past experiences. For a moment, imagine a pious Christian who expressed a similar hope that his faith would make him a better judge than an unbeliever. No doubt this would raise the hackles of all kinds of people, but it would no more make him a religious fanatic than Sotomayor's rather mild comments make her a 'racialist'."

LEST WE FORGET: Sotomayor Opposed By Powerful Anti-Empathy Lobby

The Huffington Post's Andy Borowitz:

"The Supreme Court nomination of Sonia Sotomayor faces new hurdles today, in the form of pressure to block her confirmation from the powerful anti-empathy lobby. H. Walker Ranston, executive director of the American Anti-Empathy League, said that his organization was going to 'do a full-court press' to convince Republican senators to vote down Ms. Sotomayor.

'Sonia Sotomayor has repeatedly made statements indicating that she has a human heart,' Mr. Ranston said. 'That is the last thing this Court needs.'

The lobbyist said that his group's 50,000 members were 'deeply disappointed' by the choice of the empathic Sotomayor, explaining, 'We were really hoping for a sociopath.' [...]

Looking ahead to her confirmation hearings, Mr. Ranston said that Ms. Sotomayor can expect a tough grilling in the Senate over her 'suspiciously pro-empathy views.'

'I'd like to say that I feel for her for what she's about to go through, but I'm incapable of that,' he said."

5/27: An Opportunity Or A Threat?

As we noted yesterday, most conservative bloggers believe that SCOTUS nominee Sonia Sotomayor is likely to get confirmed. However, they still think that it's in the GOP's interest to aggressively oppose her nomination. Philip Klein explains that "the upcoming Sotomayor fight isn't really a fight about whether she should be confirmed -- Republicans pretty much lost that one last November -- it's a fight about whether [Barack] Obama gets to define Sotomayor as a 'moderate.'" Similarly, Roger Pilon argues that Sotomayor's confirmation hearings provide "an opportunity for Republicans to reestablish their identity" as opponents of the type of "identity politics" that Sotomayor supposedly represents.

Along these lines, many righty bloggers are focusing on a lecture that Sotomayor delivered in '02, in which she suggested "that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life." One conservative blogger claims that this speech reveals Sotomayor to be "a garden-variety race-hustling bigot." Another warns that "if [Sotomayor] does not walk away from her prior statement, then (coupled with her positions on race-based preferences) the Republicans may have (a) a basis for asserting the existence of an extraordinary circumstance and (b) a tenable political basis for obstructing this nominee."

Liberal bloggers, on the other hand, contend that a judge's background inevitably affects his or her decision-making. digby writes: "All humans bring their personal experiences to everything they do. Even judges. Admitting this, and believing that your experience gives you a unique insight into certain aspects of how the world works, does not make you a 'reverse racist.'" That said, lefty bloggers don't particularly mind that conservatives are attacking Sotomayor in this way, as they believe that the GOP is only further damaging its reputation among Latinos. Scott Lemieux quips: "If the GOP wants to make a big stand on affirmative action in the context of the first Hispanic-American nominee -- and hence continue its demographic death spiral -- I say bring it on."

What else is happening in the blogosphere?

• After angering liberal bloggers earlier this month by writing an anonymously-sourced article entitled, "The Case Against Sotomayor", The New Republic's Jeff Rosen claimed yesterday that Sotomayor should be confirmed and complained that conservatives are "willfully misread[ing]" his piece. However, that's not stopping liberal bloggers (Cole, Greenwald, Dayen, Serwer) from blasting him. Conservative bloggers (Ponnuru, McCarthy) also believe that Rosen has no right to complain about how his article is being used.
• Conservative bloggers (Morrissey, Lane, Malkin) are buzzing about the revelation that Sen. Roland Burris (D-IL) spoke with the brother of ex-IL Gov. Rod Blagojevich "about how to raise campaign cash for the governor without creating the perception he was buying his way into Congress."

SOTOMAYOR: What The GOP Should Do

While most conservative bloggers think that Sotomayor is likely to get confirmed, they still believe that it's in the GOP's interest to oppose her (although they're wary of using a filibuster):

• Townhall's Carol Platt Liebau: "Republicans don't have the votes to defeat Sotomayor -- and should be extremely cautious even in considering a filibuster. There is so much at stake right now that it's going to be important to 'prioritize' properly. But what the GOP will have is an opportunity through the hearings to show what liberal judging is all about -- and they need to take that moment."
• AmSpec Blog's Klein: "[T]he confirmation process of a high-profile position such as a Supreme Court justice is an opportunity to illuminate the consequences of elections. In the case of the Sotomayor appointment, while she's likely to coast through the Senate given the Democrats' sheer numbers, the American public needs to understand why this is such a radical pick. The Obama/Sotomayor idea that judges, instead of making impartial rulings based on the law and the Constitution, should base their decisions (at least in part) on their own experiences and ethnic background, is outrageous. It is perfectly appropriate for Republicans and conservatives to make this point, and there's no reason why they can't do so in a respectful manner. In short, the upcoming Sotomayor fight isn't really a fight about whether she should be confirmed -- Republicans pretty much lost that one last November -- it's a fight about whether Obama gets to define Sotomayor as a 'moderate.'"
• The Cato Institute's Pilon: "President Obama's nomination of Judge Sonia Sotomayor to replace Justice David Souter on the Supreme Court will pose difficulties for Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee. Judge Sotomayor's personal story is deeply compelling, and she is the first Latino nominee to the High Court. Republicans need to reach out to that important voting block. But they also need to reestablish their identity, which has been rooted, from the time of Lincoln, not in the 'identity politics' that has so dominated the Democrats' agenda in recent years but in the fundamental idea that every American should be treated as an individual, nowhere more clearly captured than in our national motto, E Pluribus Unum -- from many, one. Here is an opportunity for Republicans to reestablish that identity, if they handle it smartly, because there is much in Judge Sotomayor's record to suggest that she subscribes to identity politics."
• Power Line's Paul Mirengoff: "I submit that Republican Senators should feel free to vote against Sotomayor. Half of the Senate Democrats voted against [John] Roberts and a strong majority voted against [Samuel] Alito. They did this for no other reason than their desire not to have another 'conservative' on the Supreme Court. There is substantial evidence that Sotomayor is a 'liberal.' Thus, non-liberal Senators have every right to vote against her for that reason. [...] So far, I'm aware of no extraordinary circumstance that would justify a filibuster against Sotomayor. Her attempt to 'fly under the radar screen' while upholding racial discrimination against non-black firefighters was deplorable, but probably not sufficiently so."

Other conservative bloggers are fiercely opposed to Sotomayor:

• AmSpec Blog's Quin Hillyer: "I never in my life thought I could possibly see a Supreme Court pick as bad as Sonia Sotomayor. Barack Obama is quite clearly trying to upend all the underpinnings of American society in order to create his own version of a Brave New World. [...] He nominates the most radical possible choice for the Supreme Court, a woman whose speeches and writings are so obscenely racialist that no white male could possible get away with saying anything like those things and live, professionally, for even a single additional day. [...] This is a war for our civic souls. We dare not lose it."
• RedState's Warner Todd Huston: "[A]ny obviation of conservative principle to pander for the Hispanic vote is a fool's errand. It isn't worth the erosion of our principles to try and cajole votes from the Hispanic community. This is absolutely not to say that we should abandon any efforts to recruit good Hispanic candidates that exhibit strong conservative principles, far from it. But, as in this case, meekly accepting a candidate like Sotomayor will do no good to help us gain the vaunted Hispanic vote. [...W]e should not allow her candidacy to quietly glide by unopposed."

On the other hand, Ben Domenech thinks that Sotomayor is "mostly harmless" because she hasn't demonstrated "the gift for motivating or shifting her fellow justices." Meanwhile, Hugh Hewitt believes that "conservative interest groups should spare us the histrionics and work on increasing the number of Republicans in the upper chamber," since "any hope of serious opposition to a nominee requires more Republican senators pure and simple."

SOTOMAYOR II: The Berkeley Speech

Many conservative bloggers are focusing on a lecture that Sotomayor delivered at the U.C. Berkeley School of Law in '02, in which she said, "I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life":

• The New Ledger's Pejman Yousefzadeh: "No one doubts that [Sotomayor] has lived a rich life. But why does Judge Sotomayor believe that a white male may not have also lived a rich life?"
• NRO's Rich Lowry: "The Latina Lecture [is] pretty amazing. Have we ever had a Supreme Court justice before who stated quite frankly that he or she is incapable of being objective?"
• Liebau: "By trashing the idea of judicial impartiality -- and discounting the importance of aspiring to it -- Judge Sotomayor engages in a thought (and judicial) process that is not only unjust, but is deeply inimical to the success of a diverse country like ours."
• RedState's E Pluribus Unum: "[Sotomayor]'s a garden-variety race-hustling bigot. You should read the transcript of this lecture she gave at the Cal-Berkeley Law School in 2001. You should read every word of this thoroughly bigoted piece of rotting carp that probably went over well, considering where it was delivered. From top to bottom it advocated the notion that the judiciary was only fair insomuch as the racial and gender makeup of the judiciary approached that of the population. It said, in so many words, that only women and minorities were truly capable of rendering justice."
• Mirengoff: "Sotomayor's suggestion that, other things being equal, Latina judges can decide cases better than their white male counterparts hints at a special circumstance, since it entails a view of judging that arguably is antithetical to existing norms. Sotomayor should be examined carefully on this question. If she does not walk away from her prior statement, then (coupled with her positions on race-based preferences) the Republicans may have (a) a basis for asserting the existence of an extraordinary circumstance and (b) a tenable political basis for obstructing this nominee."
• NRO's Peter Kirsanow: "Does Sotomayor contend that a judge's interpretive approach is hard-wired to her gender and ethnicity? Does that mean that litigants should necessarily expect different decisions from a Justice Roberts than a Justice Sotomayor? What would Sotomayor think if John Roberts had made the identical statement? Is there any doubt that several members of the Judiciary Committee would've declared the statement sexist and racist?"

A few righty bloggers (Lewis, Kopel) are focusing on Sotomayor's Second Amendment views, but Sotomayor's views on race appear to be generating the most commentary in the conservative blogosphere.

SOTOMAYOR III: Everyone Has Feelings

Liberal bloggers, on the other hand, dispute the notion that a judge's experiences shouldn't play a role in his or her decision-making:

• Think Progress' Matthew Yglesias: "[T]his argument about 'feelings' is really beneath contempt. Judicial decisions aren't made by robots or Vulcans. By definition, controversial appellate cases arise in situations where reasonable people disagree about how to construe and apply the law."
• digby: "One can't know for sure that the fact that Chief Justice John Roberts, who has so far voted every single time with the ruling elites, was affected by his personal experience as a privileged white male, coddled, groomed and rewarded from his earliest days by the conservative establishment he served, but it certainly isn't unfair to think he might have been. [...] All humans bring their personal experiences to everything they do. Even judges. Admitting this, and believing that your experience gives you a unique insight into certain aspects of how the world works, does not make you a 'reverse racist.'"
• Open Left's Chris Bowers: "Here is what I have learned today from conservatives about the proper characteristics of a Supreme Court Justice: (1.) It is necessary that the a Supreme Court Justice have no empathy, or feelings of any kind. (2.) It is necessary that a Supreme Court Justice have no gender, ethnicity, or identity of any kind. (3.) It is necessary that a Supreme Court Justice have no views on right or wrong of any kind, and only 'follow the law.' Given these characteristics, unless I am hearing conservatives wrong, what we really need are robots on the Supreme Court."
• Mother Jones' Kevin Drum: "Conservatives, who seem constitutionally unable of viewing any non-white nominee as anything other than identity politics run wild, have already decided [Sotomayor]'s just a crass affirmative action hire. Out of a decade-long appelate court career, the only opinion of hers they seem to have heard of, or care about, is Ricci. And unlike all the middle class white guys on the court, who are apparently paragons of race-blind rationality, they're convinced that she's just naturally going to be incapable of judging any case before her as anything other than a woman and a Hispanic."

SOTOMAYOR IV: Bring It On

Liberal bloggers are convinced that the GOP is hurting itself politically by attacking Sotomayor:

• TAPPED's Lemieux: "If the GOP wants to make a big stand on affirmative action in the context of the first Hispanic-American nominee -- and hence continue its demographic death spiral -- I say bring it on."
• The Atlantic's Ta-Nehisi Coates: "I'd love to see [the GOP] push the argument that a Latina who goes from the the South Bronx to Princeton summa cum laude, who has more time on the bench than of the people serving had when they were nominated, who was nominated to the bench by a Republican, is an unqualified Affirmative Action pick. My sense is that they aren't that stupid -- at least in the Senate. [RNC Chair] Michael Steele and his band are another story."
• Balloon Juice's John Cole: "The only decision the Republicans have right now is whether or not they filibuster Sotomayor. That is it. They are operating from a point of real weakness right now, and the only choice they have to make is whether or not to go all in. If they decide not to filibuster, all that remains is a balancing act for them -- how to not do a bunch of damage to themselves by way of hyperbolic statements that will be played on infinite loop in heavy Hispanic areas in the 2010 midterms, but at the same time still making it look like they are throwing some red meat to the base to keep the fundraising money coming in to the coffers. I'd argue that having [ex-Rep.] Tom Tancredo and crazy Uncle Pat Buchanan on television screaming 'reverse racism' and 'affirmative action pick' is a particularly striking example of failing to find the appropriate balance. The real question here is how much damage the Republicans will manage to do to themselves, at least right now."
• Drum: "The wingnut wing of the Republican Party seems hugely energized by Sotomayor's nomination and ready to go ballistic over it. This might be good for them in the short term (it's a nice fundraising opportunity, brings internal factions together, etc.), but Obama, as usual, is looking a few moves ahead and understands that a shrieking meltdown from the usual suspects will mostly help the liberal cause: the American public already thinks the conservative rump running the Republican Party is crazy, after all, and this will help cast that feeling in stone."
• Balloon Juice's DougJ: "[T]he fact is that screaming about about quota queens and welfare moms and young bucks buying T-bone steaks simply is not a magic bullet anymore. It works with white southerners and it works with Chris Matthews' cranky uncle. But the Republican party has already maxed out with that demographic. Unless they can improve their standing with women, Latinos, and younger voters, they're screwed. Obviously, attacking a Latino woman for being a Latino woman will hurt politically with Latinos and women."
• Daily Kos' Markos Moulitsas: "Latinos are going to be looking very closely at how the GOP treats Sotomayor. And I bet they won't like what they see."

The Atlantic's Andrew Sullivan: "This president is more cunning than he might seem. Today's news photos of Sotomayor are also strikingly attractive and charismatic. You can imagine how this pick plays in the West and Southwest. As shrewdly as the [John] Huntsman pick for China, this is both a defensible policy pick and a brilliant piece of domestic politics. The visuals of [Senate Judicary Cmte Ranking Member] Jeff Sessions laying into her will not help the GOP in exactly those places it desperately needs. Advantage: Obama."

SOTOMAYOR V: But Who's Gonna Stand Up For The White Guy?

Liberal bloggers are blasting Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK) after he released a statement questioning whether Sotomayor is able "to rule fairly without undue influence from her own personal race, gender, or political preferences":

• TAPPED's Dana Goldstein: "Yes. Because the worldviews of John Roberts, Sam Alito, John Paul Stevens, Anthony Kennedy, Stephen Breyer, and Antonin Scalia are not impacted at all by their white male identities. White men are raceless and genderless, haven't you heard?"
• Media Matters' Melinda Warner: "What does that even mean? Would Sen. Inhofe have said the same thing if a white male had been nominated? Would he have asserted that the nominee should refrain from making decisions based upon his race and gender?"
• The Washington Monthly's Steve Benen: "Inhofe, who no one has ever accused of being the sharpest tool in the shed, could have easily just made veiled references to Sotomayor's ideology, and wrapped it up by hinting at his inevitable opposition to her nomination. But the Oklahoma Republican just had to go the extra mile here, and introduce race and gender into the equation. [...] Put it this way: when was the last time James Inhofe questioned whether a white nominee for the federal bench had an ability to rule 'without undue influence' from his race? Would he worry about the Vatican having 'undue influence' over a Roman Catholic nominee? Has he ever checked to make sure a male nominee was not overly influenced by his gender?"
• MyDD's Josh Orton: "In reality, this helps the White House, because the dumbest thing Republicans can do is try to derail Sotomayor solely on race or gender."
• AMERICAblog's John Aravosis: "[Inhofe does] have a point. I mean, do we really want Sotomayor yelling 'Lucy I'm home!' every time she arrives at an oral argument?"

Inhofe isn't the only conservative taking fire from the netroots after criticizing Sotomayor. Many liberal bloggers (digby, Sudbay, Serwer, Morrill) are blasting ex-DoJ atty John Yoo for slamming the Sotomayor pick. Other liberal bloggers (Waldman, Smith, DougJ) are mocking ex-AR Gov. Mike Huckabee (R) for incorrectly referring to Sonia Sotomayor as "Maria" Sotomayor in his statement criticizing her nomination.

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: I've Seen This Movie Before

Drum is tired of the "Supreme Court Kabuki":

"We all know how this is going to play out. First, everyone is going to start looking for some dark secret in [Sotomayor's] background that will derail her nomination. That will probably fail. Then she'll testify before the Senate, and everyone will ask what she thinks of Roe and Casey and Kelo. She'll dutifully claim that she's never even heard of these cases, and on the off chance that any of them ring a bell, she'll sing the usual song about how it would be improper to say anything about any matter that might come before the court in the future. Which is everything. After a few weeks of this, all the Democrats and maybe a dozen or so Republicans will vote to confirm her and she'll join the court in time for the fall term.

It's all so tedious. So instead of going though with it, why don't we just pretend we did all this, confirm her tomorrow, and then get back to something important, like fighting a couple of wars, trying to rescue the world economy, creating a national healthcare plan, and stopping global warming?"

LEST WE FORGET: Touche!

From Overheard in New York:

Crazy, loud hobo on train, repeating: "Jesus" is a six letter word! "666" means the devil! So, Jesus is the devil!
Fed-up passenger: Hey asshole, "Jesus" is 5 letters, not six!
Crazy hobo, pensive: Well, shit, there goes my whole argument.

5/26: It's Sotomayor

Most conservative bloggers concede that SCOTUS nominee/Second Circuit judge Sonia Sotomayor is "very likely to be confirmed." However, that's not stopping them from pushing a negative narrative about her. The primary line of attack in the conservative blogosphere is that Sotomayor is a relatively unimpressive jurist who was only selected because of her ethnicity and gender. Ramesh Ponnuru describes Sotomayor as "Obama's Harriet Miers" while Erick Erickson declares: "Conservatives rejoice. Of all the picks Obama could have picked, he picked the most intellectually shallow." While some righty bloggers are criticizing Sotomayor's judicial philosophy, there isn't (yet) a groundswell of support for a GOP filibuster.

Meanwhile, liberal bloggers love the political implications of the pick, as they believe that GOPers will alienate female voters and Hispanic voters if they attack Sotomayor's qualifications and intellect. John Aravosis calls the nomination "a brilliant move by the Obama people" while Chris Bowers writes: "Not only will they be unable to stop Sotomayor, but they will look terrible trying to stop her. (Let's attack empathy some more! Let's demonize minorities some more!)"

What else is happening in the blogosphere?

• Conservative bloggers (Liebau, Johnson, Morrissey, Reynolds) are accusing the Obama admin. of not taking the North Korea nuclear program seriously. Liberal bloggers (Dayen, Lemos, Benen) are also offering their thoughts on the North Korea situation.
• Liberal bloggers (Greenwald, Dayen, Llorens, Beutler) are buzzing about the news that Sen. Russ Feingold (D-WI) wrote a letter to Obama criticizing the President's "indefinite detention" plan for suspected terrorists.
• Conservative bloggers (Johnson, Morrissey, Lane) are praising MN Gov. Tim Pawlenty (R) for employing some legislative maneuvering to balance the state's budget.

SOTOMAYOR: Obama's Harriet Miers?

Conservative bloggers are portraying Sotomayor is a relatively unimpressive jurist who was only nominated because of her race and gender:

• Michelle Malkin: "So, it's Sonia Sotomayor. Identity politics triumphs."
• NRO's Ponnuru: "[B]ased on the early signs it appears that President Obama has made the crassest of political picks."
• Right Wing News' John Hawkins: "Barack Obama picked Sonia Sotomayor because she's Hispanic, female, and is willing to put liberal political concerns above the Constitution. That checks a couple of important political boxes for him and gets him a liberal judge on the court."
• The Cato Institute's Ilya Shapiro: "In picking Sonia Sotomayor, President Obama has confirmed that identity politics matter to him more than merit. Judge Sotomayor is not one of the leading lights of the federal judiciary and would not even have been on the shortlist if she were not Hispanic. She has a mixed reputation, with a questionable temperament and no particularly important opinions in over 10 years on the Second Circuit. [...] If this is the kind of 'empathy' the president wants from his judges, we are in for a long summer—and more bitter confirmation battles in the future."
• RedState's Erickson: "Conservatives rejoice. Of all the picks Obama could have picked, he picked the most intellectually shallow. Even The New Republic has been rather scathing about her. It's like Obama decided he wanted a Souter to replace Souter."

SOTOMAYOR II: Another One Of Them Activist Judges!

