June 2009 Archives

6/30: Reeejected!

Conservative bloggers are portraying the SCOTUS' 5-to-4 ruling in the Ricci case -- which reversed an appeals court decision joined by SCOTUS nominee Sonia Sotomayor -- as a sharp repudiation of Sotomayor's legal judgment. While acknowledging that Dems "certainly have the votes to confirm Sotomayor," Ed Morrissey argues that "their big sell -- that she was one of the appellate court's most brilliant minds -- just took a body blow on this decision." Paul Mirengoff declares: "Short of writing 'get whitey,' It's difficult to imagine how Judge Sotomayor could have fouled up the Ricci case any more than she did." Michelle Malkin quips: "Sotomayor = Not so wise now." It's clear that GOP senators will ask Sotomayor a lot of questions about Ricci during her comfirmation hearings, although it still appears likely that she'll get confirmed (as many righty bloggers concede). Meanwhile, liberal bloggers are pushing back fiercely against this latest round of attacks on Sotomayor. Glenn Greenwald writes:

"In light of today's ruling, it's a bit difficult -- actually, impossible -- for a rational person to argue that Sotomayor's Ricci decision places her outside the judicial mainstream when: (a) she was affirming the decision of the federal district court judge; (b) she was joined in her decision by the two other Second Circuit judges who, along with her, comprised a unanimous panel; (c) a majority of Second Circuit judges refused to reverse that panel's ruling; and now: (d) four out of the nine Supreme Court Justices -- including the one she is to replace -- agree with her."

What else is happening in the blogosphere?

• Conservative bloggers (Ruberry, Malkin, Erickson) are buzzing about a "Tea Party" protest that took place outside the district office of Rep. Mark Kirk (R-IL), who was one of the eight GOP Reps. to vote in favor of the climate change bill. Meanwhile, Malkin wants to know what "earmarks and payoffs" these eight Reps. were promised by the Dem leadership in exchange for their votes.
• Conservative bloggers (Erickson, Johnson, Jacobson, Allahpundit) are criticizing Pres. Obama for condemning the military coup in Honduras, which they think was morally justified.
• Liberal bloggers (Cohn, Klein, Yglesias, digby) are discussing the relative importance of including a public option in health care reform.

SOTOMAYOR: Take That, Sonia

Conservative bloggers are portraying the SCOTUS' 5-to-4 ruling in the Ricci case as a sharp rebuke to Sotomayor's legal judgment:

• Malkin: "Sotomayor = Not so wise now."
• RedState's Erick Erickson: "Those white men and black man on the Supreme Court just didn't have the same experiences as Judge Sotomayor and consequently saw discrimination where Sotomayor saw justice."
• Hot Air's Morrissey: "This creates a big problem for Obama and the Democrats in Congress. They certainly have the votes to confirm Sotomayor, but their big sell -- that she was one of the appellate court's most brilliant minds -- just took a body blow on this decision. Most people want to move past the old arguments on race and hiring, feeling that forty years of affirmative-action policies have run their course. Having to defend a jurist who attempted to impose them in a court case will not make Sotomayor seem moderate or reasonable at all, but extreme and perhaps less than competent."
• AmSpec Blog's Doug Bandow: "Although the GOP can't stop the Sotomayor nomination, it should use the battle as an opportunity to educate the public on the importance of choosing responsible jurists who don't believe in enshrining their own views or experiences as the nation's basic law. After all, even white males should enjoy the protection of the Constitution."
• NRO's Peter Kirsanow: "[T]he Supreme Court's opinion provides senators with a host of questions for Sotomayor during the confirmation hearings, starting with whether the nominee even considered arguments pertaining to the promotional exam's job-relatedness. Given that the Second Circuit affirmed summary judgment for New Haven in relatively cursory fashion, the Supreme Court's Ricci decision is a significant rebuke to how Sotomayor and her colleagues dispensed with the case."
• Power Line's Mirengoff: "Short of writing 'get whitey,' It's difficult to imagine how Judge Sotomayor could have fouled up the Ricci case any more than she did. [...] Judge Sotomayor's work in Ricci should raise serious questions about either her competence or her capacity to handle difficult civil rights cases (essentially the only kind that make it to the Supreme Court) impartially."

Although the SCOTUS justices split 5-to-4, several conservative bloggers (Long, Whelan) are arguing that the opinion offered a "unanimous" or "9-to-0" rejection of the specific reasoning that Sotomayor employed. National Journal's Stuart Taylor Jr. makes this argument in a column that is receiving a lot of praise from conservative bloggers (Whelan, Bandow, Mirengoff, Goldfarb).

Naturally, liberal bloggers (Greenwald, Yglesias, publius) dispute this argument. MyDD's Jonathan Singer writes:

"With Sotomayor coming to a conclusion reached also by the four liberal members of the Court, including Justice David Souter, whom she was nominated to replace, her position falls squarely within the mainstream of judicial thought. The outcome could have been worse, no doubt, had the four liberal Justices voted to remand, making what inherently is a 5-4 split on the issues look more like a 9-0 rejection of Sotomayor's position. In the end, it's hard to see how today's ruling doesn't help, rather than hurt, Sotomayor's already strong chances of being confirmed by the Senate."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Kinds Of Television

The Atlantic's Conor Friedersdorf:

"Okay, here's a puzzle for you: I'm going to put some television shows into Group A and others into Group B. See if you can figure out what metric I used to split them into their respective groups.

GROUP A: Friends, Gossip Girl, The OC, House, Desperate Housewives, 30 Rock, Grey's Anatomy, Entourage, The Gilmore Girls, CSI: Miami.

GROUP B: All in the Family, Good Times, Sanford and Son, Three's Company, Family Ties, I Love Lucy, The Andy Griffith Show, The Flintstones, Roseanne.

I submit that Group A shows render economic concerns in a wholly unrealistic fashion -- unlike real life, money rarely if ever imposes an obstacle to actions taken by the characters, and mostly they are shown living well beyond the means actual people in their situation could manage. In contrast, Group B shows make some attempt at dealing with scarcity, or at least portraying its characters living relatively realistic lives given their occupations and circumstances. My sense is that as time has gone by we've begun to see more and more shows that fit into Group A, and fewer and fewer suited for Group B."

LEST WE FORGET: Kids Say The Darndest Things!

From Overheard in New York:

Four-year-old girl: Daddy, you love your Bourbon, don't you?
Embarrassed dad: Sh, sweetie...daddy's car is called a "Suburban."

6/29: RINO-Hunting

Conservative bloggers are furious that 8 GOP Reps. voted in favor of the climate change bill, which narrowly passed the House in spite of an aggressive lobbying campaign led by Americans For Prosperity and righty blogs. Conservative bloggers are denouncing these 8 GOP Reps. as "turncoats" and "Quisling Republicans". Some are declaring that they will no longer donate money to the NRCC, since they see no reason to support "the campaign committee whose job is to re-elect these RINO sellouts." Others are encouraging the Club for Growth to fund primary challengers against these 8 Reps. Meanwhile, the offices of these Reps. can expect to receive some angry phone calls today, since conservative activists listed their contact information on a website called "Defeat The Liberals: Working To Rid The GOP Of RINO's."

On the other hand, Min. Leader John Boehner won himself some fans in the conservative blogosphere thanks to his hour-long filibuster of the climate change bill.

What else is happening in the blogosphere?