Other conservative bloggers are criticizing Sotomayor's judicial philosophy:

• Townhall's Matt Lewis: "Make no mistake: Sotomayor is a hard-left nominee who is more liberal than Judge Souter. Her judicial philosophy -- based on her previous comments and decisions -- implies that she believes her personal political agenda is more important than the law."
• Pajamas Media's Roger Kimball: "The more one looks into Sotomayor's recrod, the clearer it is that, as a friend of mine put it, identity politics is her judicial philosophy."
• Townhall's Jillian Bandes: "Why nominate someone so liberal? Why go for the gut punch: someone who actively flaunts the Constitution every chance she gets, someone who is such a minority elitist that she probably lacks 'empathy' for anyone unfortunate enough to be 'white' or 'caucasian.' [...Obama] wanted to wage war. Republicans will inevitably lose that war, but they will hopefully win a few of the battles along the way. It won't be hard to do given her activist, anti-Constitutionalist, minority rights agenda."
• Hot Air's Ed Morrissey: "The reason race and gender shouldn't matter at all is because judges should apply the law, not their 'life experiences' or their 'empathy' for specific outcomes. Sotomayor sounds like Judge Roy Bean, calling the courts a law unto themselves, rather than a thoughtful jurist interested in applying the law created by a representative democracy."

SOTOMAYOR III: Oppose Her At Your Peril, GOP

Liberal bloggers love the political implications of the pick, as they believe that GOPers will alienate Hispanics and women if they attack Sotomayor's qualifications and intellect:

• AMERICAblog's Aravosis: "It's a brilliant move by the Obama people. A very strategic, calculated move. A woman and, more importantly, a Latina."
• Balloon Juice's John Cole: "Politically, this pick is filled with land mines for Republicans, giving them the opportunity to sound like clods to hispanics and female voters, and given their remarkable tone-deafness the last couple of years, I'm sure they can manage to shave a few points off their already historically low popularity. [Senate Judicary Cmte Ranking Member] Jeff Sessions should be a load of fun to watch."
• The Atlantic's Ta-Nehisi Coates: "[M]y initial impression is that this is very good fight to engage -- politically and otherwise. [...] I just don't think Jeff Sessions, with his history, really wants it with a Puerto-Rican woman who worked her way up from the projects and went on to be summa cum laude at Princeton, and went on to Yale Law. Not to mention you have the first Latina Supreme Court judge, appointed by the first black president. Just on the crass politics, it ain't a good look."
• Open Left's Bowers: "Overall, I think it is good that Obama went with the nominee who conservatives said they would complain loudest about. Not only will they be unable to stop Sotomayor, but they will look terrible trying to stop her. (Let's attack empathy some more! Let's demonize minorities some more!) Also, generally speaking, whatever option conservatives consider to be the most troubling is probably the best move."

SOTOMAYOR IV: Obama Shows Guts

Several liberal bloggers are praising Obama for nominating the SCOTUS candidate who seemed to generate the most intense opposition:

• Salon's Glenn Greenwald: "It is very encouraging that Obama ignored the ugly, vindictive, and anonymous smear campaign led by The New Republic's Jeffrey Rosen and his secret cast of cowardly Eminent Liberal Legal Scholars of the Respectable Intellectual Center. People like that, engaging in tactics of that sort, have exerted far too much influence on our political culture for far too long, and Obama's selection of one of their most recent targets both reflects and advances the erosion of their odious influence. And Obama's choice is also a repudiation of the Jeffrey-Rosen/Ben-Wittes/Stuart-Taylor grievance on behalf of white males that, as Dahlia Lithwick put it, 'a diverse bench must inevitably be a second-rate bench.' [...] Obama deserves substantial credit for this choice. There were choices available to him that would have been safer among the Respectable Intellectual Center (Diane Wood) and among the Right (Elena Kagan)."
• dday: "[Obama] made his own decision based on his own best belief of who would make the best Justice. He didn't curry favor with anyone, and certainly not the right or the DC establishment. In fact, he really stuck it to the latter. Good for him."
• Firedoglake's Jane Hamsher: "Obama ignored them all. Good for him."

Meanwhile, other liberal bloggers (Benen, Yglesias, BooMan) are impressed by Sotomayor's unusual life story.

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Party Like It's 1994

Yglesias doesn't understand why the media gives so much attention to ex-Speaker Newt Gingrich (who was a guest on the 5/24 edition of Meet The Press):

"If I wanted a conservative politician to go up against Dick Durbin (D-IL), the number two Democrat in the United States Senate, my first choice would be Jon Kyl (R-AZ), who's Durbin's opposite number. But of course Mitch McConnell (R-KY), the top GOP dog, would be a great get too. Failing that, there are 37 other Republican Senators you can ask. And there are lots of conservatives in the House leadership who might have an enlightening point of view on whatever it is they're up to. But Meet The Press went with a former House Speaker from Georgia, who last held elected office about ten years ago.

I'd be interested in hearing from a journalist if they seriously think that a reasonable standard is being applied to the newsworthiness of Gingrich's pronouncement. Back on Wednesday, [ex-House Maj. Leader] Dick Gephardt hailed the appointment of Margaret Hamburg to be FDA Commissioner. I don't recall that as having made any headlines or garnered him any cable appearances. But why not? Gephardt's a former House leader, and held the post much more recently than Gingrich. On Thursday, [ex-Senate Maj. Leader] Tom Daschle was in Atlanta and made a strong statement in support of health care reform. That didn't lead Politico. It didn't get him an interview on a network morning show. But why not? What are the rules?"

LEST WE FORGET: In Attempt To Jump-Start Economy, Obama Declares Tuesdays Ladies' Night

From The Onion:

"WASHINGTON -- As part of his administration's continued efforts to stimulate the economy and liven up a slow weeknight, President Obama announced today that, effective immediately, Tuesdays will be half-off for ladies nationwide. 'It is imperative to our economic health that we inject capital wisely and get some blondes in here, preferably hot young ones,' said Obama, who submitted a proposal before Congress to increase tube-top usage by 200 percent. 'We can only escape this recession with the full cooperation of the American people -- so ladies, please, bring your girlfriends. When did this country turn into such a sausage fest?' According to estimates by the Department of the Interior, the first national Ladies' Night will be attended by an estimated 117 million men and one bachelorette party."

5/22: Battle Of The Speeches

Not surprisingly, liberal and conservative bloggers had opposite reactions to ex-VP Dick Cheney's national security speech: the former hated it and the latter loved it. What is perhaps more interesting is that despite Cheney's low approval ratings, conservative bloggers see his emergence as a leading Barack Obama critic as a good thing for the GOP. In fact, they believe that Cheney benefited from the contrast between his speech and Obama's. Melissa Clouthier writes: "Contrasting the wussy Obama with the manly Cheney was a nice refreshing breath of fresh air and a reminder why Republicans win every once in a while." Allahpundit thinks it was "awfully stupid" of Obama to schedule his national security speech on the same day as Cheney's, since it only elevated the importance of the latter. Liberal bloggers, on the other hand, thought that "Cheney was simply outclassed" and that "it wasn't even close". The netroots are confident that Obama benefits whenever the face of the opposition is an unpopular figure like Cheney or Rush Limbaugh.

As for Obama's speech, conservative bloggers (not surprisingly) hated it, but liberal bloggers had a more nuanced reaction. While they were impressed by Obama's eloquence, many of them are complaining that the President's actions on matters of civil liberties aren't consistent with his words. Lefty bloggers were particularly alarmed by Obama's comments about creating a system of "preventive detention" for suspected terrorists who are considered dangerous but who cannot be tried in court. Joan McCarter complains: "You cannot at the same time reiterate 'our values' and 'our timeless ideals' and the 'rule of law' and indefinitely, 'preventively' detain people in prison with no charges or proof of any crime."

What else is happening in the blogosphere?

• Conservative bloggers (Erickson, Hawkins) are urging NRSC Chair John Cornyn to follow the example of FL GOP Chair Jim Greer and back off his endorsement of Gov. Charlie Crist in the FL GOP Senate primary.

OBAMA SPEECH: He Talks A Good Game, But...

Many liberal bloggers are complaining that Obama's rhetoric about upholding America's "values" is contradicted by his actions:

• Salon's Greenwald: "The speech was fairly representative of what Obama typically does: effectively defend some important ideals in a uniquely persuasive way and advocating some policies that promote those ideals (closing Guantanamo, banning torture tactics, limiting the state secrets privilege) while committing to many which plainly violate them (indefinite preventive detention schemes, military commissions, denial of habeas rights to Bagram abductees, concealing torture evidence, blocking judicial review on secrecy grounds). Like all political officials, Obama should be judged based on his actions and decisions, not his words and alleged intentions and motives. Those actions in the civil liberties realm, with some exceptions, have been profoundly at odds with his claimed principles, and this speech hasn't changed that. Only actions will."
• TAPPED's Adam Serwer: "With his soaring and sincere rhetoric, the president has done an incredible job of selling his kinder, gentler War on Terror, and ultimately, the American people will likely have his back, if only because they trust him. In a sense, Barack Obama may be far more dangerous than George W. Bush when it comes to violating our civil liberties; where the American people feared the excesses of Bush, they trust wholly in the sincerity of Barack Obama. At least for now."
• MyDD's Charles Lemos: "I appreciate the President's eloquence yet find myself bemoaning his actions on this matter now before us."

A few bloggers had more positive reactions to Obama's speech:

• BooMan: "[This] is a very impressive speech that forcefully condemns his predecessors and calls on all of our better angels. The man is a once-in-a-generation politician and we're fortunate that he is making these difficult decisions. He is getting some of this wrong, in my opinion, but his reasoning is thoughtful and sincere. I can't ask for a whole lot more."
• Obsidian Wings' publius: "To [Obama's] credit, he got right up and forcefully articulated why his vision -- our vision -- is correct. He met the Cheney arguments head-on, and shied from none of them. [...] Obama's going to disappoint me as President at times. But he sure didn't today. He showed me that he's not scared to fight hard on this most critical of political fronts. It's a very promising sign."
• The Atlantic's Andrew Sullivan: "This speech, to my mind, was a conservative one by a conservative president who seeks first and foremost to use existing institutions to address the new challenges of the moment, and then seeks pragmatic compromises, always open to future checks and balances, in those places where such institutions clearly need reform and adjustment. The speech does not shrink from clear positions but it always does so from a place of reason and authority as opposed to politics and power. It is a presidential speech -- from a man who seeks to unite and lead this country forward, rather than someone who sees fear and division as a tool to be exploited."

OBAMA SPEECH II: What Happened To Due Process?

Liberal bloggers were particularly alarmed by Obama's comments about creating a system of "preventive detention" for suspected terrorists who are considered dangerous but who cannot be tried in court:

• Balloon Juice's John Cole: "Can anyone explain what exactly preventive detention means other than holding people indefinitely without evidence or charges?"
• digby: "There are literally tens of thousands of potential terrorists all over the world who could theoretically harm America. We cannot protect ourselves from that possibility by keeping the handful we have in custody locked up forever, whether in Guantanamo or some Super Max prison in the US."
• Obsidian Wings' hilzoy: "I liked most of Obama's speech. If it weren't for that one little bit about preventive detention, I'd be as happy as a clam. But there it was. [...] The power to detain people without filing criminal charges against them is a dictatorial power. It is inherently arbitrary. What is it that they are supposed to have done? If it is not a crime, why on earth not make it one? If it is a crime, and we have evidence that this person committed it, but that evidence was extracted under torture, then perhaps we need to remind ourselves of the fact that torture is unreliable. If we just don't have enough evidence, that's a problem, but it's also a problem with detaining them in the first place."
• Greenwald: "[E]ven as [Obama] paid repeated homage to 'our values' and 'our timeless ideals,' he demanded the power (albeit with unspecified judicial and Congressional oversight) to keep people in prison with no charges or proof of any crime having been committed, all while emphasizing that this 'war' will continue for at least ten years."
• Daily Kos' mcjoan: "These detainees should be reclassified as prisoners of war, bound by Geneva Conventions as the 'clear, defensible and lawful standards' that we already have in place. But beyond that, there needs to be an accounting for why they 'cannot be prosecuted for past crimes.' That is a part of the accountability that the rule of law demands. You cannot at the same time reiterate 'our values' and 'our timeless ideals' and the 'rule of law' and indefinitely, 'preventively' detain people in prison with no charges or proof of any crime. The legal limbo that these men have existed in for the past eight years has to end."
• Firedoglake's Ian Welsh: "Once we've decided that thought crimes are worthy of preventative punishment, once that is a principle embedded in the law, who else are we going to lock up whom we can't prove has committed a crime, not even that of conspiracy, because we think they may commit one in the future? That's not a power any human being should have over another. But it is the power Obama has demanded, has arrogated to himself, just as George Bush does. If that isn't against American values, then at long last, I don't know what American values are."

TAPPED's Tim Fernholz: "[T]he impression I get from the speech is that if we can't find ways to prosecute these dangerous people -- and 'can't prosecute' means is that we can't legally prove they are actually dangerous -- they'll remain in jail indefinitely with no recourse. It is, as Adam [Serwer] writes, a dangerous precedent. But in all honesty I can't imagine that Obama, or any other president, would make a different choice."

OBAMA SPEECH III: A Win For Cheney?

Not surprisingly, conservative bloggers were not impressed by Obama's speech, and they loved the contrast between Obama's speech and Cheney's:

• Right Wing News' Clouthier: "Contrasting the wussy Obama with the manly Cheney was a nice refreshing breath of fresh air and a reminder why Republicans win every once in a while."
• Townhall's Matt Lewis: "When watching the dueling speeches today, two things became very clear to me: (1.) Barack Obama sounds more like a candidate for president than like a president. (2.) Dick Cheney is more 'presidential' than the president."
• AmSpec Blog's Quin Hillyer: "I think that if somebody came to the subject fresh, with no preconceived notions, and watched (as so many of us did) President Barack Obama and Cheney back to back today, dueling across town, that open-minded person would believe that Cheney made a far stronger case. And oddly enough, Cheney's very lack of 'style points' served only to emphasize rather than detract from the simple, straightforward weight of his message. [...] Listen to Obama's speech, and you come away empty, as if you just were given the intellectual equivalent of meringue. Listen to Cheney, and you come away thinking you have just had the intellectual equivalent of a full, stick-to-your-ribs, meat-and-potatoes meal."
• The Weekly Standard's William Kristol: "Obama's is the speech of a young senator who was once a part-time law professor -- platitudinous and preachy, vague and pseudo-thoughtful in an abstract kind of way. [...] Cheney's is the speech of a grownup, of a chief executive, of a statesman. He's sober, realistic and concrete, stands up for his country and its public officials, and has an acute awareness of the consequences of the choices one makes as a public official and a willingness to take responsibility for those choices."
• Townhall's Hugh Hewitt: "Former Vice President Cheney's speech yesterday was a model of clarity and serious argument about the most serious subject. The president's speech, like his address at Notre Dame, was empty of reasoned argument but brimming with cant and conclusory self-congratulation and stuffed with straw men."
• Allahpundit: "In hindsight, wasn't it awfully stupid of The One to rush out a national security speech to try to preempt Cheney? If he'd kept quiet, this still would have been a hit on righty blogs and Fox News but nowhere else. By jumping in, he created the sensational 'terror duel' storyline that's forcing the media to magnify this. At the very least, he should have waited a week or so and then given his speech as a rebuttal to Cheney's. For someone so message-savvy, he crapped the bed this time."

Liberal bloggers felt differently:

• The Washington Monthly's Steve Benen: "It's too late, but if the media insists on characterizing this as some kind of face-off between competitors of equal stature, the least news outlets could do is to point out that Cheney was simply outclassed today. As tempting as it may be to compare the substance of the president's speech with the former vice president's, that's just not possible. Obama treated the nation like adults; Cheney treated us like the target of a con."
• publius: "Cheney's 'I Heart Torture' speech was, if nothing else, a clarifying moment. Like a painting that captures the essence of a historical age in a single image, today's split screen of Obama and Cheney reflected the very essence of the torture debate. And the contrast couldn't have been clearer -- the men, the values expressed, the appeals to our better and baser selves. It was all right there -- in that single image -- for all the future to see."
• The Huffington Post's Jacob Heilbrunn: "It was almost like an episode from Bloggingheads.tv. On the one side was President Obama speaking on national security in a measured and statesmanlike way. On the other side was former vice-president Dick Cheney trying to speak on national security in a measured and statesmanlike way. It wasn't even close."

CHENEY SPEECH: A Home Run?

Conservative bloggers loved Cheney's speech:

• Hillyer: "Hail to Richard Cheney, a great American."
• NRO's Rich Lowry: "Does anyone still doubt that it was a good and necessary thing for Cheney to be out counter-punching on national security?"
• Michelle Malkin: "I second Kathy Shaidle on Dick Cheney's speech: 'Cheney's speech was the best speech of the Bush administration. Too bad it was months/years late.'"
• NRO's Jim Geraghty: "From where I sit, former vice president Dick Cheney had the easier case to make today. [...I]n a nutshell, the Cheney argument is, 'it worked.' And when he notes that after 9/11, the administration and all of the various government agencies managed to prevent another attack on American soil for 2,689 days, it's a rather illuminating figure. [...] If there is another successful and terrible terror attack, either on U.S. soil or on a U.S. target abroad, the immediate moment will be too terrible to hear the words 'I told you so.' But if, God forbid, that day comes, we will know that indeed Dick Cheney did tell us so."

On the other side of the blogosphere, Greenwald had a different reaction: "There's very little worth saying about the speech Dick Cheney delivered after Obama's. It's just the same recycled, extremist neoconservative pablum that drove the U.S. into the deep ditch in which it currently finds itself. [...] I spent most of the first couple of years after I began writing, in late 2005, focused principally on the corruption and destruction wreaked by America's Right (with a secondary focus on their Democratic and media enablers). I did that because, back then, that was who mattered. I tend to ignore the Cheneyite Right now because they matter far less and their glaring flaws are manifest to most people, not because I think they're any less worthy of scorn and contempt."

Sullivan: "[T]he former vice-president's despicable and disgraceful speech...confirms the very worst of him, and reveals just how callow, just how arrogant, and just how reckless and unrepentant this man is and has long been. There was not a whisper of regret or reflection; there was a series of lies and distortions, a reckless attack on a graceful successor, inheriting a world of intractable problems, and a reminder that while serious men and women will indeed move on, Cheney never will. He remains a threat to this country's constitution as he remains a stain on its honor and moral standing. I never believed I would hear a vice-president of the United States not simply defend torture but insist on pride in it, insist on its honor. But that is what he said, with that sly grin insisting that fear always beats reason, that violence always beats dialogue, and that torture is always an American value."

The Cato Institute's David Rittgers: "As Gene Healy has pointed out, [Cheney and Obama] agree on a lot more than they admit to. [...] However, the areas where they differ are important: torture, closing Guantanamo, criminal prosecution, and messaging. In these key areas, Obama edges out Cheney."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Maxed Out

Marshall:

"Setting aside the truly ludicrous idea that imprisoned terrorists are going to break out of prison like something out of an old Jimmy Cagney movie, I have heard from a number of readers who say we should be worried that these terrorist prisoners will spread their ideas within the prison system. If you imagine that these al Qaida dudes are going to be hanging around the prison yard, pumping iron and forming their own Islamist gang to go toe to toe with the Aryan Brotherhood and the Black Guerrilla Family that might make some sense. But I don't think these folks are really familiar with how the federal supermax facilities work these days -- particularly the premier one in Florence, Colorado, where all the high profile baddies are. All these guys are in solitary lockdown at least 23 hours a day, when they're allowed into a special exercise cage. Then there's the 78 cell 'control unit' for prisoners who are not allowed any contact with anyone. This article from the Post from a few years ago has more details."

LEST WE FORGET: Guantánamo Detainee Ruled Not Mentally Fit To Testify About Psychological Torture

From The Onion:

"WASHINGTON -- In its first major hearing on the use of abusive interrogation tactics at Guantánamo Bay, a blue-ribbon panel found detainee Omar Khadr mentally unfit to testify about his years of psychological torture. 'Because of Mr. Khadr's fragile state due to unknown hours spent under the most brutal, mentally straining conditions, he cannot be trusted to speak competently on his own behalf,' said Rep. Kit Bond (R-MO), the panel's chairman. 'It is unfortunate that someone with such intimate knowledge of the horrors of waterboarding, stress positions, and induced hypothermia is so emotionally unstable. He bursts into tears at even the mention of mock torture.' Bond added that Khadr's confession of planning 9/11, the London train bombings, and the Iranian hostage crisis would be kept on the record."

5/21: Running Scared

In the run-up to Pres. Obama's and ex-VP Dick Cheney's speeches this morning, liberal bloggers remained preoccupied with the Senate's refusal to provide the $80M that Obama requested to close the detention center at Guantanamo Bay. The netroots are absolutely furious that 50 Dem senators joined their GOP colleagues in blocking the requested funds. In their view, yesterday's vote demonstrated that "the Republicans have the Democrats running scared on national security again." Lefty bloggers are also growing increasingly frustrated by what they perceive to be the absurdity of the arguments being employed by politicians (such as Senate Maj. Leader Harry Reid) who are opposed to imprisoning detainees on U.S. soil. As Cenk Uygur complains:

"[B]ringing detainees to America does not mean we release them in America. The people who planned and carried out the first World Trade Center bombing are now in the United States! Everyone, panic! Oh no, that's right, they're locked up in a Supermax prison in Colorado, from which they will never emerge. Problem solved. Why is that so hard to understand?"

What else is happening in the blogosphere?

• Conservative bloggers (Erickson, Hawkins, McCain) continue to criticize NRSC Chair John Cornyn for endorsing Gov. Charlie Crist over ex-state House Speaker Marco Rubio in the FL GOP Senate primary. Erickson wants the NRSC to "retract the endorsement of Charlie Crist or clearly state their intention to stay the hell out of Florida."
• Liberal bloggers (Yglesias, Morrill, Marshall, Wheeler) are pleased that Sen. Arlen Specter (D-PA) defended Speaker Nancy Pelosi against her GOP critics, even though they believe that Specter is simply trying to avoid a primary challenge from the left.

GUANTANAMO: The Coward Caucus

Liberal bloggers are blasting Senate Dems after 50 of them joined their GOP colleagues in blocking the $80M that Obama requested to close the detention center at Guantanamo Bay:

• Salon's Glenn Greenwald: "There's no more mewling, craven, subservient entity in the United States than the Senate Democratic caucus."
• Balloon Juice's John Cole: "Can we finally put to bed the pipe dream that many of you have that 60 Democratic votes in the Senate will matter?"
• Al Giordano: "Unbelievable. Only six US Senators had the fortitude to vote on Wednesday against stripping the government of the budget to close the Guantanamo prison. [...] Booman makes the point that not even Bernie Saunders (I-VT) could do the right thing in an hour of moral crisis. [...] But where were [MA Sen. John] Kerry? [WI Sen. Russ] Feingold?"

digby: "Look, this is just one more example of the politics of national security trumping actual national security. Logic says that Guantanamo could be closed today and these prisoners could be brought tomorrow to military brigs around the country if not maximum security prisons we have by the dozens. The rest of the world would see Obama fulfilling his clear and unambiguous promise to close it (a promise he shared with his Republican rival, btw) and would gain tremendous credibility around the world for doing so. But the Republicans have the Democrats running scared on national security again and that's the end of that. Let's not pretend there's really a 'debate' going on here. The Democrats are more scared of Republicans than they are of terrorists or anything else and that's what's driving this."

Meanwhile, Think Progress' Matthew Yglesias notes that Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) believes that CA prisons are "eminently capable of holding" Guantanamo detainees: "I wonder if there isn't a promising potential plan here. You could do something that gave California federal funds in order to house some terrorism detainees in California state prisons. That would help, to some extent, alleviate the state's budget problems."

GUANTANAMO II: Jailbreak!

Liberal bloggers are growing increasingly frustrated by the rhetoric being employed by politicians who oppose Obama's plans to imprison detainees on U.S. soil:

• Uygur: "[B]ringing detainees to America does not mean we release them in America. The people who planned and carried out the first World Trade Center bombing are now in the United States! Everyone, panic! Oh no, that's right, they're locked up in a Supermax prison in Colorado, from which they will never emerge. Problem solved. Why is that so hard to understand?"
• The Huffington Post's Bob Cesca: "The Republicans, along with the Senate majority leader, are suggesting that rather than being incarcerated in state of the art maximum security facilities -- facilities financed via the multi-billion dollar U.S. prison-industrial-complex mandated by lawmakers -- terrorists will simply be turned loose on American soil for some crazy reason, and will subsequently hork a nuclear missile and proceed to crash it into your house. Somehow. The reality is that Guantanamo detainees would be held in our most secure, impenetrable prison facilities where it's literally impossible to harm any outside citizen. Fact: no human being has ever escaped from a Supermax prison. Zero. Convicted terrorist Zacarias Moussaoui has been held in a Supermax near Florence, Colorado since 2006. So far, Colorado has not been destroyed."
• TPM's Josh Marshall: "The Democrats stripped funding out of the defense appropriations bill for the winding down and dismantlement of the Gitmo detention facility. And the background issue is the refusal to bring accused terrorists or possibly at some point convicted terrorists into the US for incarceration. And I'm hearing this senator or that one from this or that state, saying hey, don't bring any of these terrorists to Maine! or maybe, don't bring them to Arkansas or Kentucky or wherever. But, c'mon, I'm assuming these guys aren't going to be deposited at the county jail in Baltimore or Baton Rouge. We've got an incredibly secure and incredibly hellish Super Max facility in Florence, Colorado. And it seems clear that that's where these guys would end up. (That's where Ramzi Yousef, mastermind of the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, now resides, along with a bunch of other high-profile terrorists.) So can't we at least stop fools from Texas and Idaho from pretending these guys are coming to their state?"
• digby: "Obviously, this argument that we can't allow suspected terrorists to come into our communities and kill us all in our beds is beyond stupid (unless you actually believes these prisoners have supernatural powers as the racist rightwing pantwetters seemed to believe.) America has no shortage of dangerous killers and psychopaths locked up in its prisons and we seem to be able to handle them just fine. [...] Prisons are what we do. We have more people locked up that any other nation on earth. It's one of our biggest industries. We may be bad at everything else, but locking people up we are really, really good at. The idea that we can't keep a few broken, foreign, torture victims in jail is patently absurd."

REID: You Call This Guy A Leader?

Liberal bloggers continue to direct much of their fire at Reid, who yesterday defended the Senate's vote by declaring, "We will never allow terrorists to be released into the United States":

• Oliver Willis: "Enough with Harry Reid. The man is a serious mistake in leadership, and the only reason it isn't a bigger deal right now is because we've got Obama in the White House."
• Daily Kos' BarbinMD: "Who's writing Reid's material these days? Dick Cheney?"
• Cesca: "For too many years with Harry Reid at the helm, we've been watching as this ineffectual mope skulks his way around the Hill -- allowing one successful Republican filibuster after another, while simultaneously enabling ridiculous and disingenuous Republican talking points, if not repeating them outright. [...] Indicative of the worst kind of Democrat, he's a wimp of highest order: a pushover substitute teacher type -- you remember the ones -- standing up there at the chalkboard with a crumpled, submissive posture, quietly begging for everyone to take their seats, while not realizing that cafeteria coleslaw is being clandestinely stuffed into his pants pockets."
• The Washington Monthly's Steve Benen: "Reid is the leader of a Senate in which the minority party only has 40 votes. And yet, Reid isn't leading very well. President Obama has asked Reid and his colleagues to shoulder a heavy burden, and work with the White House on some pretty monumental tasks. Is Reid ready to step up or not?"

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: We're Doomed!

Obsidian Wings' hilzoy wonders what the authorities will do with the four men who allegedly plotted to bomb NYC synagogues:

"This raises the difficult question: what should we do with these would-be terrorists while they await trial? And if they are convicted, what then? I assume that if it's too dangerous to move people at Guantanamo to the United States, it must be much too dangerous to allow these jihadists to run loose in our prisons. After all, they might provide financing for other jihadists from their supermax cells, or radicalize other prisoners, or use special Terrorist Mind Control Techniques to create a whole army of brainwashed convicts under their complete control.

I'd suggest killing them, cutting them into pieces, and shipping their parts to parts unknown immediately (trials? who can afford trials under these circumstances?), if I weren't afraid that some hitherto unknown al Qaeda trick might allow their reanimated body parts to slither around in search of one another and, eventually, reconstitute themselves as the Islamofascist Undead. Earlier, I thought we should send prisoners into space, but that was before I realized that that would allow them to join forces with the Klingons.

In fact, I can't think of a single thing to do that would not make matters worse. We're doomed."

LEST WE FORGET: American Idol Rewarding Mediocrity

The Huffington Post's Dan Abramson unloads on this season's American Idol winner, Kris Allen:

I don't even like American Idol, but last night's results have gotten me fired up. Not because Adam Lambert didn't win (while he's obviously talented, I don't think he's the god that everyone made him out to be), but because America seems to be in love with mediocrity. Mediocrity in the form of Kris Allen. Kris Allen? The guy with no personality and an average voice? Kris Allen is vanilla. Soft serve.

• He's the guy in college that had no personality but could swoon the ladies because he had a guitar and knew enough chords to play "Free Fallin."
• He's the guy who you're friends with, but when someone asks you to describe him, you draw a blank and tell them he's a "real good guy."
• If Kris Allen were a TV show, he'd be According To Jim.
• If I invited Kris Allen to a dinner party, he'd show up and ask if he can chip in instead of bringing a casserole. Kris Allen brings nothing to the table.
• If Kris Allen were a baseball team, he'd be the Baltimore Orioles. Sure, we all know they exist, and they're not that bad, but do we need 'em?
• Kris Allen has two first names. And the first one is spelled wrong. That's the only thing I know about him.

5/20: Whose Side Are You On, Harry?

Liberal bloggers are furious that Senate Dems refused to provide the $80M that Pres. Obama requested to close the detention center at Guantanamo Bay. They're especially furious about Senate Maj. Leader Harry Reid's (D-NV) explanation for the decision, in which he declared, "We will never allow terrorists to be released into the United States." Lefty bloggers are outraged that Reid employed the same rhetoric that the GOP has used in criticizing Obama's plans to close Guantanamo. One blogger complains: "Why bother hav[ing] a Democratic Majority Leader if he does stupid things like echo the dumbest of the dumbest Republican talking points on where Gitmo detainees are to be housed?" Another blogger calls Reid "a complete turncoat and an absolutely gutless fool" and declares: "Harry Reid is dead to me." Liberal bloggers didn't like Reid before and they really don't like him now, so they aren't the least bit upset about his weak re-election numbers (although conservative bloggers are licking their chops). In fact, some lefty bloggers are attributing Reid's Guantanamo comments to his low approval ratings at home. David Dayen writes: "No doubt Reid's sudden lack of confidence in the federal prison system and trickle of piss tumbling down his pants has something to do with the low approval ratings coming out of Nevada."

What else is happening in the blogosphere?

• Conservative bloggers (Allahpundit, Hengler, Faughnan) are praising RNC Chair Michael Steele's speech to RNC members, while liberal bloggers (Lewison, Benen, Cole, Black) are mocking it.
• Conservative bloggers (Allahpundit, Hinderaker, Lowry) are criticizing the new bill placing new restrictions on the credit card industry, which passed the Senate by a 90-to-5 margin yesterday. Liberal bloggers (Hamsher, Cole, A.L.) are defending the bill.
• Conservative bloggers (Erickson 1, Erickson 2, Hawkins, Lopez) continue to criticize the NRSC for endorsing Gov. Charlie Crist over ex-state House Speaker Marco Rubio in the FL GOP Senate primary.

GUANTANAMO: Profiles In Cowardice

Liberal bloggers are furious that Senate Dems refused to provide the $80M that Obama requested to close the detention center at Guantanamo Bay. In their view, the Dems are only making themselves look weak by embracing the GOP's positions on national security issues:

• The Washington Monthly's Steve Benen: "Dems seem to be afraid of the GOP attacks. It's frustrating to watch."
• Mother Jones' Kevin Drum: "I never expected Barack Obama to be anything other than pragmatic and center left. Still, I confess to feeling a little in the dumps lately over just how much he seems willing to bend and compromise on some key issues. But then I read things like this. [...] And I realize all over again just what Obama is up against. His own party won't support him against even the most transparent and insipid demagoguery coming from the conservative noise machine. The GOP's brain trust isn't offering even a hint of a substantive case that the U.S. Army can't safely keep a few dozen detainees behind bars in a military prison, but Dems are caving anyway. Because they're scared. And then they wonder why voters continue to think that a party that can be bitch slapped so easily might be viewed as weak on national security."
• BooMan: "For my entire life the Republicans have made a political living by arguing that the Democrats don't have what it takes to protect American interests and American security. I always thought they were full of shit. But the Democrats in the Senate are proving the Republicans right, and me wrong. Any organization that is afraid to house Gitmo prisoners in super-maximum security prisons within the United States (for real or political reasons) is too yellow-bellied to protect the United States. If this is all the guts the Democrats have, they should be voted out of power and the Republicans should be re-entrusted with our national security. At least with them, you know that they will fight. The idea that a proud and confident party would shrink from backing their own president on a matter of such profound national consequence because of the illogical and ridiculous fearmongering arguments being advanced by the Republicans is so far beneath my contempt that I cannot stomach it."
• dday: "The problem with Reid's obnoxious, intelligence-insulting backpedal, aside from how easily anyone can discern the party on offense from the party on defense, is that the entire Democratic Party has flat stopped making any argument about national security from the perspective of civil liberties and human rights, and how respecting both ultimately makes us safer. Even if Democrats believe it -- and most of them don't -- they either think it's too nuanced for the country to accept (wrong) or too easily demagogued by the hissy fit stirrers on the right (who are completely discredited). [...] This is not only a losing argument around the world, as the stars fall from their eyes when they witness the same distasteful policies wrapped up in a prettier package. It's also a lose POLITICALLY to strengthen the arguments of your opponents and alienate your supporters. I'm just a DFH who doesn't know how the world works, but it seems to me that the Democrats never succeeded by trying to take issues 'off the table,' only by confronting them and offering a better argument. I guess that makes me unserious."

On the other side of the blogosphere, conservative bloggers are mocking Senate Dems for caving:

• Hot Air's Allahpundit: "I'm embarrassed to admit I didn't grasp the politics of this initially because I didn't think they'd cave so quickly to the pro-Gitmo side; after watching them cave on waterboarding after 9/11 and then the Iraq war, I should have known they'd buckle once another tough security decision landed on their desks. They still want to close it -- eventually, just like [VA Sen.] Jim Webb. They're just suddenly wary of having hardcore terrorists in their own backyards -- again, just like Jim Webb. [...] Credit [OK Sen.] Jim Inhofe for making the Dems choke on this by pushing legislation prohibiting the transfer of detainees to the U.S."
• RedState's Moe Lane: "In light of this news, and in light of Harry Reid's declaration that the detainees should stay out of this country, I look forward to the White House's eventual declaration that actually Gitmo's been sufficiently reformed enough to be used after all. And I look forward even more to all the trained seals who will -- through gritted teeth, no doubt -- endorse such a wise and prudent move on the part of the President. Then again, what else can they do? Vote Republican?"

REID: He'll Protect You From The Terrorists That Obama Wants To Release In Your Backyard

Liberal bloggers were particularly incensed by Reid's statement that "we will never allow terrorists to be released into the United States":

• TalkLeft's TChris: "Has Reid decided, without the benefit of trials, that the 240 involuntary residents of Guantanamo are all terrorists? [...] Odds are that Reid isn't troubling himself with deep thought. Republicans are having fun scaring their constituents and Reid is playing along."
• Daily Kos' BarbinMD: "In announcing that Senate Democrats won't fund the closing of Guantanamo, Harry Reid fully embraced fear-mongering Republican talking points. Nice job, Harry."
• Balloon Juice's John Cole: "That was the best impression of a fearmongering Republican wingnut that I have seen in a long time."
• Salon's Glenn Greenwald: "Rather than scoff at the inane fear-mongering or point out simple facts to reveal its idiocy, Democratic 'leaders' such as Harry Reid echo the right-wing fears in order to prove how Serious and Tough they are -- in our political debates, the more frightened one is, the more Serious and Tough one is -- and/or because they are genuinely frightened of being called mean names by Sean Hannity ('Harry Reid isn't as scared of this as I am, which shows that he's weak')"
• Oliver Willis: "Why bother have a Democratic Majority Leader if he does stupid things like echo the dumbest of the dumbest Republican talking points on where Gitmo detainees are to be housed? Honestly, I'm surprised the Senate Dems have been able to push anything through with someone as limp as Reid in 'charge'."
• Obsidian Wings' hilzoy: "Oh, and Harry Reid? Try showing some courage. Try leadership. You never know; it just might suit you. This certainly doesn't. [...] I'm disgusted, and ashamed of my party."
• dday: "No doubt Reid's sudden lack of confidence in the federal prison system and trickle of piss tumbling down his pants has something to do with the low approval ratings coming out of Nevada. But more than that, he exhibits the exact same knee-jerk response to Republican fearmongering to which we've grown accustomed -- a weak-kneed backpedal displayed in the name of looking strong and tough."
• BooMan: "The President ran a campaign in which he promised repeatedly to close Guantanamo Bay and to treat the people there within traditional American practices of jurisprudence. He got no argument on that score from Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, Bill Richardson, Dennis Kucinich, or anyone else. But now that the Republicans are trying to frighten people about our ability to keep potentially violent criminals behind bars in this country of a bazillion prisons, Harry Reid is playing a different tune. Now he's a coward. Let me tell you something. This country doesn't need Harry Reid in Congress. We'll do just fine without him. We need him to show courage and help the president do what he promised to do. If he loses his seat as a result, so fucking what? That's what they call a Profile in Courage. There will be no new chapters dedicated to Harry Reid in the next edition of that book. He's a complete turncoat and an absolutely gutless fool. [...] Harry Reid is dead to me."

Meanwhile, conservative bloggers (Malkin, Lane, Antle, Geraghty) are buzzing about a new poll showing weak re-election numbers for Reid.

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Who's Afraid Of A Public Plan?

Think Progress' Matthew Yglesias responds to the NC Blue Cross Blue Shield's attack on Obama's proposal to provide Americans with a gov't-sponsored health care option:

"The proposals currently before congress would not, of course, create a government-run health care system. There is, however, a proposal to create a health care system that would include a widely available public health insurance option. The point of this would be to try and see if private industry actually can do better then a government-run insurance plan. After all, if the public option offered rationing and low-quality care, why would anyone sign up for it? Nobody would. That kind of low-quality public option would give private insurance nothing to fear. But what they really fear isn't that a public option would be bad, it's that it would be good -- putting effective cost-controls in place without compromising patient care, thus threatening private industry's business model.

That, however, is one of the best ways at our disposal to make health reform really work. A public option that strives to achieve public goals -- quality care at an affordable price -- will challenge private industry to do a better job. Then competition between plans will drive improvements in quality and efficiency. Without a public option, the risk is that private plans will compete by trying to screen out sick patients. That's a viable root to private sector profits, but it does nothing to improve quality or control costs."

LEST WE FORGET: Texas Constructs U.S. Border Wall To Keep Out Unwanted Americans

From The Onion:

"WICHITA FALLS, TX -- Calling it an essential step toward securing the Texas border and protecting his people's way of life, Gov. Rick Perry announced Tuesday the completion of a 1,953-mile wall designed to keep out millions of unwanted Americans.

According to Perry, the 75-foot-high barricade running along the northern boundary is the culmination of more than 160 years of escalating tensions between Texas and the United States. Though a protective barrier has been under consideration for decades, the Texas Legislature voted unanimously to begin construction on the project immediately following the 2008 presidential election.

'As governor, it is my responsibility to do whatever's necessary to maintain the territorial integrity of Texas,' Perry told reporters during a press conference held inside a sniper tower overlooking Oklahoma. 'If you are a Texas citizen, you shouldn't have to worry about some American coming in here, using your goods and services, and taking away your job.'

'Let the record show I have nothing personal against Americans,' Perry added. 'I just think they should stay in America, where they belong.'"

5/19: It's Not About Nancy...

The fallout from Speaker Nancy Pelosi's 5/15 press conference continues to reverberate through the political blogosphere. As conservative bloggers hammer the Speaker and argue that she should resign, liberal bloggers are growing increasingly frustrated with the amount of media attention that Pelosi is getting. In their view, the GOP has successfully hijacked the debate over George W. Bush's use of harsh interrogation techniques and instead made Pelosi the issue. Josh Orton complains: "[T]he entire narrative about torture had been yoked by Republicans to be about Nancy Pelosi. Seems like the first big political success they've had since January. Blatantly dishonest, but successful."

On the other hand, some lefty bloggers think that the GOP's focus on Pelosi will actually make a torture investigation more likely, not less likely. Matthew Yglesias explains: "[F]ar from forcing a standoff in which Pelosi will abandon her support for an investigation, the right has forced her into a corner from which she can't give in to moderate Democrats' opposition to such a move without looking like she's cravenly attempting to save her own skin." Meanwhile, Jed Lewison observes that a number of prominent GOPers "are now on record supporting torture investigations" because they believe that such an investigation might implicate Pelosi. So perhaps the netroots will get their truth commission after all...

What else is happening in the blogosphere?

• Liberal bloggers (Drum, hilzoy, Wheeler) are praising Pres. Obama for announcing tougher auto emissions and mileage standards, while conservative bloggers (Malkin, Spencer, Gateway Pundit, Liebau) are complaining about the costs of the proposal.
• Liberal bloggers (Yglesias, Hamsher, Benen) are criticizing Sen. Evan Bayh (D-IN) -- who is quickly becoming one of the left's favorite targets -- for refusing to commit to support the House climate change bill. On the right side of the blogosphere, Michelle Malkin is urging her readers to call their members of Congress and pressure them to vote against the bill.
• Liberal bloggers (Moulitsas, Greenwald, DougJ, BooMan) continue to discuss New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd's plagiarism of a blog post written by TPM's Josh Marshall.
• Conservative bloggers (Hewitt, Ponnuru, Lopez) continue to chastise the Univ. of Notre Dame for inviting Obama to speak at its graduation ceremony, although Mark Impomeni argues that Obama deserves blame for accepting the invitation.

PELOSI: Score One For The GOP?

Liberal bloggers are growing increasingly frustrated with the way that the torture debate has progressed:

• MyDD's Orton: "I've been traveling the last few days after finishing my first year of law school. Sitting in the airport Friday afternoon, I couldn't believe what I saw: the entire narrative about torture had been yoked by Republicans to be about Nancy Pelosi. Seems like the first big political success they've had since January. Blatantly dishonest, but successful. But nearly lost is the notion that torture is illegal. [...] And with the White House 'looking forward,' the opportunity to enforce the rule of law is slipping away."
• Firedoglake's Peterr: "Right now, Team Obama is standing around. On torture, they are letting the advantage of change disappear and letting Pelosi become the issue, not the Torture 13. On Gitmo, the same. State secrets, ditto. On filling out the second and third level appointees to the executive branch, folks like [OLC nominee] Dawn Johnsen are being left waiting for a vote. On the economy, [Treasury Sec. Tim] Geithner and Co. are standing around while the game goes on around them. When [ex-VP] Dick Cheney is running circles around you, you know you've got problems. Where's the pressure on defense, the hustle on offense, the movement to make something happen?"
• Daily Kos' BarbinMD: "Since [Dems] apparently don't have the stomach for pursuing the Bush administration's torture policies on their own, they could at least agree with with the Republicans (bipartisanship rules!) and demand a thorough investigation ... when are they going to do it?"