• Liberal bloggers (McCarter, Greenwald, digby, hilzoy) are angry that the Obama admin. is reportedly "crafting language for an executive order that would reassert presidential authority to incarcerate terrorism suspects indefinitely."
• Conservative bloggers (Malkin, Morrissey, Jacobson, Pilon) are portraying the SCOTUS's decision in the Ricci case -- which "revers[ed] a decision that high court nominee Sonia Sotomayor endorsed as an appeals court judge" -- as a blow to Sotomayor's chances of having a smooth Senate confirmation. Liberal bloggers (Benen, Dayen) are pushing back against this argument.
• Conservative bloggers (Johnson, Lane, Hawkins, Gateway Pundit, Allahpundit) support the military coup in Honduras, and they're assailing Obama for trying to avert the coup during the weeks leading up to it.
• Conservative bloggers (Geraghty, Painter, Richardson, Allahpundit) are buzzing about WH adviser David Axelrod's refusal "to rule out the possibility that the White House would agree to a tax hike on health insurance plans that would hit middle-income Americans."
• Liberal bloggers (Green, Waldman, Dayen, digby) are blasting Washington Post reporter Ceci Connolly for writing an article alleging that "sniping among liberals may jeopardize [the] votes" needed to pass a health care reform bill.
• Liberal bloggers (digby, Yglesias, Ackerman, BooMan, Foser, Sudbay) are criticizing Washington Post columnist Dana Milbank after he reportedly called Huffington Post reporter Nico Pitney a "dick" following their appearance on CNN's "Reliable Sources."

CLIMATE CHANGE BILL: The Traitorous Eight

Conservative bloggers are blasting the 8 GOP Reps. who voted in favor of the climate change bill:

• Michelle Malkin: "Congrats, congresspeople, you helped the Democrats pass a junk science-based, massive national energy tax. Headed to Disney World now? We still want to know: What were your payoffs/earmarks?"
• AmSpec Blog's Matthew Vadum: "[H]ere are the names of the eight Republican lawmakers who betrayed their party and their country by voting for this extremist legislation."
• RedState's Streiff: "The Quisling Republicans: these are the Republicans who sold out the nation's future."
• NRO's Iain Murray: "Without just four of these votes, the energy tax would have gone down and months of scheming by [Energy & Commerce Cmte Chair] Henry Waxman and Speaker [Nancy] Pelosi would have been for naught. Two of them have hopes of a Senate run, I note. Twitter users are already calling them the #capntr8tors..."
• Power Line's Paul Mirengoff: "It doesn't follow that these Republican votes (or at least four them) were critical to the passage of cap-and-trade. [...] But the eight Republicans still (a) voted for job-killing legislation rushed through before anyone could know exactly what it entails and (b) gave aid and comfort to some Democratic representatives by enabling them to avoid paying a political price for a 'yea' vote they were prepared to provide if Speaker Pelosi needed it."

Several righty bloggers are demanding consequences for these GOPers:

• Robert Stacy McCain: "We've already said Not One Red Cent for the National Republican Senatorial Committee because Sen. John Cornyn and the NRSC betrayed the GOP grassroots in Florida. Now, add the NRCC to the list. What's the point of giving money to the national party if, on key votes, Republican members of the House are indistinguishable from Nancy Pelosi? Why give money to the campaign committee whose job is to re-elect these RINO sellouts? [...] Unless and until all eight of these swine announce their retirements -- or are defeated in next year's primaries -- I say the grassroots answer to the NRCC should be NOT ONE RED CENT!"
• AmSpec Blog's Paul Chesser: "My question is, what message did House Whip Eric Cantor and Minority Leader John Boehner deliver to the eight Republican strays? If it was anything less than a promise, if they voted 'yes,' (1.) Withhold all future NRCC funds (2.) Recruit and massively fund a primary opponent (3.) Remove them from any leadership roles they might have -- then GOP leadership's message wasn't strong enough. This was a vote that demanded principle and unanimity for a party that claims the mantle of lower taxes and limited government, and once again, it failed."

RedState's Erick Erickson doesn't support withholding donations from the NRCC: "Of note, and one reason I do not think we should do to the NRCC what we are doing to the NRSC (in addition to a boycott of the NRCC totally obscuring exactly why we need to punish the NRSC), even the House GOP leadership quickly threw the eight yes votes under the bus. When is the last time you have seen the Senate GOP do that? On Friday night, the House GOP sent out a press release blasting the passage of H.R. 2454 and listed the names of all eight Republicans who voted for it. The Senate GOP would never do that."

CLIMATE CHANGE BILL II: We'll Give Reichert a Pass, But....

Some righty bloggers argue that certain GOP Reps. (namely WA Rep. Dave Reichert) had more justification in voting for the bill than did others:

• Erickson: "Are we going to seriously punish Dave Reichert for voting for cap-and-trade when he barely won his district in 2008 and something like 70% of his district both supports cap-and-trade and thinks environmental issues are the most important issues in Congress? If so, don't delude yourself into ever thinking we'll get the majority back. Some Republicans have to vote in ways the majority of us find detestable in order to stay in Congress. But then there is [CA Rep. Mary] Bono Mack, [DE Rep. Mike] Castle, and [IL Rep. Mark] Kirk. They did not have to vote that way. I am most troubled by Congresswoman Mack and think we should beat both her and her useless husband."
• The Next Right's Ironman: "[T]his bill is going to appeal to the vocal but few Saab Socialists who put the environment ahead of the economy. It is going to be painfully unpopular with blue collar America. Maybe Dave Reichert's uber green district will like it; but if Mark Kirk or Mike Castle think this isn't going to backfire on them big time in Rockford and New Castle they are going to find the Democrats whacking them with their own bill next November. And please explain Mary Bono Mack. Both her and the lame hubby from SW FL are painful underachievers, proving surnames don't equal leadership."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Ante Up Or Leave The Table

TPM's David Kurtz unloads on politicians like GA Rep. Paul Broun who claim that man-made global warming is a "hoax":

"This isn't a hoax like the Loch Ness monster or Bigfoot. At some point 50 or 100 years down the road -- maybe much sooner, I'm afraid -- the science and mechanics of climate change and human-generated carbon's role in it are going to be proved or disproved, demonstrated or not. And what are those folks who have been in denial the whole time going to do? Shrug their shoulders and say oops? My bad?

Is it going to be like the opposition to civil rights was, where the same people who opposed it to begin with were the first to declare, without any irony, that racism is abated and then raise the cry of reverse racism? Are we facing, as we did with civil rights, a decades long running battle of constant resistance where the enemies of progress work to undermine every step forward -- even as they enjoy the benefits of the very thing they are fighting?

We hear a lot from global warming deniers about the 'high cost' of carbon emission regulation. Of course, in absolute terms they are right. It will be expensive. But what price are the deniers willing to pay personally for the high cost of being on the wrong side of science and history? Many of today's deniers will be long dead by the time the worst effects of inaction are realized. Those who do live long enough will more than likely be insulated from the most extreme effects by their relative wealth and prosperity, compared to Bangladeshis, for instance. And in any event, there is no justice -- no democratic justice -- in punishing fools for being fools."

LEST WE FORGET: Furious Ayatollah Deletes Bon Jovi From iPod

The Huffington Post's Andy Borowitz:

"Furious at Jon Bon Jovi for making a new recording of 'Stand By Me' in solidarity with the Iranian people, Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei today announced that he was deleting Mr. Bon Jovi's songs from his iPod library 'forever.'

'This is an irrevocable decision,' the Ayatollah said. 'I did not merely uncheck the tracks, I deleted them permanently.'

The Ayatollah said that he had once considered making 'Livin' on a Prayer' the Iranian national anthem, 'but no more.'

For his part, Mr. Bon Jovi remains undaunted, announcing plans today to record a new song about the Ayatollah, 'You Give Authoritarian Theocrats a Bad Name.'"

BLOGGER SPOTLIGHT: Jed Lewison

Today the Blogometer talks to Jed Lewison, who blogs at Daily Kos and the Jed Report.

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

Where did you grow up?
I mostly grew up Seattle, but I was born in Chapel Hill. I also lived in NYC for three or four years, and went to high school in Philly.

Where do you live now?
Las Vegas, baby! I could be neighbors with John Ensign's ex!

If you have an occupation other than blogging, what is it?
My primary focus right now is creating videos and writing posts for Daily Kos, but I've written a political thriller that I need to get around to shopping to agents, and am at work on another book (actually, two). Before writing and blogging full-time, I was communications director for Sen. [Maria] Cantwell, and before that I worked for her at RealNetworks as director of internet marketing for the consumer division, of which she was SVP.

What's on your iPod right now?
I don't use an iPod -- I feel like a schmuck when I walk around with speakers in my ear. But I do use Rhapsody and Windows Media Center. As long as it isn't too saccharine or schmaltzy, there's a good chance I'll like it. Some stuff I've listened to recently...Pink Floyd, Tom Petty, Radiohead, Tribe Called Quest, Louis Prima, Moby, Liz Phair (only "Exile in Guyville" though). Plus, whatever my girlfriend happens to be playing.

What book do you think every person should read?
I don't buy into the notion that any single book should be required reading. I'm not going Galt, and there's no Fountainhead mania happening here, so I'll punt on that question. However, anyone who is serious about poker would benefit from The Theory of Poker by David Sklansky. And I've never read an Elmore Leonard book and regretted it.

You've already written one novel; is there another one in the works?
Yep. :) But before I talk about it, I need to get around to selling my first!

Please finish this sentence: "When I'm not blogging, you'll probably find me..."
Hanging out with my girlfriend and her dogs and cats.

What has been your favorite blog post, or your favorite story to write about?
Well, most of my posts and stories center around the utter dysfunction and nearly-universal dishonesty of the conservative movement, from Republican politicians to 'intellectuals' on the right to Fox. As with books, I don't really have a favorite post, but I did get a kick out of a recent video I did showing Karl Rove, Sean Hannity, and Fox News lying through their teeth to make an attack on ABC and President Obama.

Which blogger(s) do you consider indispensable, if any?
You'll notice a theme here -- I think it's hard to argue any one blogger is indispensable. The thing that makes the blogosphere effective, I think, is that it's not a one way street. So I'd say that the indispensable thing about the blogosphere is that it's open to all.

I bet you're going to ask me who my favorite politician is. I'll probably answer "President Obama," which hopefully illustrates that I have a pretty high bar to have a "favorite."

Who's your favorite non-liberal blogger?
Ha. I was wrong. Here's one where I actually do have a favorite. Andrew Sullivan and Paul Phillips, who barely blogs anymore.

Who's your favorite active politician? Least favorite?
No question, President Obama -- if for no other reason than that he's president during America's most challenging era of my lifetime. It's not that I think he's perfect, but he's brought us closer to accomplishing major progressive goals than any other politician since I've been born.

My least favorite pols are Democrats who fall into the old trap of fearing Republican retaliation. It's hard to dislike Republican politicians given how effective they have been at destroying the conservative movement.

What would you realistically like to see Democrats accomplish in 2009?
Obviously, I want to see things like getting the economy back on track, restoring America's moral authority, finally rolling back discrimination against gays, and health care reform.

But my top priority is energy policy -- economic expansion depends on cheap energy, our future health depends on clean energy. Without developing alternate sources of energy, I don't see how the U.S. -- much less the world -- will be able to sustain (and improve) our quality of life.

Moreover, these new sources of energy could be huge jobs creators for some of the people who've struggled to keep up in the economy. Finally, even if you don't think the proximate cause of the Iraq War was oil, only a complete idiot would argue that our dependence on oil hasn't had a profoundly negative impact on our foreign policy and foreign misadventures.

If you could give President Obama advice, what would it be?
As long as you're proposing well-considered policies, the more stuff you try to get done, the better. The GOP is bewildered right now. The more you throw at them, the more confused they'll get -- and the more idiotic mistakes they'll make.

What keeps you up at night?
That we won't get energy policy right. That, and Lulu (one of the two dogs in my household).

Please feel free to ask and answer your own question.

Q: What advice do you have for conservatives? And do you even know any?

A: Yes, some of my closest friends are conservatives. (And at least one of them reads, and frequently enjoys, Daily Kos.)

I think conservatives need to recognize that Colin Powell is right -- we're now in an era where most Americans want government to help correct the mistakes made by letting the private sector run amok. Conservatives need to decide if they want to sit out the next decade or so (assuming that it takes at least that long to fix the screwups of the [George W.] Bush era) by taking the Glenn Beck approach to politics, or they need to offer a credible alternative to Democratic policies. Most likely, they're going to keep down their hard-right ideological path, and they ought to remember that Barry Goldwater didn't even get 40% of the vote in 1964. Today, Goldwater might not break 30%.

Most of all, conservatives should stop relying on Foxaganda, and start trying to be accurate. They should be more self-critical and more interested in figuring out where they went wrong. Everybody makes mistakes, but if you can't recognize those mistakes and use them as lessons for the future, you'll never actually make yourself better.

And as much as I'm on the progressive side of the debate, I really do wish conservatives were a more constructive political. As long as they continue to deny reality, however, they will continue to produce fools like Michelle Bachmann who are truly a cancer on the nation's discourse.

6/26: A Heated Debate

Conservative bloggers are working hard this morning to defeat the climate change bill that's currently being debated in the House. Erick Erickson and Michelle Malkin are both urging their readers to call Reps. and urge them to vote against the bill. Morever, it appears that their efforts may get results -- at least with certain members of Congress. Erickson reports that Rep. Sanford Bishop (D-GA) is "keeping a tally of callers and his office says he'll vote based on the number of callers for or against cap and trade." This dynamic reminds us of the debate over the stimulus bill back in February, when Congressional offices reported that the anti-stimulus phone calls were outnumbering the pro-stimulus phone calls by a ratio of 100-to-1. Are conservative groups outworking their liberal counterparts when it comes to lobbying Congress on the climate change legislation? Or does the Dem leadership already have enough votes to pass the bill, as House Maj. Leader Steny Hoyer claims?

What else is happening in the blogosphere?

• The bloggers are Firedoglake continue to urge members of Congress to vote against any health care bill that does not include a strong public option. Meanwhile, liberal bloggers (Marshall, Benen) were impressed by Sen. Jay Rockefeller's (D-WV) strong endorsement of a public plan.
• Liberal bloggers (Yglesias, Bowers) are pleased that Sen. Arlen Specter (D-PA) reversed his position on a public option, saying that he now supports it. Lefty bloggers attribute Specter's switch to Rep. Joe Sestak's (D-PA) primary challenge. However, it's clear that liberal bloggers (Moulitsas, Bowers) still distrust Specter, as they continue to emphasize his vulnerability to a strong primary challenge.
• Conservative bloggers (Malkin, Liebau, Riehl) are delighted about the low ratings for the ABC News special featuring Pres. Obama answering questions about his health plan.
• Liberal and conservative bloggers are both criticizing SC Gov. Mark Sanford (R) for taking taxpayer-paid trips to Argentina in order to visit his girlfriend.