On the other hand, Matthew Yglesias thinks the right's focus on Pelosi will backfire: "[I]n their zeal to score a tactical win, the right has made a truth commission more likely not less likely. Obama wanted to avoid a backward-looking focus on torture in part because it distracted from his legislative agenda. But if we're going to be looking backward anyway, thanks to conservatives' insistence on complaining about Pelosi, then the move forward strategy lacks a rationale. And far from forcing a standoff in which Pelosi will abandon her support for an investigation, the right has forced her into a corner from which she can't give in to moderate Democrats' opposition to such a move without looking like she's cravenly attempting to save her own skin."

Daily Kos' Jed Lewison makes a similar argument: "So maybe some good is coming out the 'what did Pelosi know?' sideshow. As you can see in the video, GOPers like [RNC Chair] Michael Steele, [House Min. Leader] John Boehner, [ex-Bush adviser] Karl Rove, and [ex-Speaker] Newt Gingrich are all calling for further investigation into when Speaker Pelosi learned about the Bush administration's torture program, and what she did to try and stop it. Not only does this implicitly recognize that the Bush administration did in fact engage in torture, it also means that the calls for investigations of torture are now bipartisan. The fact that Republicans are now on record supporting torture investigations may be an unexpected development, but it is an unexpected development that should be welcomed."

Meanwhile, Open Left's Chris Bowers urges progressives to defend Pelosi: "It is likely that we won't see someone more progressive than Nancy Pelosi as Speaker for quite some time. As such, it behooves progressives to defend the Speaker when she becomes the target of the right-wing media attack machine. Daily Kos polling shows that she has taken a hit to her favorable rating as a result of this flap, even if other polling suggests the public is split on whether she, or the CIA, is telling the truth on the matter."

On the right side of the blogosphere, Malkin wants GOPers to continue targeting Pelosi, while Erick Erickson thinks Pelosi would help Dems by resigning.

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: I Guess It Depends On Your Perspective...

NRO's Ramesh Ponnuru:

"I've now read a few articles and blog posts either lauding the Utah governor [John Huntsman] as a moderate or denouncing him as same. Huntsman has signed pro-life bills, voucher bills, and tax cuts. Yes, he is open to some kind of civil union for gay couples and wants Republicans to make more of an effort on environmental issues. But if that's all it takes for a Republican politician to get an image both inside and outside the party as a 'moderate' these days, that's a pretty good thing, isn't it?"

LEST WE FORGET: Just Another Day At The Office

McSweeney's contributor M. Wilson makes a list of "Events From Our Office Functions, Written as Newspaper Headlines":

• "Rob from Public Affairs Tells Extremely Racist Jokes After One Beer"
• "Interest Plunges as Julie from Marketing Tells Again of Brush with Lesbianism"
• "David From Floor 3 Gropes Me -- Neither of Us Remember!"
• "Head of Finance: 'You've All Had Enough'"
• "Executive Manager Reveals Six Pack of Reserve Beer"
• "Shock! Married President Sleeps with Annette from Accounts -- Exclusive Interview with Annette: 'They Lead Separate Lives'"

5/18: Huntsman Goes To China

Liberal bloggers haven't always appreciated Pres. Obama's efforts to nominate GOPers for key positions (see: Judd Gregg), but they love his decision to nominate UT Gov. John Huntsman (R) as U.S. amb. to China. Lefty bloggers see the Mandarin-speaking governor as an excellent choice for the position, describing him as "very well-qualified" and "someone who will be a very good public face for our country". Moreover, they love the political optics of the selection. In their view, Huntsman only accepted the position because he believes that the GOP has moved too far to the right for him to win the party's presidential nod in 2012.

Conservative bloggers, meanwhile, don't particularly care about Huntsman's decision, as he was never one of their favored WH '12 candidates. Michelle Malkin quips: "You know who won't miss Huntsman? Tea Party protesters who booed him on Tax Day."

What else is happening in the blogosphere?

• Conservative bloggers (Mirengoff, Lopez, Ponnuru) are criticizing the Univ. of Notre Dame for inviting Obama to speak at its graduation ceremony. Meanwhile, liberal bloggers (Fallows, Kleiman, Benen, Coates) were impressed by Obama's commencement speech.
• Conservative bloggers (McLaughlin, Hewitt, Johnson, Geraghty) continue to blast Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) for criticizing the CIA during her 5/15 presser. Liberal bloggers (Yglesias, Kleiman, Benen) are accusing conservatives of attacking Pelosi in order to intimidate Congress into not launching a torture investigation.
• Conservative bloggers (McCarthy, Johnson, Althouse) are accusing Obama of hypocrisy now that he's reportedly decided to keep George W. Bush's military commission system even though he explicitly criticized it during his presidential campaign. Several liberal bloggers (Greenwald, digby) are criticizing Obama as well.
• Liberal bloggers (Gardner, Benen, Dayen, Black, Foser) are criticizing New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd for plagiarizing a blog post written by TPM's Josh Marshall.
• Liberal bloggers (Peterr, LithiumCola, hilzoy, Benen, Aravosis) are buzzing about the revelation that ex-Def. Sec. Donald Rumsfeld's intelligence briefings from the early days of the Iraq War contained cover sheets that "juxtaposed war images with inspirational Bible quotes."

HUNTSMAN: Another Blow To The GOP?

Liberal bloggers are portraying the Huntsman selection as yet another sign that the GOP has moved too far to the right:

• Balloon Juice's John Cole: "I look at this as preserving the seed corn of the GOP. The current virus of crazy teabagging Palinite theocon wingnuts has to burn out sooner or later (one would have thought they would have already collapsed, exhausted by their hate, sheer stupidity and the weight of their own internal contradictions, but sadly, that group of crazies seem to have a little bit of life in them still), and if we can save the sane portions of the Republican party and reintroduce them to the wild, unscathed from the current taint at a later date, the better off we all are. [...] Unless my judgment is as bad as it was in 2000 [...], in 2016 Jon Huntsman could be the face of a rational opposition party."
• The Washington Monthly's Steve Benen: "Seeing Huntsman alongside President Obama this morning at the White House, I kept thinking about an incident from a couple of weeks ago. Huntsman had scheduled several campaign-style stops in Michigan, apparently to help lay the groundwork for future support. Republican leaders in one key Michigan county abruptly withdrew Huntsman's invitation, however, when local officials learned that the Utah governor had the nerve to support civil unions for gay couples. [...] It was a ridiculous move, of course, but it also sent a signal to Huntsman about the level of maturity in his party -- or in this case, the lack thereof. It's certainly possible the response from this county and other GOP activists made clear to Huntsman that it's not worth even trying to take the lead in the party, at least not in the near future. So, for now he's teaming up with Obama, perhaps wondering if Republicans will have grown up by 2016."
• Think Progress' Matthew Yglesias: "...Huntsman was one of a relatively small number of prominent Republicans to have avoided a turn to the far-right over the past 12 months and seemed like the guy many progressives thought could best put a politically credible mainstream face on conservatism. [...] You've got to figure that Huntsman's decided that he couldn't possibly win a presidential primary, so he'll take the gig."
• Daily Kos's Dana Houle: "[PA Sen.] Arlen Specter's defection-under-duress to the Democratic party demonstrated the Republican base's intolerance of politicians who aren't doctrinaire far right wingers. It's gotten so bad that one of the most impressive potential presidential candidates who might have run against Barack Obama in 2012, a Republican from Utah, has not only given up his presidential aspirations, he's joining the Obama administration! [...] Taking a position with the Obama administration is conservative apostasy; this means any aspirations Huntsman had for being a Republican president are gone forever. Can anyone think of a possibly viable presidential candidate not only giving up a run by taking an ambassadorship, but in fact taking the ambassadorship to serve a president of the opposing party?"

The Atlantic's Andrew Sullivan loves the pick: "In what can only be called a genius move for the Democrats and a terrible blow to the GOP, Obama has coopted Utah governor John Huntsman to be his new ambassador to China. Huntsman is the one of very few -- Jeb [Bush] and [Charlie] Crist are the others, in my view -- who could rescue the GOP from generational oblivion. He's a conservative from Utah, but understands how ugly, bitter and extremist the Republicans have become. A pro-civil union Mormon who gets the problem of climate change, Huntsman was the un-[Dick] Cheney. And Obama just snagged him."

On the other hand, liberal blogger AdamGreen is annoyed that Obama praised Huntsman in his introductory speech: "Obama Speechwriters Give Jon Huntsman His First 2016 Presidential Campaign Ad...Good jub guys. [...] I think the decision to send Huntsman, who speaks fluent Mandarin Chinese, to China is reasonable. And I'm fine with Obama using it to advance his own post-partisan image. But for the White House to hand Huntsman Obama's 'always puts country first' imprimatur now is just irresponsible. Like attempting to clear the field for Arlen Specter, it's putting their own short-term expediency ahead of giving voters in our democracy an intellectually-honest choice at the polls. As someone who values intellectually-honest debate, that's not appreciated."

HUNTSMAN II: Don't Let The Door Hit You On The Way Out

Conservative bloggers aren't exactly fans of Huntsman:

• Malkin: "No wonder he's been skipping out on GOP meetings lately. [...] You know who won't miss Huntsman? Tea Party protesters who booed him on Tax Day. [...] DLTDHYOTWO."
• AmSpec Blog's Paul Chesser: "A politically active friend in the Beehive State reports a gleeful mood among colleagues over the apparent pending departure of Gov. Jon Huntsman Jr. -- a [Arnold] Schwarzeneggar/Crist clone on global warming -- because of his selection by President Obama as ambassador to China. His message: A great day for Utah - how can we ever thank the people of China?!"
• Hot Air's Allahpundit: "And to think, some people accuse centrist Republicans of being Democrats in disguise."

Allahpundit continues: "What's his angle here? Three possibilities: (a) Despite all appearances, he was never thinking of running for president. (b) He was thinking of running, but he's enough of a patriot that he couldn't say no when the president called on him. (c) He was aiming at 2016 all along and this is actually a brilliant move to burnish his bipartisan cred and his foreign-policy gravitas in advance, especially insofar as it makes him a player with a rising superpower like China. My only question is, how does he get back on the national stage after he's done as ambassador? He could run against Utah's lone Democratic congressman, I guess, but that's not much of a perch from which to launch a presidential bid. Bob Bennett is 76 years old, but his Senate seat's up next year; even if he's planning to retire, Huntsman's not going to quit Team Barry so soon to run for it. I can only assume he's eyeing Orrin Hatch's seat, which is up in 2012. Hatch will be 78 at the time, which isn't old for a Senator but isn't young either. If he does run for another term, though, then Huntsman's frozen out. Maybe his interest in China is such that he simply couldn't turn down the opportunity, whatever it might mean for his future ambitions."

RedState's James Richardson thinks Huntsman will be a formidable candidate in '16: "By co-opting Huntsman, Obama will have successfully pacified the lone Republican 2012 challenger, thereby ensuring a stable route to victory. Then, of course, is the knowledge that he'll likely receive Republican praise for his gesture of bipartisanship, however politically shrewd it may be. Obama is an impressively calculating politician, perhaps more so than his former opponent Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. As such, he realizes a nomination of this nature will offer Huntsman the last needed ingredient for presidential success: foreign policy bona fides. [...] After running the greatest candidate-centered campaign of history, Obama is principally focused on his reelection campaign in 2012. It is of little concern, then, that he will have propelled Huntsman to the national stage in 2016 by no doing of his own."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: The Consummate Politician

The Atlantic's Ta-Nehisi Coates offers his thoughts on Obama's Notre Dame speech:

"Making your enemies look petty: Obama really excels at it. I was a kid during [Ronald] Reagan's day, so I'm not sure if that was the key to his success. But I watched Obama's speech yesterday, and he did it again. His basic pose is -- 'I'm willing to concede your good will, and maybe even a couple of periphery issues.' When his adversaries can't do the same, they just look small-minded.

It's almost unfair to people who disagree with him -- if I truly believed that abortion was the murder of children, I don't think I'd be interested in trading 'fair-minded words' with pro-choicers. It's murder, and I think I'd pursue it with exactly the sort of zeal as those who were booing Obama. But that's my perspective, and my outlook -- obviously it isn't the outlook of all pro-lifers. I'm just saying, I can see why you might be an extremist on the issue.

Politics aside, I think you have to give Obama credit for stepping right into the issue. I've seen weaker politicians drowning in handlers, reading from a carefully prepared text which fails to acknowledge the elephants dancing in the room. Obama, like he did in his race speech, went right at it. It likely won't please a lot of folks on either side, but if your goal is to grow the base, and expand the party, you've got the best man for the job -- even if it, at times, grates on people like me. But, hey. Expanding the party isn't my job -- it's his."

LEST WE FORGET: Chicken-Shit Asteroid Veers Away At Last Minute

From The Onion:

"TUCSON, AZ -- Though initial calculations showed it to be on a direct collision course with Earth, a pansy-ass asteroid approximately the size of Rhode Island has instead altered its trajectory to avoid the planet by more than 40,000 miles, astronomers at the University of Arizona reported Monday.

'Guess it just didn't have the spuds to go through with it,' Richard A. Kowalski of the school's Catalina Sky Survey said. 'Real big surprise. Maybe you can try again when you accrete a little more mass than 6.32 x 1015 kilograms, okay? Chicken-shit.'

Kowalski said that one month ago Asteroid 2009-XG2 -- nicknamed 'Old Limp Dick' -- was following a path that, even accounting for heat friction and gravitational pull from other celestial bodies, gave it a 97 percent chance of striking Earth. Further observation and calculations, however, indicated that the asteroid would instead tuck its balls between its legs and change its course by more than 22 degrees."

5/15: We Want The Truth!

Like the rest of the political world, the blogosphere is buzzing about Speaker Nancy Pelosi's press conference -- particularly her claim that the CIA officials who briefed her in '02 gave her "inaccurate and incomplete information" about their use of waterboarding. Conservative bloggers are blasting Pelosi's assertions and speculating that House Dems will try to dump her as Speaker. Liberal bloggers, on the other hand, reacted to Pelosi's press conference by repeating their calls for an independent "Truth Commission" to investigate the CIA's use of harsh interrogation methods. Lefty bloggers don't care whether such an investigation implicates Pelosi and other congressional Dems; they simply want to "get to the bottom of this". Interestingly, several conservative bloggers are joining their liberal counterparts in calling for an investigation, as they're convinced that it will "will reveal...that [enhanced interrogation techniques] were used only in specific circumstances and for the most part helped save American lives."

What else is happening in the blogosphere?

• Liberal bloggers (Benen, Wheeler, Lewison, Llorens) are buzzing about ex-Colin Powell aide Lawrence Wilkerson's allegation that ex-VP Dick Cheney authorized brutal interrogation techniques in order to find a "smoking gun" linking Iraq and al Qaeda.
• Liberal bloggers (Clawson, Singer, Sudbay) are buzzing about reports that the FBI is investigating ex-Sen. Norm Coleman (R-MN) over allegations that a wealthy donor "paid for suits and other items for Coleman and his wife, Laurie [Coleman], at Nieman Marcus in Minneapolis."
• Liberal bloggers (Lewison, Yglesias, Kleiman, Benen) are criticizing AR state Sen. Kim Hendren (R), the only announced GOP challenger to Sen. Blanche Lincoln (D-AR), for referring to Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) as "that Jew."
• Conservative bloggers (Hinderaker, Bandes, Klein) are buzzing about a new Gallup poll which found that more Americans call themselves "pro-life" than "pro-choice" for the first time since '95.

PELOSI: We're Not Buying It, Nancy

Conservatives are criticizing the claims that Pelosi made during yesterday's press conference:

• Michelle Malkin: "If Pelosi were so incensed about how the CIA misled her, why wasn't this her response to news of the 2002 briefing a week ago?"
• NRO's Jim Geraghty: "If the CIA lied to Nancy Pelosi in that 2002 briefing about interrogation tactics, why is she only objecting now? Reports on the use of waterboarding surfaced in 2004 and 2005. Presuming her claim is true, once the reports came to light, shouldn't she have recognized that the briefing had been a lie? The CIA is making false reports to Congress, and she waits four or five years to object?"
• RedState's Brian Faughnan: "Speaker Pelosi claims that the CIA lied to her about its handling of terrorist detainees held by the United States. She claims not to have been informed about the methods being used to get information from prisoners. Obviously, this is almost certainly false. Why would the CIA have informed other lawmakers about interrogation methods, but not Pelosi? But even if we take her at her word, another problem arises. Pelosi does not dispute that she learned about waterboarding no later than early 2003, when her intelligence staff attended a CIA briefing where it was discussed. Since she learned about waterboarding no less than 6 years ago, she had ample opportunity to register objections without disclosing any secrets to the public. That's because the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence -- on which Pelosi served as the senior Democrat in 2002 -- conducts closed hearings on sensitive topics, to hear testimony from intelligence community officials. Further, House rules specify a procedure by which Representatives can force a debate on sensitive intelligence matters in a closed session. The most recent such session was in 2008; if Pelosi was so concerned about 'torture,' why did she not attempt to force a closed session to discuss it?"
• Commentary's Peter Wehner: "Accusing America's intelligence agency of knowingly misleading a Member of Congress, and particularly a Member of the House Intelligence Committee, is quite an explosive charge. She better be able to prove it. And if she is lying -- as Porter Goss, then ranking Republican on the House Committee who later served as C.I.A. Director, seems to believe -- there will be an enormously high price for her to pay. There is another thing Pelosi said that needs to be stressed as well: she concedes in her remarks today that Michael Sheehy, a top aide, informed her about waterboarding. In other words, Ms. Pelosi did learn about waterboarding no later than February 2003, according to her own account -- and she didn't do anything about it."
• Hot Air's Allahpundit: "Even if it's true that the CIA told [Pelosi] in 2002 that they were only thinking of using the [waterboarding] technique, the very thought of it should have ignited her righteous progressive outrage. Instead, her defense here -- I kid you not -- is that by the time she learned they were waterboarding people in 2003, Jane Harman had become the ranking member on the intelligence committee and so, you know, it wasn't Nan's job anymore to speak up. Besides, she was too focused at the time on the big Democratic electoral turnaround...which wouldn't happen for another three years."

PELOSI II: Time For Her To Go?

Some conservative bloggers are speculating that House Dems will dump Pelosi as Speaker:

• Power Line's John Hinderaker: "I don't suppose anyone imagines that the CIA was foolish enough to lie to Pelosi and others about the use of waterboarding. On the contrary, it seems obvious that everyone in the chain of command was covering himself or herself by disseminating information about the harsh interrogations of three al Qaeda leaders. Pelosi has now opened the lid on a box that she will not be able to close. The CIA has no choice but to defend itself by demonstrating that she, not the Agency, is lying. Possibly [CIA dir.] Leon Panetta can save her, but at the moment, it is hard to see how this affair can end with Pelosi remaining as Speaker of the House."
• NRO's Jonah Goldberg: "Well, it seems increasingly plausible that there can be no 'truth commission' without Nancy Pelosi's resignation. The dynamic reminds me of the tectonic pressures against Rep. Bob Livingston during the [Bill] Clinton impeachment. It was impossible to impeach Clinton and keep Livingston in as Speaker-to-be, because Livingston's own adultery had been exposed. (Of course, some would argue, like myself, that Clinton's behavior wasn't merely about adultery). Livingston understood that the rank-and-file were committed to impeachment, so he got out of the way (a move the Clinton White House begged Livingston not to make). It remains to be seen whether the rank and file of the Dems are equally committed to some kind of truth commission/anti-[George W.] Bush witch hunt, but if they are, Nancy Pelosi stands in their way."
• Allahpundit: "Why don't the Democrats dump Pelosi? Not now, I mean -- there'll have to be some hard proof from the CIA first that she is indeed the pathetic liar the whole country suspects her of being -- but assuming that proof is adduced, why not toss her overboard then? The right hates her, the left doesn't really trust her, and there's a perfectly capable back-up waiting in Steny Hoyer. [...] If they're serious about passing epochal legislation this year like health care, don't they want someone in charge who's friendly with Republicans and can woo GOP votes to provide the Dems with a little political cover? To put it another way, what exactly has Pelosi accomplished lately for the left that Hoyer wouldn't? One day she's on TV dumping on the CIA, the next day she's pushing for torture 'truth commissions' that'll blow up in Pres. Obama's face. She's more of a liability than an asset. Assuming she's guilty of having endorsed waterboarding back in the day -- which, according to Andy McCarthy, by the left's own logic could amount to a criminal conspiracy -- there's the pretext for Obama and [Senate Maj. Leader Harry] Reid to invite her to the White House for a 'talk.'"
• Hot Air's Ed Morrissey: "Will Democrats insist that [Pelosi] step down from the Speaker's seat? Like Allahpundit, I'm not sure what Pelosi gets them in a Democratic administration, especially one that wants to pose as a post-partisan White House. Pelosi may be an attack dog, but they don't need one any more, not with a 78-vote margin. Steny Hoyer would make a better Speaker for this period, one that has a track record of bipartisan engagement -- and one that has his credibility intact. Had this never come up, no one would have thought replacing Pelosi worth the trouble, but she's kneecapped herself and made it extraordinarily difficult for her party to press forward with a review of interrogations on their own terms. I wouldn't predict her ouster, but it wouldn't surprise me, either."

PELOSI III: Can We Please Have A Truth Commission Now?

Most liberal bloggers reacted to Pelosi's press conference by repeating their calls for an independent "Truth Commission" to investigate the CIA's use of harsh interrogation methods:

• Obsidian Wings' publius: "If the Republicans are so very anxious to find out about what Pelosi knew, why not ask them to support a truth commission on torture and detention to get to the bottom of this?"
• Balloon Juice's John Cole: "So if the Democrats want a truth commission, and the Republicans and Dick Cheney want a truth commission, why can't we order up a double order of truth commission? Am I missing something here? Didn't [MI Rep.] Pete Hoekstra signal interest in this last week? Make it happen."
• Daily Kos' mcjoan: "All of the briefing materials should be declassified and released so that we can finally put to rest the game of what Democrat knew what when. Pelosi's, [ex-FL Sen. Bob] Graham's, and [WV Sen. Jay] Rockefeller's stories remain consistent -- remarkably so considering that they were never briefed at the same time. The Democrats in Congress were not responsible for conceiving of or implementing the Bush torture regime. But we need to know what they knew, and when, and what they did or didn't do about it. The horrors of the Bush administration didn't happen in a vacuum. Strike that -- they did happen in a vacuum, a vacuum created by the nearly complete failure of Congress to actually do its job. So Congressional leaders can't be let off the hook either, until we know what happened."
• TPM's Josh Marshall: "The whole point of this storm about Pelosi is that her critics want her to be embarrassed and stop supporting a Truth Commission or any sort of examination of what happened. But she's not. She still says there should be an investigation. Her critics still want the book closed. That says it all. She'll have to stand or fall with the results of an actual investigation. Her opponents on this are simply risible hypocrites."

Several conservative bloggers are joining their liberal counterparts in calling for a "Truth Commission":

• Townhall's Carol Platt Liebau: "Given Speaker Pelosi's remarkable accusations of being misled both by the CIA and the Bush administration, it strikes me that a full investigation is in order. And that includes full disclosure of the kind of information that the EIT's elicited. As contentious as such hearings are bound to be, having Congress tied in knots over this matter is far superior to leaving the Democrats unoccupied enough that they're easily able to ruin the health care system through their efforts at 'reform.' [...] What's more, Republicans only have reason to fear such hearings if they suspect that the Bush administration or the CIA tortured gratuitously. I believe that the facts will reveal that this was not the case -- that EIT's were used only in specific circumstances and for the most part helped save American lives."
• RedState's Mark Impomeni: "Under these circumstances, and with adversaries this pathetic, Republicans should welcome Nancy Pelosi's truth commission. Half of the commission's time will be spent trying to untie Pelosi from her own statements about what she knew and when. That's a bargain Republicans should be willing to take. And the American people will get a fuller picture both of the lives that were saved by enhanced interrogations, and of the Democrats' willingness to say and do anything to gain power."

The Atlantic's Andrew Sullivan: "The notion that dealing with this can somehow be put off without a commission does not seem to make sense to me. By not setting up a commission, Obama will ensure that this stuff is hashed out in partisan fashion in ways that cannot provide the proper context."

PELOSI IV: Stop Making This About Her

Some liberal bloggers are annoyed that Pelosi has become the focus of the torture controversy instead of the Bush officials who authorized these controversial interrogation techniques:

• Think Progress' Matthew Yglesias: "[T]he details aside, I think the big picture is pretty clear -- Pelosi and other congressional Democrats weren't exactly profiles in courage on this stuff, but insofar as you want to ding them for not objecting forcefully enough to what the Bush administration was doing, you obviously need to ding the people actually doing the doing with more severity."
• The Washington Monthly's Steve Benen: "In general, I find the interest in what Pelosi knew and when to be something of a distraction. [...] I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if Pelosi was less than forceful in pushing back in 2002 and 2003, serving at the time as House Minority Leader. Maybe the briefings she received at the time were deliberately vague, and the CIA -- which had a strong incentive to play fast and loose with the details -- chose to keep lawmakers in the dark a bit. Maybe Pelosi was glad. Maybe both. But I'm curious, why is Pelosi the one hosting press conferences and being peppered with questions, while those who were actually responsible for the torture have precious little to say?"
• Oliver Willis: "My guess? Speaker Pelosi is, at best, being misleading about what the CIA did and didn't tell her. In all likelihood? She's probably lying. But does it really matter? [...] George Bush authorized the torture of people, and while the congress turned a blind eye to it and authorized it and deserves some of the blame for it, it is Bush and his henchmen who committed the act itself. I feel its probably likely that Speaker Pelosi was an accessory to these acts, but George W. Bush was the trigger man."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: The Price Of Prosecutions

Sullivan posts a letter from a reader who explains why Obama is opposed to prosecuting Bush officials:

"Imagine what such prosecutions would entail: years of courtroom drama, depositions, lawsuits and counter-suits; the long parade of powerful and high ranking ex- and current members of government, including a goodly number of Democrats, being called on the carpet and having to testify against one another; the enormous rancor and bitterness. This would be Watergate on steroids. And imagine the shot in the arm this would give the zombified [Rush] Limbaugh Right.

The prosecutions you are asking for would simply swallow the Obama presidency whole. It is the kind of energy draining, oxygen consuming drama that is the nightmare of every president. It would come to define his presidency in the same way the Hostage Crisis defined [Jimmy] Carter's and there is zero chance he will opt for this.

President Obama is making a realistic, cold, clear-eyed cost-benefit analysis. This is the choice: Does he fix the economy, fix healthcare, get a handle on the two wars he's dealing with, or does he prosecute Bush era war crimes? He has chosen his agenda and is asking us to choose that to."

LEST WE FORGET: It Is Now

From Overheard in the Office:

Office mate #1: My brother's girlfriend brought dinner over last night.
Office mate #2: Is it weird -- since you guys are twins -- that your brother's girlfriend knows exactly what you look like naked?

5/14: X-Rated Photos

The political blogosphere is in an uproar over Pres. Obama's decision to reverse his position on the release of the detainee abuse photos (Obama now opposes the release of the photos because he believes that it would "further inflame anti-American opinion [and] put our troops in greater danger"). Liberal bloggers are furious about Obama's flip-flop. They don't buy his claim that releasing the photos will endanger our troops; Gregg Levine writes: "[I]t isn't the photos; it is the acts themselves that put US troops in danger. The abuse is widely known among Iraqis, and those inclined to act don't need photographic evidence as justification."

Not surprisingly, conservative bloggers support Obama's decision. While a few of them are praising the President for reversing his stance, most of them are attributing his switch to politics. Citing Obama's prior shift on telecom immunity and his rumored upcoming shift on indefinite detention, Michael Goldfarb observes: "Obama's made a habit of reversing himself on key national security issues when the politics shift."

What else is happening in the blogosphere?

• Liberal bloggers (Moulitsas, Smith, Dayen) are accusing Senate Maj. Leader Harry Reid of demonstrating a lack of leadership with his inability to get IU law prof. Dawn Johnsen confirmed as OLC chief.
• Liberal bloggers (Black, Morrill, digby, Benen, BooMan, Cole) are ridiculing the GOP following reports that the RNC plans to pass a resolution rebranding Democrats as the "Democrat Socialist Party." Most conservative bloggers aren't commenting on the RNC resolution, although one of them calls it "stupid."
• Liberal bloggers (Houle, digby, Yglesias, Hamsher) are congratulating Firedoglake blogger Marcy Wheeler after she won a Journalism Award from the Hillman Foundation for her investigative work.

OBAMA: Meet The New Boss

Liberal bloggers are blasting Obama's decision to reverse his position on the release of the detainee abuse photos:

• Daily Kos diarist Cenk Uygur: "This is an unbelievable moment. Dick Cheney's PR offensive over the last month actually worked. Barack Obama just crumbled and will follow Cheney's command to not release the new set of detainee abuse pictures."
• Daily Kos' mcjoan: "The more this administration is seen as continuing the policies of the previous administration, the more damage will be done to us internationally."
• Salon's Glenn Greenwald: "Obama's claim that he has to hide this evidence to protect our soldiers is the sort of crass, self-serving exploitation of 'The Troops' which was the rancid hallmark of Bush/Cheney rhetoric. Everyone knows what the real effect of these photographs would be: they would highlight just how brutal and criminal was our treatment of detainees in our custody, and further underscore how amoral and lawless are Obama's calls that we Look To the Future, Not the Past. Manifestly, that is why they're being suppressed."
• digby: "Apparently, the logic is that the military will refuse to investigate criminal behavior if there is any chance that pictures of such criminal behavior could be made public. So we simply won't make pictures of it public anymore."
• Obsidian Wings' hilzoy: "I have precisely no desire to put our troops in danger. (Just one more reason not to torture people in the first place.) But we are supposed to be a democracy, and what our government does in our name ought to be available to us unless there is some very good reason to keep it secret. And the fact that people would be appalled by it is not such a reason -- if anything, it just makes the case for disclosure stronger. After all, the things it is most important to disclose are the things that people care about, not the things that are a matter of complete indifference."
• BooMan: "[D]espite having a lot of sympathy for the tough choice involved here, I think this is a mistake by the Obama administration. I do not want to put any troops in unnecessary danger, but I also don't want to do damage to our legal system and see the government gain more power to conceal its crimes."

The Atlantic's Andrew Sullivan is disgusted: "Slowly but surely, Obama is owning the cover-up of his predcessors' war crimes. But covering up war crimes, refusing to proscute them, promoting those associated with them, and suppressing evidence of them are themselves violations of Geneva and the UN Convention. So Cheney begins to successfully coopt his successor."

Think Progress' Matthew Yglesias thinks the politics of this debate don't favor civil libertarians: "[I]f you want to think about why this is happening, ask yourself when's the last time a politician lost an election because he was too deferential to the attitudes and institutional prerogatives of the national security apparatus of the United States. I don't think it's happened since the early 1970s. And it's a not a coincidence that back then we got FISA and the Church Committee and so forth. But until it happens again, things will get worse and worse and worse in general even if there are spots of improvement."

Meanwhile, TPM's Josh Marshall makes an observation: "If we need to keep evidence of torture, like photographs, secret, to protect our troops, doesn't that suggest that torture isn't a great way to keep them or us safe?"

OBAMA II: Flip-Flop Alert!

A few conservative bloggers are offering Obama mild praise for reversing himself:

• NRO's Peter Wehner: "President Obama has done a good and important thing by reversing himself on a previous commitment. [...] What motivated Obama to take this action is impossible to know. Divining our own motivations on things we do is hard enough; trying to judge the motivations of others is far more difficult. All I can say is that the president has done the right thing -- if in my judgment the blindingly obvious thing -- in this instance. To have released these photos would have been a reckless and irresponsible act, one he would have quickly come to regret."
• NRO's Jonah Goldberg: "I agree with the general consensus that President Obama has made the right call here, albeit later than he should have."

However, most conservative bloggers are simply mocking Obama for flip-flopping:

• Michelle Malkin: "Well, well, well. Reality bites the White House in the ass, again."
• NRO's Jim Geraghty: "All statements from Barack Obama come with an expiration date. All of them."
• Glenn Reynolds: "Obama has...flip-flopped on releasing the 'torture' photos. Meet the new boss, yada yada. All of this was entirely predictable. And yet, his election was a matter of fierce moral urgency about which there could be no serious disagreement..."
• Right Wing News' John Hawkins: "With these pictures, you just know some non-liberal had to sit down with Barack Obama and explain the real world ramifications of what he was about to do. Can't you just hear Obama after the briefing? 'It would make our job in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan harder? But, I thought they would appreciate our honesty! You mean some people would use these photos as an excuse to riot? I had no idea! And I would be held responsible? How can that be? I wasn't President when these photos were taken! Well, if there might be political ramifications, I guess the ACLU will have to get over it.'"

Meanwhile, NRO's Andy McCarthy wants Obama to go further in ensuring that the photos aren't released: "[Obama]'s now getting plaudits for reversing himself and his Justice Department (which, in contrast to the Bush Justice Department, didn't want to fight this case at all -- just wanted to release the photos). But he is still trying to get away with voting present -- which is to say, he is hiding behind the judges. It is in Obama's power, right this minute, to end this debacle by issuing an executive order suppressing disclosure of the photos due to national security and foreign policy concerns. [...] Besides being simple, issuing such an order would be a strong position and the screamingly obvious right thing to do."

OBAMA III: This Is About Politics, Not Principles

Most conservative bloggers are attributing Obama's switch to politics:

• Wizbang's Lorie Byrd: "It appears Obama has taken the advice of Dick Cheney (sorry, couldn't resist that). It is disturbing that he did not take this position in the beginning, but I am glad he has come around to it now. Not only was this the sensible position regarding the safety of our troops and security of our country, but I suspect Obama came to realize this was the only smart political option for him as well."
• Power Line's Paul Mirengoff: "It's encouraging to know that, ultimately, there is a limit on how far Obama will go to launch or facilitate attacks America's honor. That limit apparently is reached when generals tell him American troops may well die. It would be more encouraging if a lesser showing would suffice."
• Commentary's Jennifer Rubin: "[O]ne wonders what inner compass guides the president. Surely the argument that releasing the photos would imperil our troops and incite the enemy was long known. Surely, he could have seen the firestorm that would have ensued when he made the decision originally to allow the ACLU to steamroll voter national security interests, right? One can't help concluding this is all politics: How's it going to fly? Can the administration 'get away with it'? Will the public side with those nasty Cheneys? It all feels like fingers testing the wind. And the message is unmistakable: he who screams the loudest and makes the most convincing case that the president's own reputation will suffer has the winning argument."
• Hot Air's Ed Morrissey: "The expiration date on Obama's original position came less than three weeks after publicly taking it. At the time, Obama insisted that the need to be honest exceeded our national-security concerns, and the safety of our troops as well. What changed? The decision angered the military, which recalled the hysterics over the Abu Ghraib photos. Even Obama's allies on the decision admitted that the release would damage security and put American troops in more danger, including [MA Sen.] John Kerry, who said they made great propaganda for our terrorist enemies. With the CIA already battling the White House after the release of the OLC memos, the last thing Obama needed was a war with the Pentagon."

The Weekly Standard's Goldfarb notices a pattern: "Obama's made a habit of reversing himself on key national security issues when the politics shift. He flipped on telecom immunity after promising to filibuster the provision. He flipped on military commissions for detainees -- or at least reports in the Washington Post and New York Times indicate that he soon will. He's flipped even on the right to due process, which will now be withheld from as many as 100 detainees who the administration has said will be held without a trial of any kind. Now Obama has flipped on releasing some 44 photos that allegedly show the abuse of detainees by U.S. forces. [...] President Obama is now commander in chief, and he has an obligation to the troops under his command that exceeds any promises made to liberal interest groups during the campaign. No one should question that Obama is doing this for the right reasons, but it must also be noted that the president, as Politico's Josh Gerstein explains, wants 'to avoid giving Republican critics new fodder for attacks.'"

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Sometimes Context Is Irrelevant

The Atlantic's Ta-Nehisi Coates:

"I keep hearing this notion repeated that, when we think about the Bush administration and torture we should consider the context. It was post-9/11. The country was under attack. We were at war etc. The basic idea seems to be that torture may be indefensible in normal times, but under pressure it's fine. Or better put, principles are something you cling to when they are convenient.

A political leader who blaming 'context' for his bad decisions, is a quarterback blaming crowd noise for his five interceptions, or a writer blaming his fact-checkers for flubbing names. They put your byline at the top for a reason, dude.

People are judged by what they do under pressure, not what they do at the company picnic. If being a leader was simply a matter of doing the right thing, when it's easy to do the right thing, then anyone could lead. Of course, they think they did the right thing. Which makes me wonder why they keep bringing up context."

LEST WE FORGET: Classmates.com Employees Don't Have Heart To Tell CEO About Facebook

From The Onion:

"SEATTLE -- Employees at Classmates.com -- an online service that enables users to find and communicate with people from their past for a monthly fee -- have done everything in their power to keep the company's CEO from finding out about the wildly popular social networking site Facebook. 'He knows something is going on,' Classmates.com web coder Josh Krzysch said while combing his boss's newspaper and removing any offending articles. 'The other day he asked me why people aren't interested in getting in touch with old friends anymore, and I told him that the Internet just isn't very popular right now. What else was I supposed to say?' Employees claim that unless things somehow miraculously improve by next month, they plan to quietly pack up their desks and leave in the middle of the night."

5/13: Crist Vs. Rubio: It's On

Conservative bloggers are furious that NRSC chair John Cornyn endorsed FL Gov. Charlie Crist in his GOP Senate primary race against ex-state House Speaker Marco Rubio. John Hawkins is calling on Cornyn to resign as NRSC chair, while Erick Erickson has launched a Facebook group for conservatives who refuse to donate money to the NRSC during the 2010 election cycle. Erickson's co-blogger Dan McLaughlin complains: "John Cornyn has proven that he has learned absolutely nothing from the fiasco of 2006, when the GOP lost close Senate races elsewhere after pouring millions into a primary race to prop up [ex-RI Sen.] Lincoln Chafee." It appears that the Crist-Rubio Senate primary is shaping up to be a battle royale between grassroots conservatives and GOP party officials. Meanwhile, the Club for Growth responded to Crist's announcement by criticizing his support of Pres. Obama's stimulus package, but will the Club go so far as to endorse Rubio?

What else is happening in the blogosphere?

• Liberal bloggers (Smith, Benen, Yglesias, Greenwald) are accusing Senate Maj. Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) of being a weak leader after he said that Dems don't have enough votes to bring up Obama's nominee for OLC chief, IU law prof. Dawn Johnsen.
• Following the Army's dismissal of a gay National Guard officer who speaks fluent Arabic, several bloggers (Lemieux, Aravosis, Sullivan) are urging Obama to end the military's "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy.
• Conservative bloggers (Morrissey, Faughnan, Klein, Antle) are buzzing about a new government report warning that Social Security and Medicare will become fiscally insolvent sooner than expected.

FL SEN: Stay Out Of This, John!

Conservative bloggers are blasting Cornyn for endorsing Crist in his primary race against Rubio:

• RedState's McLaughlin: "John Cornyn has proven that he has learned absolutely nothing from the fiasco of 2006, when the GOP lost close Senate races elsewhere after pouring millions into a primary race to prop up Lincoln Chafee. You don't cannibalize key offices like the Florida Governorship to recruit candidates, and you certainly don't do so to poke a stick in the eye of the party's base by creating a contested primary against a rising star who appeals to a crucial demograpic. It's a loser move all around."
• Right Wing News' Hawkins: "In a repeat of the sort of stupidity that the GOP engaged in back in 2004 in Pennsylvania ([Arlen] Specter vs. [Pat] Toomey), Cornyn and the NRSC are actually endorsing a guy who will end up voting against the GOP half the time if he gets in the Senate -- over a credible conservative candidate. If I told you what I really think about that, it would mostly involve a long series of F-bombs and John Cornyn's name."
• Hot Air's Ed Morrissey: "Tradition dictates that the national organizations remain neutral in primary races. [...] While Crist's popularity is an asset, Crist's positions on issues are going to give conservatives and even moderates some angst in the party. Crist openly supported the Porkulus plan, which would have put him with Arlen Specter, [ME Sen.] Olympia Snowe, and [ME Sen.] Susan Collins as the only Republicans in Congress who did. Cornyn himself fought against Porkulus. So why is the NRSC endorsing Crist over Marco Rubio 15 months ahead of the primary?"

Several conservative bloggers are urging their readers to stop donating money to the NRSC:

• Hawkins: "I would encourage you not to give the National Republican Senatorial Committee one thin dime of your money unless John Cornyn resigns. If they send you a letter asking for money or call you asking for money, let them know that they're not getting anything from you unless John Cornyn is gone and they stop interfering in Republican primary races."
• RedState's Erickson: "You know, I can slightly understand the NRSC getting into the Chaffee race, though it was a stupid waste and mismanagement of funds. I can kind of understand them getting behind Specter. Both he and Chaffee were incumbents. But getting behind Crist in the Florida primary is wholly unacceptable for all the reasons and explanations Dan [McLaughlin] gave. If the NRSC thinks this is smart, we must not waste our time or energy with them. Join me in pledging no money, no help, no aid, and no support for the NRSC's efforts in the 2010 election cycle. And if you are hesitant, remember that Charlie Crist, the NRSC's wonder boy, is set to sign into law a massive tax increase on the working people of Florida. We can disagree with the NRSC on many things, but this one is a bridge too far."
• Townhall's Matt Lewis: "[I]f you are a conservative who is still contributing to the NRSC, well, you should at least read Erick Erickson's post ... Let's get this straight... There is a widening gap between conservatives and Republican leaders..."

On the left side of the blogosphere, Daily Kos' Markos Moulitsas is eagerly anticipating the Crist-Rubio primary contest: "[T]he closeted Crist is about to get the Specter treatment, and upon further examination, Rubio is the perfect candidate to take him on. He's young, good-looking, Cuban-American, and straight out central casting for the ambitious young politician looking to take on Goliath. [...] If Rubio can rally the Cuban-American community around him, the alliance between South Florida Republicans, Boss [Rush] Limbaugh and the rest of wingnut radio, and the nutso base would be potent indeed. And as for money, between the Club for Growth (which is aboard Rubio's candidacy) and the Cubans, money shouldn't be a problem. Crist's statewide popularity is irrelevant in a GOP primary. He's headed for rough waters ahead."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Obama Goes For Gold

FiveThirtyEight's Nate Silver reacts to reports that Obama is lobbying to bring the 2016 Summer Olympics to Chicago:

"On the three of the four previous occasions when the Summer Olympics were held in the United States, the incumbent President won re-election by a landslide margin. [...] Making the major assumption that Obama will win re-election in 2012, it's easy to see how a domestic Olympic Games could create nightmares for the GOP in their efforts to win back the White House in 2016. The Olympics are intrinsically a feel-good, patriotic event. The symbolism of Obama, in an Olympic Stadium built just blocks away from his home [...], bringing the world to together and passing the literal and figurative torch to Hillary Clinton or whomever the Democratic nominee might be in 2016 would be extremely powerful, worth tens of millions of dollars in free advertising impressions at a critical phase in the campaign."