Finally, please check back later today for our interview with Daily Kos' Jed Lewison!

CLIMATE CHANGE BILL: Workin' The Phones

Conservative bloggers are fiercely lobbying against passage of the House's "American Clean Energy and Security Act":

• RedState's Erickson: "Here is the list of swing Democrats on Cap and Trade. Here is the list of swing Republicans on the issue. If you don't see your Congressman on the list, go here, put in your zip-code, and find your Congressman. You need to call right now. Tell your Congressman to vote no on the Cap & Trade legislation, H.R. 2454. It is coming to a vote today. Brian notes in the comments that the legislation requires us to 'unilaterally reduce our emissions without being contingent on China or India reducing theirs.' It is also a giant tax increase on working families. Energy costs are going to soar."
• Malkin: "The House will vote on the cap-and-tax bill today. Make your voice heard. Phil Kerpen at AFP has compiled a very helpful list, which I'm reprinting in full here. Check AFP site for latest updates and alerts. Ask 'em how they can ram through this eco-boondoggle with EPA hide-and-seek games on global warming science going on unchecked."
• NRO's Iain Murray: "If you're as utterly disgusted by this as I am, you can send a message to [Speaker Nancy] Pelosi and her cronies by telling your Congressmen to vote against this bill. You can e-mail them, call them (202-225-3121), or text the National Taxpayers Union on 54608 and they will help."

Many conservative bloggers believe that it's folly to try and combat global warming, which they're not even convinced is real:

• Power Line's John Hinderaker: "[T]he whole point of this exercise is supposed to be fighting global warming, a theory that has fallen into scientific disrepute and on which Americans divide evenly, at best. [...] I'm sure there must be a historical precedent for the folly that Waxman-Markey represents -- ordering the weather to change! -- but I can't think of one offhand."
• Hot Air's Ed Morrissey: "King Canute knew better than to believe his advisers when they told him that he was powerful enough to affect ocean levels. Unfortunately, this administration and the Democratic Party don't have the sense Canute did."
• NRO's Victor Davis Hanson: "I just spent a few days in the Sierra in May during freezing cold temperatures and snow; a week ago it was quite cool and raining in New York; each time I have passed through Phoenix this spring it seemed unseasonably cool; and just gave a talk on the Russian River and about froze. Meanwhile the grapes look about ten days behind due to unseasonably cool temperatures. Any empiricist would be worried, as Newsweek once was, about global cooling. Will the planet boil, if we slow down a bit, review the science and dissenting views, and consider the wisdom in a recession of allotting nearly a trillion dollars to changing our very way of life (while the Chinese absorb market share)?"

Meanwhile, liberal bloggers (Sumner, Yglesias, Benen) aren't particularly happy with the climate change bill, but they still want it to pass.

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: And When The Groove Is Dead And Gone...

The Atlantic's Andrew Sullivan offers his thoughts about the late Michael Jackson:

"There are two things to say about him. He was a musical genius; and he was an abused child. By abuse, I do not mean sexual abuse; I mean he was used brutally and callously for money, and clearly imprisoned by a tyrannical father. He had no real childhood and spent much of his later life struggling to get one. He was spiritually and psychologically raped at a very early age -- and never recovered. Watching him change his race, his age, and almost his gender, you saw a tortured soul seeking what the rest of us take for granted: a normal life.

But he had no compass to find one; no real friends to support and advise him; and money and fame imprisoned him in the delusions of narcissism and self-indulgence. Of course, he bears responsibility for his bizarre life. But the damage done to him by his own family and then by all those motivated more by money and power than by faith and love was irreparable in the end. He died a while ago. He remained for so long a walking human shell.

I loved his music. His young voice was almost a miracle, his poise in retrospect eery, his joy, tempered by pain, often unbearably uplifting. He made the greatest music video of all time; and he made some of the greatest records of all time. He was everything our culture worships; and yet he was obviously desperately unhappy, tortured, afraid and alone.

I grieve for him; but I also grieve for the culture that created and destroyed him. That culture is ours' and it is a lethal and brutal one: with fame and celebrity as its core values, with money as its sole motive, it chewed this child up and spat him out. I hope he has the peace now he never had in his life. And I pray that such genius will not be so abused again."

LEST WE FORGET: Sanford To Star In Telenovela 'El Gobernador Caliente'

The Huffington Post's Andy Borowitz:

"Embattled South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford resigned effective immediately today, but announced plans to star in a steamy telenovela for the Spanish-language Telemundo TV network.

The telenovela, tentatively titled 'El Gobernador Caliente,' follows 'the hot sexcapades of a globe-trotting governor who doesn't let state business interfere with his relentless pursuit of coño,' according to the Telemundo press release.

Mr. Sanford said he is buckling down to learn his lines, learning such Spanish phrases as 'tan lineas' (tan lines) and 'bubis' (boobies).

'At least someone else writes the script for me,' Mr. Sanford said. 'Spelling has never been my forte.'"

6/25: Off The Mark

Conservative bloggers were divided in their reactions to SC Gov. Mark Sanford's (R) admission that he's been having an extramarital affair with an Argentine woman for the past year. Many righty bloggers were disappointed to see Sanford inflict so much damage on his presidential aspirations, since he has long been one of their favorite politicians. Philip Klein wrote: "Today, conservatives everywhere should be mourning, because we lost the man who was in the best position to run for president in 2012 articulating limited-government philosophy." However, other conservative bloggers reacted to Sanford's announcement with disgust rather than disappointment. Michelle Malkin called Sanford a "bastard" while numerous other bloggers urged him to resign immediately.

As for the implications for the 2012 GOP presidential primary, some think that ex-MA Gov. Mitt Romney may now be the favorite. However, MN Gov. Tim Pawlenty and AK Gov. Sarah Palin still have their believers.

SANFORD: He Coulda Been A Contender!

Many righy bloggers were disappointed to see Sanford inflict so much damage on his presidential aspirations, since he was one of the conservative blogosphere's favorite politicians:

• AmSpec Blog's Klein: "Today, conservatives everywhere should be mourning, because we lost the man who was in the best position to run for president in 2012 articulating limited-government philosophy."
• RedState's Streiff: "This is a crying shame. Governor Sanford had much to offer to his country, especially at a time when the federal government seems to have lost its wits in regards to fiscal sanity. It is also a shame because it means we may have to endure yet another Mitt Romney candidacy as fiscal conservatives look for a home on 2012. On the positive side, it is better we find this out now than a year or two from now."
• Right Wing News' John Hawkins: "Sanford was a rising star in the Republican party and it is really sad to see him throw away his promising political career this way."
• Townhall's Jillian Bandes: "I sat next to Sanford at a breakfast less than a month ago, where he wowed me and a group of journos about fighting President Obama's stimulus money. This is the guy who brought to hogs into the state legislature to fight overspending and congressional pork. The guy who was supposed to be the rising star of the Republican Party. He is now a nobody."

NRO's Rich Lowry speculates about the implications for '12: "First [NV Sen. John] Ensign, then the 'Crying in Argentina' press conference. If Republicans want a presidential candidate who lives clean and whose family hasn't been involved in tabloid scandals, it might soon be Mitt Romney by process of elimination."