LEST WE FORGET: Respectful Yo Mama Jokes

McSweeney's contributor Lucas Klauss:

• Yo mama is so healthy her BMI is probably exactly within the ideal range for a woman her age.
• Yo mama is so well respected within her profession that I bet she'll get another raise and promotion this year despite the downward trajectory of the economy.
• Yo mama is so good at cooking she should open her own restaurant. I'd be the first customer.
• Yo mama is so attractive she could be on the cover of Prevention.
• Yo mama is so Internet-savvy she should start her own social-networking site designed specifically for moms. It would be really popular.

5/12: What Crist Hath Wrought

The political blogosphere is abuzz over the news that popular FL Gov. Charlie Crist (R) will run for the Senate seat held by retiring Sen. Mel Martinez (R). Liberal bloggers were disappointed by Crist's announcement, as they believe that he's a "lock" to win both his primary race against ex-state House Speaker Marco Rubio (R) and the general election against the likely Dem nominee, Rep. Kendrick Meek (D-17). Markos Moulitsas has even written a tongue-in-cheek post urging the Club for Growth to take out Crist in the GOP primary.

Conservative bloggers, meanwhile, strongly prefer Rubio to the "tax-hiker" Crist, and they're annoyed that the NRSC is backing Crist in the primary. One righty blogger complains: "Why would any conservative ever send another dime to the NRSC after this? [...] To hell with Charlie Crist and to hell with the NRSC. Go give some money to Marco Rubio."

What else is happening in the blogosphere?

• In a hypothetical MO GOP SEN primary, at least one conservative blogger prefers Rep. Roy Blunt (R-07) and ex-Treas. Sarah Steelman (R) over law prof Thomas Schweich (R). In a hypothetical TX GOP GOV primary, at least one conservative blogger prefers Gov. Rick Perry (R) over Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R).
• Conservative bloggers (Hawkins, Klein, Lopez) are chastising RNC Chair Michael Steele after he said that one of the reasons that the GOP base rejected ex-MA Gov. Mitt Romney (R) during last year's presidential primary race was "because it had issues with Mormonism." Several righty bloggers (Cost, Allahpundit, Ace of Spades) have had enough of Steele's PR problems and are calling for his resignation.
• Liberal bloggers (Drum, Benen, Aravosis, Morrill) are blasting NRCC Chairman Pete Sessions for alleging that Pres. Obama is trying "to inflict damage and hardship on the free enterprise system, if not to kill it" as part of a "divide and conquer" strategy to consolidate power.
• Some liberal bloggers (Cohn, Yglesias, Dayen) are cautiously optimistic about reports that health insurance industry officials have promised to cut costs by $2T over the next decade. Others (Klein, Drum, digby) are worried that these industry groups will want substantial concessions in return for their efforts, such as the elimination of Obama's proposed public health insurance plan. Meanwhile, one liberal blogger is upset that Obama isn't pushing for a single-payer system.
• In other health care news, liberal bloggers (Moulitsas, Klein) were pleased to note that Sen. Arlen Specter (D-PA) has reversed himself on yet another issue, saying that he's now open to "discussing and considering" Obama's proposed public health insurance plan. However, the netroots are still urging Rep. Joe Sestak (D-07) to challenge Specter in next year's Dem primary, and Sestak has thanked the netroots for their support (although he has yet to make a decision).
• Conservative bloggers (Horner, Hawkins, Hinderaker, Malkin, Reynolds) continue to criticize Obama for laughing while comedian Wanda Sykes slammed Rush Limbaugh at the White House Correspondents' Dinner. Liberal bloggers (Serwer, digby) are pushing back against the conservative critics.
• Two prominent liberal bloggers will soon be working directly for Dems: Arjun Jaikumar is temporarily leaving Daily Kos to do netroots outreach for the DSCC, while Todd Beeton is leaving MyDD to do netroots outreach for NY Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand's 2010 campaign.

FL SEN: The NRSC Vs. The Rightroots

Conservative bloggers are annoyed that the NRSC is backing Crist in his primary campaign against Rubio:

• Robert Stacy McCain: "[T]he recto-cranial inversion cases at GOP-HQ are planning another atavistic blunder. [...] Why would any conservative ever send another dime to the NRSC after this? Marco Rubio is the conservative in that primary, and it was Charlie Crist whose endorsement of John McCain help deliver Florida to that dingbat loser. To hell with Charlie Crist and to hell with the NRSC. Go give some money to Marco Rubio."
• NRO's John J. Miller: "By endorsing Charlie Crist for the Senate, the NRSC is getting involved in Florida's GOP primary more than 15 months before it will actually take place (August 24, 2010). It's also selecting a very liberal Republican (Crist supported the Obama 'stimulus') against Marco Rubio, a considerably more conservative choice who is also a credible statewide candidate. Is Crist more electable than Rubio? Arguably. Is Rubio nevertheless capable of winning a general election next year? Certainly. This is a contest that the NRSC should sit out, as Florida Republicans decide for themselves what to do. Instead of trying to beat conservatives, the NRSC should save its resources for defeating Democrats."
• NRO's Jim Geraghty: "[H]ow many Republicans have ever said, 'Thank goodness the NRSC intervened in that primary'? National committees intervening in primaries certainly has a messy history -- Ramesh [Ponnuru] wrote about some cases of NRCC intervention in Kansas in 2004, and Matt Lewis wrote about some cases in 2006. It's up to Florida Republicans. Let them decide."

Meanwhile, RedState's Erick Erickson explains the significance of the FL GOP Senate primary: "It is not an understatement to say the heart and soul of the GOP will be determined in the Florida election. Will we go with tanned, telegenic tax hikers with dubious personal issues, or young, telegenic conservative reformers who are not afraid to speak up for freedom? Between Charlie Crist and Marco Rubio, that is what we have. Count me with Rubio."

FL SEN II: Chalk This One Up To The Red Team

Liberal bloggers were dismayed by Crist's announcement, as they believe that it probably puts the FL Senate seat out of their reach:

• Open Left's Chris Bowers: "Florida Governor Charlie Crist will run for Senate. This is very disappointing, as it moves Florida from one of the best potential pickups for Democrats to a Republican lock. Florida polling in the Republican primary shows Crist up 57%-11%, and in the general election by 49%-28% over likely Democratic nominee, Representative Kendrick Meek."
• Daily Kos' Jaikumar: "This had been anticipated for some time, but it doesn't make the news any more welcome: Florida Governor Charlie Crist, perhaps the most popular politician in the state at this moment, looks ready to run for the open United States Senate seat currently held by the retiring Mel Martinez. [...] Crist starts in the drivers' seat, but with Republican primary challenger Marco Rubio in the race as well, things could get hairy for him."

Daily Kos' Moulitsas urges the Club for Growth to take out Crist: "Dear Club for Growth, I'm a big fan! Your work the past several years has been stellar. I'm not sure how we pick up an Idaho House seat without your help, and I'm really happy with your work taking out incumbent Republican Joe Schwartz in MI-07, making it much easier for Democrats to pick up that seat the following cycle. Throw in Andrew Harris in MD-01, and it's clear that your handywork is a godsend for Democrats. Keep it up! [...] Former Florida Speaker Marco Rubio is a solid conservative wingnut in your vein. I don't know if he's viable in a Republican Party, but if not him, I hope you find someone else. Someone like Crist has no business winning Republican primaries in your modern GOP. So I look forward to you taking him out so Democrats can pick up another Senate seat."

Meanwhile, FiveThirtyEight's Nate Silver wonders if liberals should be rooting for Crist: "As Arlen Specter has proven...party distinctions are often relatively meaningless: when control of the chamber is not at stake, it's votes, not chairs, that count. And when it comes to key votes in the Senate, it's an open question as to which would the Democrats rather have: (a.) a virtually 100 percent chance of Crist, an extremely moderate Republican, in the Senate chamber, or, (b.) a roughly 50 percent chance of Rubio, a fairly conservative Republican, and a 50 percent chance of Kendrick Meek, a not-particularly-progressive South Florida congressman who is the leading contender to represent the Democrats next November."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: The Conservative Movement?

Seventh Circuit judge Richard Posner traces "the intellectual decline of conservatism" (h/t Andrew Sullivan):

"[I]t is notable that the policies of the new conservatism are powered largely by emotion and religion and have for the most part weak intellectual groundings. That the policies are weak in conception, have largely failed in execution, and are political flops is therefore unsurprising. The major blows to conservatism, culminating in the election and programs of Obama, have been fourfold: the failure of military force to achieve U.S. foreign policy objectives; the inanity of trying to substitute will for intellect, as in the denial of global warming, the use of religious criteria in the selection of public officials, the neglect of management and expertise in government; a continued preoccupation with abortion; and fiscal incontinence in the form of massive budget deficits, the Medicare drug plan, excessive foreign borrowing, and asset-price inflation. By the fall of 2008, the face of the Republican Party had become Sarah Palin and Joe the Plumber. Conservative intellectuals had no party. [...]

There are signs and portents of liberal excess in the policies and plans of the new administration. There will thus be plenty of targets for informed conservative critique. At this writing, however, the conservative movement is at its lowest ebb since 1964. But with this cardinal difference: the movement has so far succeeded in shifting the center of American politics and social thought that it can rest, for at least a little while, on its laurels."

LEST WE FORGET: Cheney To Travel Around Country In Sound Truck

The Huffington Post's Andy Borowitz:

"In a sign that he has no intention of going away quietly, former Vice President Dick Cheney embarked today on a nationwide road trip in a sound truck equipped with a state-of-the-art bullhorn. [...]

According to aides to the former vice president, Mr. Cheney had briefly considered starring in an IMAX film called 'The Dick Cheney 3-D Experience' before settling on the less costly sound truck idea. But Mr. Cheney's 'Pro-torture Tour '09' has not managed to skirt controversy thus far, as the former Vice President has already had to contend with grievances about the noise levels produced by his high-wattage truck.

Residents of the town of Keene, New Hampshire were awakened at 5 AM this morning by a familiar voice blaring, 'We're less safe than we were under the last administration. Run for your lives!'"

5/11: Sorry, Policy Wonks...

Maybe it's fitting that during the weekend of the White House Correspondents' Dinner, the political blogosphere chatter was lighter on the substance than usual. Liberal bloggers have spent the past 24 hours mocking ex-VP Dick Cheney after he appeared on CBS' "Face the Nation" and said that he preferred Rush Limbaugh's brand of conservatism to that of ex-Sec/State Colin Powell. Lefty bloggers are convinced that the unpopular Cheney hurts the GOP every time he makes a public statement, and they loved his comments about Powell no longer being a Republican. Markos Moulitsas quips: "Cheney is the gift that keeps on giving. I fear the day Republicans wise up and muzzle him." Not surprisingly, conservative blogger Erick Erickson has a different view: "Put me in the Cheney-Limbaugh camp. Heck, put me in the Cheney-Limbaugh 2012 camp."

In other news, conservative bloggers are blasting comedian Wanda Sykes after she took some shots at Limbaugh during her performance at the White House Correspondents' Dinner. Erickson offers the following summary of Sykes' performance: [This was] the first time in recorded history a lesbian has stood before America's media elite and performed oral favors on a man -- and not just any man. She did so to the President of the United States. It was a Lewinsky moment without the cigar and stained dress."

What else is happening in the blogosphere?

• Liberals (Green, O'Connor) and conservatives (Malkin, Morrissey) are both mocking Sen. Arlen Specter (D-PA) after his campaign changed the layout of its SpecterForTheCure.com website in response to criticism that the site mislead visitors into believing that their donations were going to medical research instead of to Specter's re-election campaign. Meanwhile, lefty bloggers continue to urge Rep. Joe Sestak (D-07) to challenge Specter in the Dem primary.
• Conservative bloggers (McLaughlin, Hawkins, Klein) are buzzing about their 5/8 conference call with SC Gov. Mark Sanford (R), who admitted, "A blogger conference call is slightly out of my comfort zone because I really don't know what it is."
• Liberal bloggers (Marshall, Rosenberg, Benen, Black) are annoyed that GOPers dominated Sunday's TV news shows.

CHENEY: Someone Order A Smaller Tent!

Liberal bloggers enjoyed Cheney's latest media appearance:

• Daily Kos' Moulitsas: "Cheney is the gift that keeps on giving. I fear the day Republicans wise up and muzzle him."
• The Washington Monthly's Steve Benen: "Dick Cheney, the DNC's manna from heaven."
• AMERICAblog's John Aravosis: "80% of voters have a favorable view of Colin Powell. 19% have a favorable view of Rush Limbaugh. So, of course, Cheney picks Limbaugh, who is about as popular as the Republican party right now. [...] And that's why we want Cheney on television as much as possible. Keep digging the GOP's own grave, Dick. Keep telegraphing to the country just how conservative and far to the right today's Republican party really is."
• Balloon Juice's John Cole: "It was one thing to hear Rush babble out Powell last week -- having Cheney say this is kind of crazy. Powell was the guy who sold Dick Cheney's excellent Baghdad adventure, and now he isn't good enough for the GOP. Kind of amazing. Four decades of military service, National Security Advisor, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Secretary of State, and they don't want him."

While liberal bloggers think Cheney's comments about Powell are harmful to the GOP, they're not exactly ready to embrace Powell. Attaturk thinks Powell "has a lot to defend himself about," while digby decries "the rehabilitation of Colin Powell among progressives." digby continues: "Cheney may have been the chief architect [of the Iraq invasion], but Powell was the chief salesman and cover artist."

On the right side of the blogosphere, RedState's Erickson stands firmly with Cheney: "Put me in the Cheney-Limbaugh camp. Heck, put me in the Cheney-Limbaugh 2012 camp. If not a Presidential ticket, at least they should be the listened voices on the right -- the ones whose advice guides the direction our candidates go. Yes, the left may laugh at that and encourage it, but they would be wise to think about it. [...] Colin Powell, Meghan McCain, and others would have the GOP become more Democrat to compete on the playing field of American politics. Cheney and LImbaugh both urge a clear, distinct brand. The money is on them. The GOP will never win by being Democrat-lite."

Hot Air's Allahpundit offers a more qualified defense of Cheney's comments: "It's superficially surreal to watch a former VP side against his own Secretary of State, especially given Powell's public approval rating vis-a-vis Limbaugh's, but what's Cheney supposed to say here realistically? That he thinks a guy who voted for Obama and has been known to muse that 'Americans are looking for more government in their life, not less' is a superior spokesman for a conservative party? This is like asking a lefty blogger if the Democrats are better off with Keith Olbermann or McCain-lovin' maverick Joe Lieberman. Sure, Liebs is the more impressive person, but which one's closer to the 'progressive' ideal?"

SYKES: Conservatives Aren't Laughing

Conservative bloggers are blasting Sykes' comedy routine at the WHCD and are criticizing Obama for laughing at Sykes' Limbaugh jokes:

• Erickson: "By now you have probably read about Wanda Sykes' comments at the Correspondents Dinner. It is the first time in recorded history a lesbian has stood before America's media elite and performed oral favors on a man -- and not just any man. She did so to the President of the United States. It was a Lewinsky moment without the cigar and stained dress. Never mind that the American media elite would never dream of inviting anyone to speak at the Correspondents Dinner who supported a Republican. But the fawning hagiography to Obama continues. And it does so with some pointed remarks about Rush Limbaugh and Dick Cheney."
• Hot Air's Ed Morrissey: "I find it fascinating...that the media world and the White House shrieked when Rush said he hoped Obama would fail, but laughed at Sykes' calling Rush a terrorist last night, including the President who felt so threatened by Rush that he criticized him by name in the first days of his presidency. If Rush had called Sykes the '20th terrorist' and wished kidney disease on her, I doubt that Obama would be laughing, and the media would fall all over themselves to rip him to shreds. But honestly, does the news of a double standard for conservatives really surprise anyone?"
• Glenn Reynolds: "'I hope his kidneys fail.' As classy as we've come to expect."
• Townhall's Carol Platt Liebau: "Certainly, President [George W.] Bush had his faults, but it's pretty hard to imagine him laughing had a comic wished kidney failure on, say, Keith Olbermann. He never stooped to the politics of pettiness. Yet President Obama -- harbinger of hope, unity and reconciliation -- was apparently happy enough with the crack to giggle along. Tells you a lot, doesn't it?"

On the left side of the blogosphere, The Atlantic's Ta-Nehisi Coates offers his take: "Meh, I think Wanda Sykes' Limbaugh bit was so/so. The treason part was weak, but the 'I hope his kidneys fail' was pretty hilarious. Anyway, hand-wringing over Wanda Sykes is pretty useless. She's a comedian. She's not there to respect the line. Moreover, I think people need to remember the context. Sykes belongs to three groups which Rush has made a career maligning -- blacks, gays and women. I don't have time to dig up the Rush-file. But I'm willing to bet that if take together all the abhorrent things Limbaugh has ever said about those three groups and measured them against Sykes few minutes, it wouldn't be a contest."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: In Defense Of Identity

Think Progress' Matthew Yglesias thinks it's fine for Obama to consider sexual orientation when selecting a SCOTUS nominee:

"[E]veryone knows that a president is going to consider age and health as important criteria in picking his nominees. That's because a slot on the Supreme Court isn't a reward for past excellence in jurisprudence, it's an effort to produce high-quality future jurisprudence. We care about past performance insofar as it's indicative of future results. We're not just handing out gold stars, in other words, we're hoping to produce good Supreme Court decisions. But while of course you'd have to look at a judge's past work as an important consideration, it'd be crazy to consider it the exclusive source of evidence about future judging. It's hardly implausible to think that a gay justice may have a different perspective on cases related to gay rights, and I don't see why it would be illegitimate for a president to take that into consideration.

More broadly, the nature of the Supreme Court is that a great many of its most important cases concern the rights of women and various kinds of minority groups. It's absurd to think that a forum of nine white, male, heterosexual Christians could possibly compose the best possible forum for deciding these kinds of issues. The reality is that a nine-person group can't possibly fully represent the diversity -- in terms of religion, sexual orientation, ethnicity, gender, etc. -- that exists in the country at large. But one can do better or worse on this regard and it makes perfect sense to aspire to do better. That's not an alternative to caring about the quality of the jurisprudence, it's part of trying to get good jurisprudence."

LEST WE FORGET: Mainstream Media At It Again, Bloggers Report

From The Onion:

"NEW YORK -- The mainstream media -- a loose consortium of corporate news outlets known for using professionally trained journalists who adhere to an editorial process -- have once again completely missed the boat in their reporting of national events, outraged sources within the blogosphere said Monday. 'When will the MSM dinosaurs realize that they're TOTALLY irrelevant?' wrote 39-year-old part-time librarian James Last, commenting on coverage of Obama's first 100 days in a scathing post that appeared on his blog, The LAST Word. 'If the idiots at MSNBC, The New York Times, and WaPo could lift their heads from the money trough for a minute, maybe they'd write a story that's not completely driven by the corporate agenda. I'm not holding my breath.' Right-wing bloggers were reportedly equally upset, with many singling out MSNBC, The New York Times, and The Washington Post as 'shills' for the liberal agenda. At press time, an estimated 8.4 million bloggers nationwide were watching CNN."

BLOGGER SPOTLIGHT: Mark Kleiman

Today the Blogometer talks to Mark Kleiman, a Professor of Public Policy at the UCLA School of Public Affairs and a blogger at The Reality-Based Community.

(If you're looking for Friday's edition of Blogometer, click here).

Where did you grow up?
Jewish Baltimore; probably 90% of the people who lived within a mile were Jewish. A very, very odd place. I hated it.

Where do you live now?
Los Angeles, where (I discovered after I moved here) my father had always dreamed of living. A very, very odd place. I love it.

If you have an occupation other than blogging, what is it?
Teaching.

What's on your iPod right now?
What's an iPod? Is that connected to the Interwebs? And have I mentioned how much I hate .mp3s? My idea of music is a Byrd motet, but if you heard one as an .mp3 you'd never guess why.

What book do you think every person should read?
Karl Popper's Conjectures and Refutations, especially the essays "On the Sources of Knowledge and of Ignorance" and "Toward a Rational Theory of Tradition."

Please finish this sentence: "When I'm not blogging, you'll probably find me..."
reading, teaching, or hiking.

What has been your favorite blog post, or your favorite story to write about?
I've had a good time making fun of the religious fanatics and the anti-religious fanatics.

Which blogger(s) do you consider indispensable, if any?
The usual suspects: [Kevin] Drum, [Matthew] Yglesias, [Nate] Silver, [Ezra] Klein, Hilzoy, [J. Bradford] DeLong, [Andrew] Sullivan, [Marc] Ambinder, [Megan] McArdle, [John] Cole, the Volokh Conspiracy. TPM, though that's really a newspaper rather than a blog.

Who's your favorite non-liberal blogger?
Eugene Volokh, Orin Kerr, Megan McArdle. John Cole was one of my favorite non-liberals until he saw the light.

Who's your favorite active politician?
Barack Obama. And I would have said the same thing in the summer of 2007. He's a once-in-a-generation figure.

Least favorite?
How long do you have? Rudy Giuliani would be high on the list.

What would you realistically like to see Democrats accomplish in 2009?
Health care, restricting greenhouse-gas emissions, leveling the playing field for union organizing.

If you could give President Obama advice, what would it be?
That we could have half as much crime and half as many people in prison ten years from now as we have today, and that he could lead the way. I'd probably just send him the manuscript of my forthcoming book, When Brute Force Fails.

As to political advice, mostly I wouldn't; Obama, as advised by [David] Plouffe and [David] Axelrod, is much smarter about politics than I am. But it's possible that they haven't quite grasped the potential for mobilizing what Don Price called "the scientific estate" (which for these purposes includes the humanities professoriat) as a political force.

What keeps you up at night?
Other than indigestion? The fact that California, which doesn't have a working government or adequate public schools, in a generation won't have a great public university system either.

Feel free to ask and answer your own question.
What's your next crusade?
Reforming the human-subjects-protection system so that Institutional Review Boards no longer threaten the freedom of inquiry.

5/8: A Clear Path For Toomey?

5/7: The Ridge Flirtation

Bloggers on the left and right are discussing the possibility that ex-Gov. Tom Ridge (R) will challenge ex-Rep. Pat Toomey (R) in the PA GOP Senate primary -- especially now that polls show Ridge performing strongly against both Toomey and the likely Dem nominee, Sen. Arlen Specter (D). Liberal blogger Todd Beeton sees Ridge's strong performance against Specter as evidence that Dems should nominate Rep. Joe Sestak (D-07) instead:

"When deciding between two moderates, all things presumably being equal, Pennsylvania voters choose the guy who hasn't just sold out for political expediency. If Ridge does run, there needs to be a battle of ideas in this Senate race, Ridge needs to be able to be saddled with the failures of the Republican Party; how can Arlen Specter make that case when he's been right there, enabling that failure?"

Not surprisingly, most conservative bloggers prefer Toomey as their nominee, as they have significant concerns about Ridge's voting record in Congress.

UPDATE, 12:35 PM: Ridge has announced that he will not run for Senate, thereby making this entire conversation moot.

What else is happening in the blogosphere?

• Liberal bloggers (Yglesias, publius) continue to discuss allegations that Sen. Jeff Sessons (R-AL), the new ranking member of the Judiciary Committee, has a history of making racially insensitive remarks. Conservative bloggers are accusing liberal bloggers and the Politico of "smearing" Sessions.
• Liberal bloggers (Yglesias, Dayen, Benen, O'Connor, Smith) are accusing Sen. John Thune (R-SD) of bigotry after he warned that "it would be a bridge too far" for Pres. Obama to select a gay SCOTUS nominee. In other SCOTUS news, liberal bloggers (DougJ, Drum, Beutler) continue to hit back against critics of Second Circuit judge Sonia Sotomayor.
• Conservative bloggers (Lane, Klein, Lips, Ham) are buzzing about yesterday's rally in support of DC's school voucher program, which will lose its funding next year if Congress doesn't reauthorize it. Righty bloggers (Petrilli, Allahpundit) weren't satisfied by Obama's proposed compromise, which would provide grants for students already enrolled in the program but would not allow new students to join.
• Liberal bloggers (Moulitsas, Black, Yglesias, Drum) are praising ME Gov. John Baldacci (D) after he signed a same-sex marriage bill.
• Liberal bloggers (Cole, Steven D., Siun) are criticizing the Obama admin. after two dozen Afghan civilians were reportedly killed in U.S. airstrikes.

PA SEN: What About Ridge?

MyDD's Beeton sees Ridge's strong poll numbers as evidence that PA Dems shouldn't nominate Specter: "When deciding between two moderates, all things presumably being equal, Pennsylvania voters choose the guy who hasn't just sold out for political expediency. If Ridge does run, there needs to be a battle of ideas in this Senate race, Ridge needs to be able to be saddled with the failures of the Republican Party; how can Arlen Specter make that case when he's been right there, enabling that failure? We simply must have a real Democrat running in the general election or at worst make Arlen Specter resemble one. The way to accomplish both of these goals is to draft Joe Sestak for Senate."

Daily Kos' Jed Lewison sees potential residency problems for Ridge: "[I]f Ridge does decide to run, he's going to need to figure out in which state, because it turns out he has a claim on running in at least three of them. In a June, 2008 foreign agent registration filing, Ridge listed Maryland as his residence and said that his firm, Ridge Global LLC, was a Delaware corporation. [...] All the polls say that Ridge could mount a viable campaign in Pennsylvania. But as this document shows, if Ridge does run, his opponents will start out with serious questions to raise with him."

Conservative blogger W. James Antle, III has significant concerns about Ridge's voting record in Congress: "While in Congress, Ridge voted against the Strategic Defense Initiative, against the MX missile, against aid to the Contras, and for the nuclear freeze. Ridge coauthored with a Democrat a successful amendment to cut SDI funding from $4.9 billion to $3.1 billion. He was, in fact, a leading anti-SDI Republican. On economic issues, Ridge was once one of 19 House Republicans who voted to increase the minimum wage, was a vocal opponent of the first President [George H.W.] Bush's efforts to cut the capital gains tax, and raised the gasoline tax as governor. Between 1984 and 1988, Congressional Quarterly rated him as being more likely to oppose President [Ronald] Reagan's position on a given issue than support it. Finally, he voted to expand welfare eligiblity and in favor of the Fairness Doctrine."

Meanwhile, Right Wing News' John Hawkins makes an early endorsement: "If the Pennsylvania Republican primary comes down to Pat Toomey vs. Tom Ridge, I'm with Toomey."

PA SEN II: Smart Move, Dems

Liberal bloggers are pleased that the Senate Dem caucus voted to strip Specter of his seniority on committees, as they believe that this will give Dems valuable leverage over the wayward senator:

• TPM's Josh Marshall: "In next year's election, one of Specter's biggest sells will be the clout his senate seniority brings him. If he has no assurance he's going to have that, that will be a major liability for him. It certainly sounds to me like the Dems put him on a fairly effective form of probation."
• Daily Kos' David Waldman: "[T]his deal retains some leverage over Specter...who's been a little too frisky lately. With big votes coming up (and expected to continue coming up) for the balance of the 111th Congress, negotiations on his seniority in the 112th will no doubt hinge to some extent on how he conducts himself from here on in."
• TAPPED's Tim Fernholz: "What will Specter do about this -- whine a little, sure, but then what? It's not like he can go back to the GOP; he's made clear his top priority is re-election, and the only path to that is with Democratic support. If he's not casting the right votes on the president's agenda, Democrats can always unleash Joe Sestak, who has been making plenty of noise about going after the seat."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Not Every Moderate Is The Same

The Next Right's Patrick Ruffini draws a distinction between the GOP's moderates:

"I wasn't happy with [ME Sen. Susan] Collins and [ME Sen. Olympia] Snowe's votes on the stimulus, but it is useful to make this distinction between the Maine Senators and Specter. For them, one gets the sense that it's not about ego or entitlement. They are genuinely moderate-to-liberal Republicans (moreso Snowe) representing a deep blue state that just legalized gay marriage through the legislative process.

If it's a choice between [SC Sen.] Lindsey Graham, a headline-grabbing conservative-hating conservative, or an honest, workmanlike moderate like Collins who will not go out of their way to rip the party to pieces in the press, sign me up for the moderate. Both parties will have their moderates. And if we keep ours in line and grab some of theirs, that's the surest sign we're winning (see: card check). If we ever find ourselves in the position where moderates can't vouch for a center-right governing agenda, we are in trouble.

There is a categorical difference between egomaniacs or iconoclasts like Specter, [ex-RI Sen. Lincoln] Chafee, and frankly [CT Sen. Joe] Lieberman who fancy themselves Senators-for-life and think of themselves as entirely above party, and those who understand that parties and ideological blocs are vital to shifting the political center of gravity. Yes, they won't be with us on stuff like earmarks, and yes, we'll razz them about that. But you know what? No intellectually honest person could ever call them a Specter. We need to take back seats in places like North Dakota and Arkansas to allow the natural Republican small state majority in the Senate to reassert itself. But I wouldn't mind planting a flag in the blue states either. And that is going to take a certain type of candidate."

LEST WE FORGET: Sometimes You Need To Just Keep Walking

From Overheard in New York:

Suit to man with cat on his head: Why is there a cat on your head?
Man with cat on his head: Why isn't there a cat on your head, douchebag?

5/6: Arlen's Asking For It

Does Sen. Arlen Specter (D-PA) want a primary challenge? His behavior during the past week makes it seem as though he's deliberately trying to anger the Dem base. First, he reiterated his intent to vote against the Employee Free Choice Act in his statement announcing his party switch. Then he reaffirmed his opposition to Pres. Obama's nominee for OLC Chief, IU law prof. Dawn Johnsen. Then he voted against Obama's budget. Then he appeared on Meet The Press, where he announced his opposition to a key part of Obama's health care plan (the public insurance option) and denied having promised the President that he would be a "loyal Democrat." Then he told the New York Times that the MN courts should "do justice and declare [ex-GOP Sen.] Norm Coleman the winner" in his disputed Senate race against Al Franken (D). Finally, he told reporters that the one Senate vote he regrets was his vote against the confirmation of Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL) back when Sessions was nominated to be a federal judge (Sessions' nomination was derailed by allegations that he had made racially insensitive remarks -- allegations which liberals are currently exploring now that Sessions has replaced Specter as the ranking member of the Judiciary Committee).

The netroots are fed up with Specter at this point. Markos Moulitsas writes: "Keep it up Arlen, your Joe Lieberman impersonation is so spot-on, that we can't wait to take you on in the Democratic primary." More and more lefty bloggers are calling for a credible primary challenger to push Specter to the left or (even better) beat him. They're pleased that Rep. Joe Sestak (D-07) is making noises about challenging Specter if the senator doesn't change some of his positions, although they're urging Sestak to wait a few weeks before announcing his candidacy.

What else is happening in the blogosphere?

• Although a new Public Opinion Strategies poll shows ex-Gov. Tom Ridge (R) destroying ex-Rep. Pat Toomey (R) in the PA GOP Senate primary, bloggers on the left and right both have doubts that Ridge could beat Toomey.
• Conservative bloggers (Hawkins, Hinderaker, Freddoso, Morrissey, Bandow) are experiencing some schadenfreude following the Dem Senate caucus's vote to strip Specter of his seniority on committees.
• Liberal bloggers (Greenwald, DougJ, Llorens, Cujo359) continue to criticize The New Republic's Jeffrey Rosen for writing an anonymously-sourced "hit piece" about Second Circuit judge/potential SCOTUS nominee Sonia Sotomayor. Other lefty bloggers (Moulitsas, Serwer, Yglesias, Klein, Attaturk) are criticizing MSNBC's Chris Matthews and The Washington Post's Richard Cohen for attacking Sotomayor's ruling in an affirmative action case.
• Conservative bloggers (Hinderaker, Reynolds, Lane) are accusing the Obama admin. of "bullying" Chrysler's bondholder firms.

PA SEN: With Dems Like These, Who Needs Republicans?

Liberal bloggers were amazed and disgusted that Specter told the New York Times that the MN courts should "do justice and declare Norm Coleman the winner" of the state's disputed Senate race:

• TPM's Eric Kleefeld: "Memo to Sen. Arlen Specter (RD-PA): You're supposed to be a Democrat now."
• MyDD's Todd Beeton: "I guess I gotta give Specter credit, with each passing day, he keeps making a stronger and stronger case for a primary challenge against him."
• digby: "What exactly was the deal [VP Joe] Biden and [Senate Maj. Leader Harry] Reid made with Specter anyway? That his new job was to trash the Democrats every chance he gets? It's bad enough that he goes on TV and declare that he's definitely not going to be a loyal Democrat. But this really takes the cake. [...] The man is a hypocritical Republican ass to the bottom of his soul and always will be."
• Open Left's Chris Bowers: "Not only is Specter still voting with Republicans, he is still make public statements on their behalf during elections. What a great deal for us so far."
• Daily Kos' Moulitsas: "Keep it up Arlen, your Joe Lieberman impersonation is so spot-on, that we can't wait to take you on in the Democratic primary. [...] But seriously, his arrogance is overwhelming, his obvious dislike for Democrats palpable. He's clearly telling us, 'I switched to avoid Toomey, not deal with you fucks.' And since Obama has clearly promised him support, come hell or high water (no matter how he little support or loyalty he delivers in return), he feels like he can shit on anyone with impunity. Personally, I don't want Specter around in 2011. So I want him to keep shitting on Dems, I want him to keep opposing EFCA and Obama's health care reform initiative, I want him to keep pretending that he's god's gift to the Senate. Because unlike Connecticut, there's no sore-loser option if he gets knocked off in the primary. And I'll take a real Democrat in that seat over that unprincipled turd of a man that is Specter. So Arlen, please keep it up."

Specter later claimed that he "misspoke" about the MN Senate race and that he's "looking for more Democratic members" of the Senate. However, liberal bloggers were not satisfied by his explanation:

• Moulitsas: "What the hell? He's so devoid of any conviction that one day, justice requires Coleman to be declared the winner, and the next day, it doesn't? [Specter]'s an empty, hollow, shell of a man. There is just one value that drives him -- political self-preservation. But we have one thing in common. We both are looking for more Democratic members. That's why I hope Sestak primaries his ass."
• The Washington Monthly's Steve Benen: "In other words, a Democratic senator, speaking to the New York Times, simply forgot he was a Democrat and repeated the Republican talking points he'd grown accustomed to. (They weren't even good talking points, since even most GOP leaders concede that Coleman is very likely to lose.)"
• Beeton: "A different day, a different party, what's a guy to do?"

PA SEN II: What The Heck Is Wrong With This Guy?

Liberal bloggers think Specter is making a political error by vocally opposing the Dems on so many issues, since he's encouraging a more progressive Dem to challenge him in the primary:

• Obsidian Wings' publius: "Specter is (uncharacteristically) making some enormous political errors by immediately opposing various Democratic positions so loudly. I don't really understand his thinking. There's no logic to it -- it's just bad politics, and it could cost him his seat. [...] If Specter's top priority over the next few months is supporting GOP preferences on Meet the Press, there's no reason PA Democrats should tolerate that. It'd be different if we were talking about Ben Nelson in Nebraska. But we're not -- PA is a solidly Democratic state. And Arlen Specter has no divine right to the Democratic nomination just because [PA Gov.] Ed Rendell and Joe Biden like him."
• TPM's Josh Marshall: "[T]here was some political logic to Specter not moving too quickly or fulsomely to embrace Democratic positions, especially since he'd spent the last few months tacking hard to the right. But what we've seen over the last week goes way, way beyond anything like that. He's dug in his heels opposing EFCA, said he'd oppose a key Obama DOJ appointee, staked out a surprisingly right-leaning (for him) position on health care reform and gone way past the first day bromides in signaling he won't have any partisan attachment at all to his new political party. His line about not being a 'loyal' Democrat, after he apparently said just the opposite to President Obama, seems like a high profile diss of the president. All of which is fine of course. He's free to do whatever he wants. But he doesn't seem to have grasped that his position wasn't actually that strong. [...W]hy do the Dems need Arlen, if probably any solid Democrat can beat Pat Toomey? [...] After watching the last week I get the sense [Specter]'s just too cocky for his own good."
• Atrios: "Josh [Marshall] is right that Arlen's cocky. Some of that is his personality. Some of that is the mental disorder that generally sets in after being a senator for a few decades. The other thing is that he's been remarkably successful at doing what he wants while engaging in enough bullshit to con the Philadelphia Inquirer editorial board every 6 in years into believing his 'moderate' bullshit. The only way to get him to do the right thing is to have a credible primary challenger in the wings, whether that's Sestak or someone else."

Moulitsas speculates about Specter's motives:

"[W]hy is he setting himself up to be judged by the Democratic primary electorate, and doing such a poor job of ingratiating himself with them? There are two possibilities:

(1.) Arlen plans on flipping on EFCA, and once he does, labor support locks him in the Democratic primary. He just can't flip too quickly because he would a) look even more unprincipled and craven than he already is, and b) he wouldn't be making headlines and be the center of attention, which he clearly loves. (He's making Lieberman really jealous).

(2.) Arlen got a deal from the Democrats that they'd clear the primary field for him, and Obama, Rendell, Biden, and the DSCC plan to do everything they can to deliver on that.

If it's #1 above, then he's in good shape. He just needs to flip already. But if it's #2, we're going to see the biggest split between the party establishment and the party's rank and file since the Connecticut 2006 Senate race. Heck, this one will be bigger. And it will be lots of fun -- the party bigwigs who think they can deprive the Democratic primary electorate of democracy versus a new net- and grassroots army taking control of their own destiny. I get shivers just thinking about it!"

PA SEN III: Keep Doing What You're Doing, Joe

Liberal bloggers are delighted that Sestak is making noises about challenging Specter in next year's Dem primary if Specter doesn't change some of his positions:

• Moulitsas: "The beauty of Sestak's approach is that it's a win-win -- 1) the threat of a serious challenge either gets Specter to switch on EFCA and other key progressive priorities, or 2) we get ourselves the race of the cycle and get to relive the glory days of the 2006 Connecticut Senate primary."
• dday: "Sestak loses nothing from calling out Specter -- even if he decides against running, he gains credibility as a Democrat enunciating Democratic principles, actually more credibility than he probably deserves -- later in the TPMDC interview he equivocates on the question of a public option for health care reform. But at this point, if Specter does end up voting the right way on health care or EFCA, Sestak gets at least some of the credit. [...] I could absolutely envision a scenario where Sestak has no real intention of running but is being used as a cattle prod to corral Specter."
• The Huffington Post's Mark Nickolas: "Until this weekend, I was generally supportive of Specter as the Democratic nominee next year. Now, after twice giving Democrats the finger in 48 hours, my feelings are rapidly evolving. While I have no love for the pompous and seemingly self-righteous Blue Dog Rep. Joe Sestak (D-PA) who continues to make noise about challenging Specter -- despite promises from Obama, Gov. Ed Rendell (D-PA), and the DSCC to fully support Specter -- I might be able to live with the know-it-all Sestak after all."

Bowers: "If Sestak does run, he would be wise to wait at least another few weeks. First, he needs to clarify his position on a public health care option, which so far he has not supported. Second, he needs to see if Tom Ridge will run, and avoid being swamped by the media frenzy that would accompany such an announcement. Third, he needs to wait for the honeymoon Specter is feeling among Pennsylvania Democrats to wear off a bit, which normally takes a minimum of three weeks. Fourth, we all need to hear more about [PA businessman] Joe Toresella (what are his positions? will he stay in the campaign much longer?), as a divided primary field against Specter would probably make a challenge more difficult. All in all, he would be wise not to announce before Memorial Day."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Rehabilitating Truman

The American Conservative's Daniel Larison (h/t Andrew Sullivan):

"Because the prevailing view of Harry Truman and his decisions at the present time happens to be favorable, we are all supposed to believe that the 'judgment of history' has 'vindicated' Truman. This is a nice way of saying that propaganda and hero worship have overcome moral reasoning, and time has caused the moral horror of even a significant part of the American right in the 1940s to fade from memory. This favorable view of Truman is inextricably tied up with the cult of the presidency, our depressing but all too human habit of praising bad wartime leaders at the expense of better peacetime executives, the mythologizing of WWII (and therefore the minimizing or justifying of any wrongdoing on the Allied side) and the implicit devaluing of Japanese civilian lives every defense of both fire-bombing and nuclear strikes includes. None of this seems to occur to the people who continue to glorify Truman and to use Truman as an example of how tainted, bad Presidents may yet be viewed as great successes by posterity. What Truman's posthumous rehabilitation should tell us is that half-truths and falsehoods, if repeated often enough, can become widely accepted, and that virtually no American political leader, no matter how many blunders he made and no matter what criminal acts he ordered, is beyond redemption at the hands of later sympathetic people who find that leader's decisions to be useful precedents for their own preferred course of action. The 'judgment of history' has, for the time being, ruled in favor of Truman, and therefore challenging this judgment is something to be mocked."

LEST WE FORGET: For Gay Couple, Fulfilling Lifelong Dream Of Marriage Not Worth Moving To Iowa

From The Onion:

"NEW YORK -- Having their sworn commitment to each other and all related rights therein recognized by the highest court of a sovereign U.S. state is ultimately not worth the hassle of moving to Iowa, longtime partners Danny Mindlin and Alex Small determined Monday. 'Alex and I want to grow old together, but we'd have to drive six hours just to get a mezzaluna at Restoration Hardware,' said Mindlin, who claimed he 'couldn't survive' without a strawberry frosted cupcake from Amy's Bread after yoga every Thursday. 'And where would we summer? Dubuque? I think we'll just buy a townhouse and live in an unrecognized union with beautiful granite countertops instead.' The couple told reporters that their plans to adopt also weighed heavily in the decision, since they want to raise a child who is healthy, balanced, and 'not tacky.'"

5/5: All Arlen, All The Time

The PA Senate race remains a big topic in the political blogosphere. Liberal bloggers are pleased that Rep. Joe Sestak (D) is threatening to primary Sen. Arlen Specter (D) if Specter doesn't change some of his positions. Meanwhile, conservative bloggers are arguing that Specter is vulnerable; some are citing a new poll showing ex-Rep. Pat Toomey (R) trailing Specter by a relatively small 6-point margin. Righty bloggers are also blasting Specter for suggesting that the late Rep. Jack Kemp (R) "would be alive today" if the GOP had adopted Specter's views on funding for medical research. One thing is clear: both liberal bloggers and conservative bloggers strongly dislike Specter.

What else is happening in the blogosphere?