Power Line's John Hinderaker responds to Lowry's post: "I'm pretty certain Tim Pawlenty isn't going to succumb to scandal either, and Sarah Palin's supporters would add her to the list of those unlikely to have a nasty skeleton in the closet, notwithstanding one family member's history in the tabloids."

Speaking of Palin, Hawkins considers her the favorite to win the GOP presidential nod in '12: "Rabid Sarah Palin fans are a dime a dozen, but rabid Mitt Romney fans? They exist, but they're much fewer and farther inbetween. What this adds up to is that Sarah Palin is in a very strong position for 2012 and would, at least for the moment, still have to be considered the candidate to beat for the Republican nomination."

Hot Air's Allahpundit thinks Romney would be a stronger candidate than Palin: "Pew's got a new poll out today showing Romney's net favorable rating at +12, compared to just +1 for Sarahcuda. With Sanford and [UT Gov. Jon] Huntsman now out of the game, [LA Gov. Bobby] Jindal almost certainly biding his time until 2016, and Palin possibly too polarizing to win against The One, we'd all better hope Mitt runs. Because if he doesn't, an ominous scenario presents itself."

SANFORD II: Resign, Governor

Other conservative bloggers reacted to Sanford's announcement with disgust rather than disappointment:

• Malkin: "Bastard. It's the only fitting word for a man who abandons his wife and four sons on Father's Day weekend to indulge his 'overdrive' on an Argentinian fling. Mark Sanford: Bastard. [...] If you can't honor your marriage vows, how can you expect voters to trust you to honor your damned oath of office?"
• RedState's Leon H. Wolf: "Mark Sanford, you have betrayed your family, your friends, your constituents, your supporters, and God, all for basically nothing. You have proven to be the slimiest member of a barrel that is filled with some pretty slimy characters. If you have a decent bone left in your body, resign immediately and hopefully we can soon permanently move past news cycles featuring either your face or your name. Goodbye and good riddance."
• Townhall's Dwayne Horner: "It's not time for press conferences right now, Mr. Governor, it's a time to resign as Governor. [...] It doesn't have to be a big show, just go."
• AmSpec Blog's Doug Bandow: "A politician can survive betraying his family. But betray enough people, including the entire state's population, and you become a figure of ridicule, unable to perform your duties. How can he regain the credibility necessary to do his job? He's outta' there. The only question is when. And if he has any decency left, he will resign now."
• Hot Air's Ed Morrissey: "If you want to have a career in national politics, keep it in your pants. If you want to conduct affairs, stay out of politics. If you use your public office to lie to your constituents and your family, you deserve everything coming your way. No sniveling."

The Next Right's Patrick Ruffini pushes back against the argument that Sanford should resign: "I'd like to play Devil's Advocate and argue that blindly going along with the Dump Sanford crowd could seriously damage Republican elected officials' ability to weather future, hopefully less serious storms. At the core of the Sanford and Ensign episodes is the cloud of 'hypocrisy' that hangs over any Republican who strays from the bonds of their marriage. (Quickly forgetting that all who commit adultery are hypocrites, having taken a solemn vow of marriage.) Because Democrats are perceived as more socially libertine, they get off easier. This is a structural disadvantage that, on the margins, hurts Republican officeholders, forcing them into resignation or disgrace more easily than their equally adulterous Democratic counterparts."

SANFORD III: It's Not The Adultery, It's The Hypocrisy

Liberal bloggers were more critical of Sanford's hypocrisy than they were of his adulterous behavior:

• Firedoglake's watertiger: "I have said time and again that it's not the sin, it's the hypocrisy. People who shout the loudest about family values rarely have any to begin with. If these 'family values' politicians didn't hoist themselves upon pedestals, holding themselves out to be purer than driven snow and above 'sin' (a/k/a human behavior, to you and me), then their falls wouldn't be quite so spectacular."
• Obsidian Wings' hilzoy: "Mark Sanford: secure enough in himself to to leave his state without a governor, his wife without a husband, and his sons without a father; enough of a real man to willfully torpedo his closest relationships. Family values in action."
• Atrios: "In a sane country it would be none of my business who Sanford was was having an affair with, and in a sane country gay people would be allowed to get married no matter what people like Sanford think about it."
• Think Progress' Matthew Yglesias: "[M]arital infidelity is a bad thing but it's also fairly common and honestly not the greatest crime in human history. Sanford's stimulus antics were, in my opinion, a lot worse. Still, the sheer hypocrisy of conservative 'family values' talk always does rankle."
• TAPPED's Adam Serwer: "Marital problems shouldn't be political fodder -- unless the unfaithful individual has sought to make political hay of other people's private affairs. Personally, I don't care that Sanford was unfaithful to his wife -- that's none of my business. What I don't understand is why he thinks other people's relationships -- particularly those of gay people -- are his business."
• AMERICAblog's Joe Sudbay: "So, another rabidly homophobic, sanctimonious right-winger is a fraud. What a surprise."

Other lefty bloggers think Sanford's biggest crime was not adultery, but spending a week in Argentina without leaving someone in charge of SC:

• dday: "[L]eaving the country with no proper explanation is a severe dereliction of duty. He apparently lied to his own staff, lied to the Lieutenant Governor, and left his state in the lurch, despite the unpredictability of events (aren't we in hurricane season?). That's probably a firing offense. If I was a South Carolinian, it would be to me, regardless of party."
• BooMan: "Mark Sanford is a hypocrite and an adulterer, but those are not reasons for him to resign or be impeached. However, flaking out and leaving the country without providing for a succession of government is an impeachable offense."
• MyDD's Charles Lemos: "By leaving the state, the Governor abrogated his constitutional duties. [...] Had an unforeseen act of god or act of terrorism befallen the citizens of South Carolina, the Governor's absence would have impeded a timely and effective response. In short, the Governor has breached his duty and must step down or be impeached."

All of that said, some liberal bloggers (Marshall, Cole, Kleiman) were impressed by the honesty that Sanford displayed during his press conference.

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Evaluating Sanford

NRO's Jim Geraghty:

"A thought for the happily married out there: What if you hadn't met the love of your life when you did? What if your life had taken a different path, and you married someone else, and then, later in life, met the person who is now the spouse you adore? Would you have the strength to say, 'I've made my commitment, I can't leave my spouse'? Would you cheat? Would you contemplate divorce?

This clearly wasn't some dirty old man chasing the secretary around the desk. A guy who writes kinda syrupy e-mails to a woman on the other side of the world, only meeting three times in eight years, at the very least is convinced that he's in love. Of course, this may very well be even more hurtful to the wronged spouse than the usual Clintonian bimbo eruption. But the jokes that Sanford can't control his you-know-what don't quite seem accurate; from the little we know about this relationship, it seems Sanford really can't control his heart. Perhaps that's what made his behavior so much more reckless than the usual philandering politician.

But... Sanford has four sons, and I figure that's the key factor here. When you're a parent, you've got to put them first. There's always an element of tragedy when a marriage ends, but the sum total of human experience suggests that sometimes the wrong people marry each other. Maybe Mark Sanford needed the love that only 'Maria' could provide him, but his sons needed a stable home even more."

LEST WE FORGET: More Appropriate Wi-Fi Network Names For My Fellow Apartment Building Tenants

McSweeney's contributor Josh Silverstein makes a list:

• Default_on rent most months
• Belkin_N1_guywhostealsmypaper
• Apt102hasextremelyloudsex
• Sam&Dave_aretrulyterribleatRockBand
• Kat&StevesWI-FIghtintheaptwhenwecanfightinthecourtyardandeveryonecanhear!
• Thomas818HogsTheWashingMachines
• WESTELLCreepyOldGuy_wholiveswithateenagegirlthatweallhopeandprayis_hisniece

6/24: Tough Talk

After spending the past week criticizing Pres. Obama for not denouncing the Iranian regime more forcefully, conservative bloggers were impressed by his statement at yesterday's presser. Ed Morrissey's reaction was typical of righty bloggers: "I've been highly critical about Obama's lack of response on Iran; I think he did very well today. He condemned Iran in unequivocal and harsh terms." On the left side of the blogosphere, Steve Benen praises Obama for "[taking] a firm stand against the actions of the Iranian regime, while avoiding language that the same regime could exploit or use as an excuse for more brutality." Kevin Drum was also impressed by Obama's statement, although he thinks "it's already a tough tightrope to walk, and it's going to get tougher."

What else is happening in the blogosphere?

• Conservative bloggers (Spencer, Malkin, Lopez, Reynolds) are criticizing Obama for "coordinating" a question at yesterday's presser (which was asked by The Huffington Post's Nico Pitney). Liberal bloggers (Huffington, Benen, Wheeler, Sudbay, Cole) are defending Pitney's question.
• Liberal bloggers (Yglesias, Sudbay, Lewison, digby) are buzzing about the revelation that SC Gov. Mark Sanford (R) did not spend the past week hiking on the Appalachian Trail -- as his staff previously claimed -- but actually took a trip to Buenos Aires.
• The bloggers at Firedoglake (Hamsher, Smith) are asking their readers to call their members of Congress and urge them to vote against any health care bill that does not include a strong public option. Meanwhile, liberal bloggers (Yglesias, Benen, Klein) was pleased with Obama's defense of the public option at yesterday's presser.
• Liberal bloggers (Yglesias, Bowers, Drum) are disappointed by the concessions that House Ag. Cmte Chair Collin Peterson (D-MN) extractd from House Energy and Commerce Cmte Chair Henry Waxman (D-CA) in exchange for his support of the climate-change bill. Conservative bloggers (Hinderaker, Manzi) are still strongly opposed to the climate change bill.
• Liberal bloggers (Benen, DougJ, Atrios, BooMan) are blasting Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) for his recent attacks on Obama's approach to Iran.

OBAMA PRESS CONFERENCE: Praise From The Right

Many conservative bloggers liked Obama's strong statement criticizing the Iranian regime, although they think he should have given it earlier:

• NRO's Jim Geraghty: "Since I don't often agree with the president, it's pleasant and refreshing when I do; his remarks on Iran today were largely what I wanted to hear. Probably the most quoted comment from this press conference will be his initial one-word response when asked about his reaction to the video of Neda's murder: 'Heartbreaking.'"
• Hot Air's Morrissey: "I've been highly critical about Obama's lack of response on Iran; I think he did very well today. He condemned Iran in unequivocal and harsh terms. [...] Obama should have rescinded our offer of 'weenie diplomacy,' which belies the tough talk. At least, though, Obama has caught up with most of the rest of the free world."
• NRO's Michael Rubin: "Obama's statement is good -- except for the unnecessary statement affirming the sovereignty of the Islamic Republic. Especially good -- and lacking too often in the Bush administration -- was a quick refutation of the Iranian government's own strawman arguments. If only Obama had been so forceful and highlighted these themes a week ago..."
• Power Line's John Hinderaker: "President Obama began his press conference today with the ringing endorsement of the Iranian protesters that he should have delivered a week ago. It was good."

Other conservative bloggers were less impressed:

• Michelle Malkin: "Obama's press statement this afternoon was rather unemotional and obligatory-sounding."
• Power Line's Paul Mirengoff: "I'm not that impressed with Obama's statement. As I wrote on Saturday, after Obama issued a similar statement: 'What is preventing Obama from supporting not just the protesters' right to assemble and speak, but also their broader aspirations -- the ones that cause them to assemble and about which they are speaking; the ones that can only be fulfilled through regime change?'"

Liberal bloggers liked Obama's statement:

• The Washington Monthly's Benen: "[N]otice that the president continues to carefully walk a fine line. For example, the president condemned the violence and offered an unambiguous defense of those who wish to peaceably assemble and have their voices heard. But also note, he didn't dictate suggested remedies -- John McCain's suggestion that the U.S. should call for new elections hasn't gained traction -- and certainly didn't insert the American government in the middle of the intra-Iranian conflict. Obama, in other words, took a firm stand against the actions of the Iranian regime, while avoiding language that the same regime could exploit or use as an excuse for more brutality."
• Mother Jones' Drum: "So far, for good and sound reasons, Obama has taken a restrained tone toward [the violence in Iran], but if it continues he's obviously going to react ever more strongly and more concretely. And he'll have to do it without either overpromising or actively making things worse for the protesters. It's already a tough tightrope to walk, and it's going to get tougher. So the reason I wasn't fazed by Obama's statement today is because I've been expecting it all along. And unless the opposition has already fizzled, I expect Obama's position to get even more difficult."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Everything's Relative

The Washington Post's Ezra Klein:

"I think health reform is going to go the way of stimulus. The stimulus was a huge and important accomplishment. If you had told liberals in 2007 that they were going to pass an $800 billion dollar spending bill that made good on decades of promises about infrastructure rebuilding and comparative effectiveness research and train construction and broadband internet and green energy, they would have laughed at you.

But by the time the bill actually wound its way through Congress, most liberals were frustrated by the outcome: A few Senate moderates had lopped $100 billion in spending off of the total and done so for no apparent reason. Top economists said that the legislation, though helpful, would not be enough to close the output gap and should thus be larger. The stimulus was a historic legislative accomplishment that nevertheless left liberals frustrated because they made concessions they didn't see any reason to make and ended up with a bill that they knew would not fully solve the problem.

That, I'd bet, is how health reform will close out as well. We will spend a trillion or a bit more covering the un- and underinsured. We will regulate a fairer and more decent insurance market into existence. We will expand Medicaid and build out subsidies to at least 300 percent of poverty and create health insurance exchanges. We will fund all this through sharply progressive taxes. We may even have a public plan. In 2006, it would have been a great deal. But as the legislation winds its way through the Senate, there will be unpleasant compromises, and unconscionable omissions, and the constant knowledge that though this is progress, it is not sufficient, and the people who stand in the way of a better bill are frequently incoherent or disingenuous. And that will be terribly frustrating for supports of the effort. The result will probably be a historic win when compared to the status quo, but I doubt it's going to feel like that for supporters of the initiative."

LEST WE FORGET: Being A Promoter Is A Tough Job

From Overheard in New York:

Promoter, stopping friends: Hey! You guys look like pretty awesome people!
Friend #1: Nah, we're really not.
Friend #2: Yeah, we're actually pretty lame.
Promoter: Well, you at least like kids, right?
Friend #1: No. I fucking hate kids. They're terrible. I punch them all the time.
Promoter: Haha. Well, what about animals?
Friend #1: Nope. I hate them too...especially kittens and puppies. I punch them too. I do the double punch. Kids and puppies at the same time. (starts punching the air violently with both of her fists)
Promoter: Okay then. You guys have a nice day...

6/23: No More Compromising!