• Liberal bloggers (Yglesias, Beutler, Benen, BooMan, Singer) think GOP senators made a big mistake by allowing AL Sen. Jeff Sessions to become the ranking member on the Senate Judiciary Cmte, since Sessions has reportedly made racially insensitive comments in the past. Conservative bloggers, on the other hand, are pleased that Sessions will be the top GOPer on the Judiciary Cmte, as they prefer him to the more moderate Chuck Grassley (R-IA).
• Liberal bloggers (Amato, Kleiman, hilzoy) are criticizing prominent conservative blogger/RedState founder Erick Erickson after he called retiring SCOTUS Justice David Souter a "goat fucking child molester." Erickson later described his comments as "intemperate" but did not apologize for them.
• Liberal bloggers (Greenwald, Yglesias, Boehlert, Serwer, Llorens, Lemieux) are blasting The New Republic's Jeffrey Rosen after he wrote a piece entitled, "The Case Against Sotomayor," which features anonymous negative quotes about Second Circuit judge/potential SCOTUS nominee Sonia Sotomayor. Conservative bloggers (Hemingway, Morrissey) are promoting Rosen's piece.
• Conservative bloggers (Malkin, Ham, Bandes, Lane) are mocking Pres. Obama after he gave a "jumbled translation" of the Mexican holiday "Cinco de Mayo."
• Liberal bloggers (Greenwald, Black, Dayen) are accusing Rep. Jane Harman (D-CA) of being a hypocrite on civil liberties issues after she "rail[ed] against [the NSA] wiretapping that ensnared her" at the AIPAC conference.

PA SEN: Way To Go, Joe!

Liberal bloggers are pleased that Sestak is threatening to challenge Specter in the Dem primary if Specter doesn't change some of his positions:

• Open Left's Chris Bowers: "[A]t the very least [Sestak] is doing progressives a service by keeping his threat of a primary challenge so open and public. If Specter actually is going to start acting like a more reliable Democrat, there is a much better chance that he will do so with the sword of Sestak hanging over his head, then with the primary path cleared for him. As he revealed in his partisan switch, Specter clearly wavers when under threat of defeat."
• MyDD's Todd Beeton: "This is much stronger language than Sestak has used previously and, as Chris Bowers observes, it virtually assures a Sestak challenge considering how defiant Specter has been in recent interviews in terms of his unwillingness to shift left to conform to his new partisan designation. But ironically, while Specter's stubbornness makes Sestak's entrance into the race more likely, Sestak's challenge will itself make Specter shifting left more likely."

While TPM's Josh Marshall isn't necessarily opposed to Specter's candidacy, he wants Specter to face a primary challenge: "I'd like to see Specter at least have to make his case to Democrats in his state."

PA SEN II: A New Low For Arlen?

Conservative bloggers are blasting Specter for suggesting that Kemp "would be alive today" if the GOP had adopted Specter's views on funding for medical research:

• Townhall's Greg Hengler: "Talk about demagoging Jack Kemp's death."
• Michelle Malkin: "[This is] Reason number 999,769 we are glad Specter has taken off the elephant costume and made his conversion to Ass-dom official."
• Hot Air's Ed Morrissey: "Had Kemp's body even started to cool before Specter exploited his death for his own political gain? Specter certainly could have stuck with his own battles with cancer, and that would have been fair game, but to claim that he could have saved Kemp if only the GOP had spent a little more like drunken sailors between 2001-6 is just despicable."
• AmSpec Blog's Matthew Vadum: "[This is] a new low, even for Specter."

Meanwhile, one righty blogger argues that Specter is vulnerable, while another promotes a new poll showing Toomey trailing Specter by a relatively small 6-point margin. Another conservative blogger warns the NRSC to "stay away" from the PA GOP Senate primary.

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Giving Arlen His Props

NRO's Jay Nordlinger:

"Arlen Specter is an amazing person, and he has had an amazing career. Consider: In his previous run for reelection, he had the president of the United States campaigning hard for him. That was George W. Bush. And now we have a much different president: Barack Obama. And he will campaign hard for Specter, next time around. Specter gets presidents to campaign for him, whoever the president is. A remarkable man and pol, Arlen Specter."

LEST WE FORGET: Virgins Eagerly Await Star Trek

The Huffington Post's Andy Borowitz:

"Paramount Pictures, which is releasing the latest Star Trek movie this Friday, is hoping for record box office returns, fueled by a big turnout from the movie franchise's core audience: virgins.

While the studio has high hopes for the movie's success with the general audience, it is taking great pains to target the group that has flocked to every previous Star Trek film, and that means reaching out to people who have never come close to having sex. [...]

Zach Sussberg, 24, a virgin in Flint, Michigan, said that he had cleared out his entire weekend to make sure that he sees the new Star Trek film.

'Everybody says that this new Star Trek is better than sex,' he said. 'But hey, I wouldn't know.'"

5/4: Identity Crisis

The defection of Sen. Arlen Specter (PA) has bloggers on both sides of the aisle re-evaluating their own identity. It's tough (more like "entirely beyond reason," according to them) for liberal bloggers to accept Specter as a Democrat, so most have resorted to ratcheting up their call for Rep. Joe Sestak (D-PA) to primary him.

Meanwhile, conservatives are confronted their very own Specter-fueled existential crisis. Conservative bloggers focused their Specter-busting on comments the ex-GOPer made on his tour of the Sunday shows yesterday. The Sen. told hosts on several shows that the GOP was no longer safe for what he calls moderates like him. The appearances gave conservatives a chance to chew over the "good riddance" vs. "but, baby, I can change!" debate over how to confront moderates leaving the GOP Big Tent in droves. Not surprisingly, "don't let the door hit you on the way out" emerged the clear victor.

Other takes from around The Tubes:

• The death of ex-Rep./ex-HUD Sec./'96 VP nominee Jack Kemp (R-NY) brought similar obituaries from both sides of the blogitariat. The consensus? They don't make 'em like that anymore.

• Souter's replacement remains a major focus, but with the likelihood that Souter's successor won't alter the SCOTUS' ideological balance, the focus has shifted to examinations of Obama's judicial philosophy. Stop us if you've heard this one, folks: conservative bloggers are thinking it's "activist judges bent on world domination" and liberal bloggers are guessing it's more Justice Ginsburg than Justice Scalia. They may have a point there. In any case, both sides agree on one thing -- politics will be a major factor as Obama whittles down his list.

PA SEN: A Specter Says "What"?

Bloggers from both sides pounced on Specter's weekend TV interviews. The most blogworthy of the Sen.'s Sunday tour came on "Meet The Press," when Spector told NBC's Gregory he never promised "to be a loyal Democrat" (video).

• Liberal MyDD's Beeton sums up the Left's consensus take: "I think it's pretty clear that he will be a consistent stumbling block to President Obama's agenda, at least that's what he's promising to be. Which begs the question, how exactly did that conversation with the president go? If Specter didn't tell Obama he'll be a loyal Democrat, did President Obama really tell Specter that he'd campaign for him in the primary?"

• Conservatives bloggers reveled in a perception that the clip means Specter's about to do to the Dems what he just did to the GOP. Townhall.com's Hengler: "[It's] an instant classic, not only for its political ramification but for its entertainment value -- kind of like our Vice President. If any of you have seen the Saturday Night Live skit of "The Joe Pesci Show," you will appreciate the similarity between Arlen Specter and comedian Jim Carrey playing Jimmy Stewart ... On a political note, Specter's appearance on MTP did not help him one iota with either party. Sometimes it does not pay to be consistent."

• The right side of the blogosphere was riled up by another Sunday show Specter comment. On CBS' "Face The Nation," Specter explained his differences with the modern GOP over increased funding for medical research. He supports it said that GOP does not. To drive the point home, Specter said that Kemp "would be alive today" if his former party had supported more money for cancer study (video). Conservative bloggers (and, probably, Kemp's surviving relatives) were less than pleased with the quip. Hot Air's Morrissey: "Had Kemp's body even started to cool before Specter exploited his death for his own political gain? Specter certainly could have stuck with his own battles with cancer, and that would have been fair game, but to claim that he could have saved Kemp if only the GOP had spent a little more like drunken sailors between 2001-6 is just despicable."

PA SEN: The Measure Of A Man, Or, How Does He Sestak Up?

Sestak is liberal bloggers' odds-on favorite to defeat Specter in a Dem primary. The Rep. hasn't said what he'll do yet, but that didn't stop the bloggers to fantasize about a Sestak bid. FireDogLake's Klein: "As Joe's been saying on TV and telling voters in Pennsylvania, it's essential that Specter face a vigorous primary challenge. There are no kings and there are no kingmakers in the Democratic Party and this crucial nomination should not be a coronation based on murky backroom deals. If Specter thinks he's going to be the Democratic Party's standard bearer in this race he should be forced to earn it--and he has a very long way to go to catch up with a man like Joe Sestak."

Meanwhile, conservative bloggers are mulling over the possibility of a GOP challenger to ex-Club For Growth pres. Pat Toomey. RedState.com's Erickson picks through the rumors, dismissing the possibility that ex-Gov/ex-DHS Sec. Tom Ridge (R) could jump in "[he] cannot win in Pennsylvania again in a Republican Primary because of the changed dynamics and demographics from the last time he ran." He's equally dismissive of Rep. Jim Gerlach (R), but his argument is more about ideology than demographics: "The PAGOP and NRSC are flirting with him because Gerlach regularly wins re-election as a Republican in D +2 districts. They forget, however, that Pat Toomey did the same -- and with larger margins ... [And] Toomey did so without selling out his conservative values. Not so with Gerlach. In fact, and this is key, Gerlach actually has a more liberal voting record on issues Pennsylanians care about than Arlen Specter. If Specter cannot get out of a Republican primary, how on earth could Gerlach? The answer is he can't."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Bush, Savior Of The GOP?

GOP heavywieghts past and present (and future) got together this weekend for the first of a series of regional meetings aimed at rebuilding their fractured party. The standout moment from the group's first meeting in Arlington, VA? This headline, courtesy of ex-FL Gov. Jeb Bush (R). RedState.com's Erickson weighs in: "The reaction to his statement and the sensation headline at the Washington Times proves his point. It is time to get over Reagan -- not the man or his ideas, but his administration ... When your party is so grossly connected to the present out of control Washington, it does very little good to talk about fighting Jimmy Carter's stagflation and the Soviet Union -- neither of which exist. And yet, we do. We do because we do no have any worthwhile candidates right now, so we have fallen into one of the devil's favorite traps ... Don't throw Jeb out of the party for saying what he said. He was right. And those of you who lashed out at him for daring to say what he said prove his point. We will not win in the twenty-first century on twentieth century issues. We will, however, win by going back to Reagan's ideal of free people and free markets. And who knows, by the time 2012 rolls around, we may actually be back to 1980's style issues. But we don't get there by going backwards. We get there moving ever forward."

LEST WE FORGET: It Could Always Be Worse

The Schott's Vocab blog (a Blogometer pick!) on the peculiarities of British politics.

5/1: Souter Goes Home

Political bloggers are buzzing over the news that SCOTUS Justice David Souter plans to retire at the end of the current court term. Most liberal bloggers want Pres. Obama to nominate a replacement who is as least as liberal as Souter. Meanwhile, conservative bloggers don't think it matters all that much whom Obama nominates to replace Souter, since Souter has been a consistent member of the Court's liberal bloc. Matt Lewis writes: "The good news for conservatives is that, because Souter was so liberal, his departure is unlikely to change the makeup of the court." However, righty bloggers still think the Senate confirmation process will be politically useful for the GOP, since it will provide them with "an opportunity to show Obama as no post-partisan moderate but as a liberal idealogue."

What else is happening in the blogosphere?

• Conservative bloggers (Erickson, Jackson) are angry that the NRSC is reportedly recruiting other candidates (such as Rep. Jim Gerlach) to run for Senate in PA because it views ex-Rep. Pat Toomey (R) as unelectable.
• Liberal bloggers (Bowers, BooMan, Sirota, Dayen, Greenwald) are angry and despondent after 12 Dem senators joined the 40 GOP senators in voting down the so-called "cramdown" amendment, which "would have given homeowners in financial trouble greater flexibility to renegotiate the terms of their mortgages."
• Liberal bloggers (Lewison, Benen, Moulitsas) think the new House GOP ad -- which uses images of the Pentagon burning on 9/11 -- is evidence of the GOP's desperation. Among conservative bloggers, Gateway Pundit thinks the ad is "terrific," but Allahpundit wonders "why [House Min. Leader John] Boehner and crew are hitting [Obama] on foreign policy instead of on the economy."

SOUTER: Take Advantage Of This Opportunity, Mr. President

The netroots want Obama to nominate a replacement for Souter who is as least as liberal as the departing Justice:

• Firedoglake's Attaturk: "[T]his is a case where you remember you have a large majority in the Senate and try to appoint someone like, well, David Souter -- okay maybe a little left of that."
• Oliver Willis: "President Obama should appoint an honest-to-goodness liberal to the Supreme Court. [...] We need a justice in the mold of Thurgood Marshall, and not someone squishy enough to be the 'swing' justice in the archetype the media loves so much. We need someone who is solid as a rock on civil rights, right to choice, limits on corporate power, and an overall progressive viewpoint on the Constitution, our laws, and the overall role the court has to play."
• Open Left's Chris Bowers: "It is quite possible both to appoint a more progressive Justice than Souder, and also to increase the lacking diversity on the court. Given the current balance, appointing a woman to fill Souder's position is a must, and appointing a minority woman might also be essential. Further, this might be a situation where having 60 seats in the Senate is actually useful, as any Democrats voting against President Obama's nominee from the right can easily be painted as the ultimate party backstabbers."
• MyDD's Jonathan Singer: "I think it is incumbent on President Obama not only to name a very capable nominee, but also a young one to combat the growing trend of GOP Presidents to appoint (relatively) young ardent conservatives to the Court. What's more...I think President Obama would be well served by looking beyond the list of jurists and academics by also considering sharp legal minds with legislative experience."

Think Progress' Matthew Yglesias doubts that Obama will nominate someone more liberal than Souter: "[I]t is worth emphasizing that neither David Souter nor any of the other current Supreme Court justices is really a liberal in the sense of a Thurgood Marshall or a William Douglas. Neither Souter nor [Ruth Bader] Ginsburg nor [Stephen] Breyer nor [John Paul] Stevens shows any real indication in exploring the social and economic justice issues implicated in the constitution's guarantees of equality. Consequently, one way in which the court could conceivably change as a result of Souter retiring would be his replacement by someone further left. [...] That said, Marshall-style robust judicial liberalism is something that many progressives no longer believe in and I don't see any indication in Obama's record of statements or personal associations that this is something he'd be interested in doing if he had the chance."

The Washington Monthly's Steve Benen thinks the GOP will throw a "temper tantrum" no matter who Obama nominates: "As far back as November, literally just a few days after the election, Arizona Sen. Jon Kyl (R), the second-ranking Republican in the Senate, threatened to filibuster any of Obama's Supreme Court nominees he considered insufficiently conservative. That was 11 weeks before Obama was even inaugurated. With this in mind, and given the GOP freak-out over uncontroversial cabinet nominees like [HHS Sec.] Kathleen Sebelius, a severe Republican temper tantrum is likely, no matter who the president nominates. If for no other reason, the minority party will see some value in working the base into a frenzy of hot-button cultural issues."

SOUTER II: Replacing A Liberal With A Liberal

Most conservative bloggers don't think it matters all that much whom Obama nominates to replace Souter, since Souter is already a member of the Court's liberal bloc:

• Michelle Malkin: "Now, we'll get an out liberal as opposed to a stealth one."
• Power Line's Paul Mirengoff: "Obama has unearthed, and nominated for high office, lawyers who probably are to the left of Souter. [IU law prof.] Dawn Johnsen and [Yale law prof.] Harold Koh come to mind. But it's not clear to me that either would vote much differently than Souter in cases that the Supreme Court actually hears."
• Townhall's Matt Lewis: "The good news for conservatives is that, because Souter was so liberal, his departure is unlikely to change the makeup of the court. It does, however, give Obama the opportunity to pick an even younger Justice who might be around for many years to come."
• Hot Air's Allahpundit: "The only 'good' news is that Souter was one of the most reliably liberal votes on the Court. Barry O would have to appoint an out-and-out socialist, practically, to tilt it further left."
• Townhall's Carol Platt Liebau: "[Souter] has been one of the most predictably left-wing (and intellectually undistinguished) votes on the Court (thank you, John Sununu). Sure, a new member may change the 'chemistry' of the Court, but it's not likely to change the outcome of many votes."

Liberal blogger Yglesias makes a similar argument: "[I'm] not sure I understand why the NYT thinks that replacing Souter 'could prove a test of Mr. Obama's plans for reshaping the nation's judiciary.' The swing vote on the court will still be Justice [Anthony] Kennedy no matter who Obama picks. Obama will pick someone, and Republicans will either throw an embarrassing and pointless tantrum before losing or else they'll calmly accept that it makes no sense for a small and unpopular minority to object to the replacement of one liberal by another."

Meanwhile, RedState's hogan wants Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL) to replace ex-Republican Arlen Specter (D-PA) as the Ranking Member on the Judiciary Cmte: "Jeff Sessions should be Republican Ranking Member on the Judiciary Committee. Not [UT Sen.] Orrin Hatch. Not [IA Sen.] Chuck Grassley. [...] To have Orrin Hatch or Chuck Grassley at the helm would be an unmitigated disaster. Each are cut from the same cloth -- that of the old guard Republicans in the Senate who have given us the train wreck that the Party has become. They would hire terrible staffers who would neither be the smartest lawyers nor actually conservative -- and, potentially, maintain a significant number of Specter's former staff. Jeff Sessions, on the other hand, would field a talented team who could educate America on just who America is getting in the next Supreme Court justice."

SOUTER III: Who's Obama Gonna Nominate?

Several conservative bloggers are offer their predictions on whom Obama might nominate to replace Souter:

• NRO's Kathryn Jean Lopez: "I have this nudging feeling they're not sending the ACLU lawyer to the Senate this time. That they'll play it semi-smart (it will still not be good news though) because they know they'll have at least another before long and probably another after that."
• Power Line's John Hinderaker: "At one time I would have expected Obama to exercise caution with his first Court appointment, but nothing we've seen in the last three months justifies that expectation. If Obama goes hard left, we could be in for the most interesting Congressional action of his young administration."
• AmSpec Blog's Doug Bandow: "A liberal nomination is inevitable. About all conservatives can do is push hard against any truly radical nominee."
• Hot Air's Ed Morrissey: "Based on Obama's appointments thus far, expect a mediocre candidate that will be just middle enough to get a few Republicans on board. Don't expect it to go quietly, but the Republicans probably won't stage any extraordinary action to block it, unless something arises like tax problems or other issues that rise to incompetence or corruption. That's actually the way presidential appointments should be handled, as elections have consequences. After the dust settles, the court will be in exactly the same position as it is now, but in the meantime the GOP will have had an opportunity to show Obama as no post-partisan moderate but as a liberal idealogue. Elections do have consequences -- and so do appointments."

Malkin suspects that the three leading candidate to replace Souter are Solicitor General Elena Kagan, Second Circuit Judge Sonia Sotomayor, and Seventh Circuit Judge Diane Wood. Of these three candidates, The Cato Institute's Ilya Shapiro prefers Wood: "Kagan would be an almost-certain pick a year from now, but having been just confirmed to be the so-called Tenth Justice, she might be seen as too green for elevation. Sotomayor -- because she is Hispanic and despite a mixed judicial record -- was the odds-on favorite until the Court took up the employment discrimination case of Ricci v. DeStefano (argued just last week), an appeal of a bizarre opinion Sotomayor joined that denied the claims of firefighters who had been passed over for promotion because of their race. That leaves Wood, a renowned authority on antitrust, international trade, and federal civil procedure, whose age (58) suggests that this is likely the last vacancy for which she will be considered. Wood offers a seriousness of purpose and no ideological ax to grind, and is thus the best nominee supporters of constitutionalism and the rule of law can hope for at this time. (Full disclosure: I took two classes from Judge Wood in law school.)"

PA SEN: Why Won't The NRSC Support Toomey?

Conservative bloggers are angry that the NRSC is reportedly recruiting other candidates (such as Gerlach) to run for Senate because it views Toomey as unelectable:

• RedState's Erick Erickson: "Gerlach could hurt Toomey in the primary, but he cannot win the primary. Call your Pennsylvania GOP representatives and demand they unite behind Toomey."
• The New Ledger's Brad Jackson: "The reluctance of the NRSC to get on board Toomey's campaign, especially in the wake of Specter's defection, is troubling. What kind of Republican party does the GOP leadership in Washington want to have?"

Meanwhile, righty bloggers are pleased that Specter voted against the bankruptcy reform amendment known as "cramdown" (which Obama supported). On the other side of the blogosphere, Bowers is annoyed by Specter's vote, while Todd Beeton continues to urge Rep. Joe Sestak (D-PA) to challenge Specter in the Dem primary.

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Less Bipartisanship = Progress

Daily Kos' Markos Moulitsas thinks Obama is making progress:

"So Obama's budget passed yesterday with zero Republican votes. And you know what was the best part? The Administration didn't give a damn and the media didn't give a damn. All that Obama talk about 'bipartisanship' has ceased, and as a result, the media is no longer claiming Obama is a loser because he failed to garner Republican support.

Obama is now demanding to be judged on legislative results, not process ones, and the media is playing along. The only reason it ever gave a damn about the unified Republican front against Obama's stimulus and budget bills was because Obama made bipartisan cooperation a marker for success. When he failed at that, the media dutifully reported on that failure.

But what matters in the end is legislation, not roll calls. And with Obama's team no longer forced to water down legislation in a fruitless quest for irrelevant Republican votes, we'll see much better policy in the end. I call that progress."

LEST WE FORGET: Here's Your Opportunity

Reason's Dave Weigel reacts to the news that Souter is retiring:

"This would be a good time for ambitious liberal jurists to pay their motherfucking taxes."