While liberal bloggers have been extremely frustrated by recent developments in the health care reform negotiations, they received a small dose of good news yesterday. First, the netroots were delighted when Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) cited the apparent widespread support for a public option and suggested that Dems may have to pass health care reform without GOP support. The netroots were also pleased when Senate Budget Cmte Chair Kent Conrad (D-ND) -- whom lefty bloggers have repeatedly criticized for his assertions that a public option isn't politically feasible -- reportedly embraced aspects of Schumer's proposal. Liberal bloggers clearly want Senate Dems to stop compromising on health care reform in order to win GOP votes, so they see Schumer's comments (and Conrad's response) as a step in the right direction.

What else is happening in the blogosphere?

• Liberal bloggers (Marshall, Benen, Yglesias, Aravosis) and conservative bloggers (Erickson, Bandow) are buzzing about SC Gov. Mark Sanford's (R) hiking trip along the Appalachian Trail, which included a four-day stretch "during which staff and state officials said they had not heard from him." Many liberal bloggers (Lewison, Singiser, watertiger) and a few conservative bloggers (Lewis, Allahpundit) are criticizing Sanford's conduct.
• Conservative bloggers (Johnson, Mirengoff, Lane, Boot, Goldfarb) are criticizing the Obama admin. for not rescinding its invitations to Iranian diplomats to attend July 4 celebrations at U.S. embassies.
• In yet another example of the growing influence of blogs, Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX) cited a Powerline blog post while telling MSNBC's Andrea Mitchell that the NYT/CBS News poll showing widespread support for a public health insurance option was "skewed." The author of the post, Powerline's John Hinderaker, reacted to Cornyn's comments by writing: "It's gratifying to be read by some of the Senate's leading adult voices." However, liberal blogger Ryan Powers argues that Hinderaker's criticism of the NYT/CBS News poll is "unfounded."

HEALTH CARE REFORM: Chuck Has Had Enough

The netroots were pleased when Schumer cited the apparent widespread support for a public health insurance option and suggested that Dems may have to pass health care reform without GOP support:

• The Washington Monthly's Steve Benen: "Schumer has not always been a consistent progressive champion, but by all appearances, he's showing some real leadership on this issue right now. To his credit, Schumer even rejected the co-op proposal gaining steam among Republican and 'centrist' Democrats."
• dday: "Now, Schumer's vision of a public plan is a compromise from the House vision of a public plan, which is a compromise from single-payer health insurance. But things are moving in a better direction today than yesterday, when DiFi flat-out said Democrats don't have the votes to pass anything."
• The Washington Post's Ezra Klein: "This is what we call a 'clarifying moment.' [...] Republicans, [Schumer] suggests, are standing lockstep even against efforts to create a private co-op system that could offer an alternative to for-profit insurance. Their concern with the co-op plan is not that the government would be taking over the health-care system. It's that the current insurance providers would face unexpectedly aggressive competition in the marketplace. Which raises an interesting, and potentially clarifying, question: Are Republicans in this to preserve the healthy functioning of a competitive private market or preserve the profits of the currently dominant insurance companies?"
• Think Progress' Matthew Yglesias: "[T]hus far, for all the whining about the public plan I'm not seeing the evidence that [GOP senators are] actually willing to embrace the rest of the health reform agenda, either. In which case, you may as well go forward with a robust public plan. And I think it's important for Democrats to stop hiding behind Republicans on this. People who say they're leery of a public plan because they want a bipartisan bill need to either produce some Republicans who are willing to support their ideas, or else admit that it's they themselves who are blocking the public option."

HEALTH CARE REFORM II: Conrad Gets On Board?

The netroots were also pleased to learn that Conrad is reportedly embracing aspects of Schumer's proposal:

• Daily Kos' Jed Lewison: "Conrad has spent the better part of two weeks working against the public option. Hopefully, his change in direction is an indication that he understands that the public option is overwhelmingly popular -- even with Republicans, at least at the grassroots level."
• AMERICAblog's John Aravosis: "I'm still skeptical as to what all of this means. Lots of things can happen at the last minute when you're working on legislation -- things you won't find out until it's too late. Still, it's the first good Health Care Reform news we've had in a while."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Enough About Iran; What About Iraq?

Booman Tribune's Steven D thinks the media has been ignoring the recent violence in Iraq:

"I know Iran is the total and complete focus of every media person on the planet right now, but in all honesty, I see stories like this one about the ongoing slaughter in Iraq all the time and I wonder where all the outrage and concern over this cornucopia of death and misery went? Why isn't this story getting as much media attention as the death of Neda [Agha-Soltan]? [...]

Maybe because they are so ubiquitous no one here in America cares anymore, or certainly no one who reports the news on the TeeVee. But if this was happening in Iran there would be front page headlines screaming about the violence and the usual suspects questioning President Obama's failure to do something about it. I guess everyone in the news biz has 'moved on' but for the Iraqi people [George W.] Bush's Folly continues to be the gift that keeps killing them.

Just remember, there is little Obama or the international news media can do to change the course of events in Iran. But back in 2002-2003, there was a lot that our news media, our renowned journalists and institutions, could have been doing to expose the lies of the Bush administration. But they didn't."

LEST WE FORGET: New Hampshire Passes Law Forcing Old People To Watch Gays Marry

From The Onion:

"CONCORD, NH -- Less than two weeks after legalizing gay marriage in the state, New Hampshire legislators enacted a new law Tuesday making it mandatory for persons over the age of 60 to attend three same-sex weddings every year for the rest of their lives. 'Beginning July 1, all senior citizens must publicly condone gay unions by RSVPing to the rainbow-colored invitation, putting on nice church clothes, and spending an afternoon celebrating the wedded bliss of two men or two women who like to have sex with each other,' bill H.B. 437 read in part. 'Any grandparent who refuses to weep joyously when the grooms kiss may be subject to harsh penalties.' Gay marriage advocates are already protesting the new statute, which they say unlawfully forces homosexuals to have gross old people at their weddings."

6/22: Senate Dems, Doing What They Do Best

NBC's First Read made the following observation this morning:

"So let's get this straight: Barack Obama won last year's presidential election by seven percentage points (53%-46%) campaigning, in part, for some form of universal health care; his party is about to have 60 votes in the Senate; polls show the country is receptive to overhauling health care; and the president's approval rating is between 56-60%. But Senate Democrats, like Dianne Feinstein, now say that Obama might not have the votes to pass health care?"

This apparent contradiction is driving liberal bloggers nuts. As we noted last week, the netroots are growing increasingly frustrated with the way that health care negotiations are proceeding in the Senate. Over the weekend, lefty bloggers blasted Sen. Blanche Lincoln (D-AR) after she became the latest Dem senator to announce her opposition to a public insurance option. After noting that Lincoln is up for re-election next year, digby stormed: "One hopes for her sake that there are as many insurance company executives living in her state as there are Democrats because she's going to need every one of those fat cats to vote for her once her constituents figure out who she's actually working for." It seems as though every single prominent lefty blogger has cited the NYT/CBS News poll indicating that 72% of Americans support "a government-administered health insurance plan like Medicare that would compete with private health insurance plans." Yet there still do not appear to be enough Senate votes for a bill that includes a public option. Nate Silver thinks lobbying by the insurance industry is the reason for this apparent discrepancy:

"The bottom line is that the health care debate is not really being played out in the court of public opinion. If it were, Congress would pass a robust plan with a public option that was funded by raising taxes on cigarettes, booze, and people making over $250,000, and we'd live happily ever after (or not). Rather, this is a behind-the-scenes fight at the committee level, where certain senators who have ample financial incentives to please the insurance industry have a disproportionate amount of control over the process."

What else is happening in the blogosphere?

• Bloggers on the left (BooMan, Derrick, Klein) and right (Allahpundit, Malkin, Hinderaker) are buzzing about the murder of a 27-year-old Iranian woman named Neda Agha-Soltani, whose death was captured on video and which has since become a symbol of the escalating crisis in Iran.
• Conservative bloggers (Hinderaker, Liebau) were not particularly impressed by Obama's most recent comments about the situation in Iran. Some righty bloggers are even arguing that Obama "is more comfortable with a totalitarian Islamic regime than he would be with a free Iranian society." Liberal bloggers (Benen, DougJ, hilzoy, Kleiman), along with Andrew Sullivan, are blasting Obama's neoconservative critics.
• The influential conservative blog RedState has thrown its support behind Gov. Rick Perry (R) in his re-election race against Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, calling him "the only conservative running for Governor of Texas." RedState is now raising money for Perry.
• Liberal bloggers (Drum, Yglesias, Klein, Harris) are citing a new CBO report estimating that the cap-and-trade provision of the Waxman-Markey climate change bill will cost the average U.S. household $165/year. Conservative blogger Jim Manzi still thinks the Waxman-Markey bill isn't worth the cost.
• Lefty bloggers (Greenwald, Hamsher, Moulitsas), along with Sullivan, continue to criticize the Washington Post for firing liberal columnist/blogger Dan Froomkin.

HEALTH CARE REFORM: Thanks A Lot, Blanche

Liberal bloggers are blasting Sen. Lincoln for announcing her opposition to a public option:

• digby: "Senator Lincoln is running for reelection next year. One hopes for her sake that there are as many insurance company executives living in her state as there are Democrats because she's going to need every one of those fat cats to vote for her once her constituents figure out who she's actually working for."
• Firedoglake's Attaturk: "It's funny though the citizenry thinks it's an awesome idea that Blue Cross/Blue Shield have some competition so they can just be fabulously successful instead of outrageously fabulously successful. But apparently, the most important aspect of Democracy is that millions suffer so that can remain the status quo. Thanks, Blanche Lincoln (D -- Your Corporate Label here)"

Firedoglake's Jane Hamsher: "US Representatives are much more susceptible to public pressure than Senators because they have to face re-election every two years. But in the fourth year of their terms, every Senator becomes a Representative for two years. Blanche Lincoln is running for re-election in 2010. If she's ever going to be persuadable, now is the time."

Meanwhile, numerous liberal bloggers (Dworkin, Yglesias, Benen, Scarecrow, Rosenberg, Silver, Willis, Chris) are citing the NYT/CBS News poll indicating that 72% of Americans support a public option. Conservative bloggers (Hinderaker, Karl) are claiming that the poll is skewed.

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Obama's Temperament

Mother Jones' Kevin Drum:

"[Obama's caution] is sometimes intensely frustrating. The gay community, for example, is up in arms over his lack of action on issues like DOMA and DADT. But there shouldn't be any surprise about that. It was obvious throughout the entire campaign season that this is how he works. He'll let the military stew over DADT for a while until they basically ask him to change it, rather than the other way around. It might take longer, but he figures -- probably correctly -- that the end result will be better for everyone. Ditto for DOMA, which doesn't yet have the votes in Congress for repeal.

And ditto for lots of other stuff. He's shown a disturbing willingness to compromise on financial regulation and healthcare. He hasn't engaged much with the Waxman-Markey climate bill as it slowly gets watered down into nothing. He's a cautious guy who doesn't take a lot of chances unless he feels some real pressure to do so. Paradoxically, this is exactly what I expected from him but I find myself disappointed anyway. A little bit more fire in the belly would be welcome.

But he is who he is, and the same instincts that disappoint us on some issues serve him well on others. So far, anyway. The next few months -- possibly the next few days in Iran -- will tell us just how much real hope and change Obama's temperament produces when the rubber finally hits the road."

LEST WE FORGET: Titles From The Baby-Sitters Club: The College Years Series

McSweeney's contributor Grace Dobush:

• Claudia Goes to Class Wearing Sweatpants With Words On the Backside
• Kristy's Softball Friends Don't Buy it That She's Dating a Dude
• Dawn and the Unpaid Internship
• Stacey Unsuccessfully Hides her Purging
• Mary Anne and the Free Credit Card T-shirt
• Dawn Gets Into a Heated Discussion On Post-structuralism
• Mallory and the Trouble With Unaccepted Transfer Credits
• Claudia and the RIAA Subpoena
• Mary Anne Narcs On Her Roommate

6/19: Health Care Wars

As we noted yesterday, liberal bloggers are growing increasingly pessimistic about the prospects for health care reform. Yesterday Ezra Klein posted the latest outline of the Senate Finance Committee's proposal, and lefty bloggers were disappointed to learn that it does not include a public option. Anonymous Liberal complains that "the Finance Committee is essentially giving away our biggest bargaining chip with insurance companies." Other bloggers argue that the cost savings generated by a public option would help achieve Chair Max Baucus's goal of lowering the legislation's projected $1.6T price tag. Meanwhile, lefty bloggers are growing increasingly frustrated by what they perceive to be Senate Dems' willingness to make unnecessary compromises (e.g., giving up on a public option) in order to win GOP votes. Markos Moulitsas complains: "Why can't Dems in Congress realize America voted them huge majorities because they DIDN'T WANT REPUBLICANS involved in legislating?"

What else is happening in the blogosphere?

• Several liberal bloggers (Bowers, Sinhababu) are suggesting that progressives would be better off if Rep. Collin Peterson (D-MN) lost his next election to a GOPer, since Peterson is using his chairmanship of the House Ag. Cmte to block passage of the Waxman-Markey climate change bill. Matthew Yglesias is particularly critical of Peterson.
• Conservative bloggers (Howe, Malkin) are pleased that Reps. Mike Pence (R-IN) and Howard Berman (D-CA) are introducing "a strongly-worded resolution condemning the crackdown on pro-democracy activists in Iran." However, Spencer Ackerman notes that the National Iranian-American Council thinks this resolution will hurt the protesters' cause.
• Liberal bloggers (Greenwald, Dayen, Moulitsas, Benen, Wheeler, Nolan) are criticizing The Washington Post for firing liberal columnist/blogger Dan Froomkin. Andrew Sullivan (1, 2, 3, 4) thinks the Post fired Froomkin for ideological reasons.

HEALTH CARE REFORM: This Is Weak Sauce, Baucus

Liberal bloggers are disappointed that the latest outline of the Senate Finance Committee's health reform proposal does not include a public option:

• Think Progress' Yglesias: "What's really missing here is the public plan. [...] This is too bad, and not just as a token of socialistic goodness. The cost savings implied by a robust public plan would do a lot to resolve some of the financial issues that are making it difficult for Finance to offer coverage that's as generous as they initially intended. Thus far, unfortunately, cost conscious centrist senators haven't tended to look at the public plan in that light. But since any legislation will go through several rounds of ping-pong with more liberal outfits -- HELP Committee, the House of Representatives -- I hope there's still some time to turn their thinking around."
• Anonymous Liberal: "By including a mandate but not a public option, the Finance Committee is essentially giving away our biggest bargaining chip with insurance companies. Once a mandate is in place, the insurance companies will have what they want and will simply devote all their lobbying efforts to killing any future attempts to create a public option. It's just bad strategy. And frankly, it's bad politics as well. Mandates will be easy to demagogue. People don't like being told they have to buy something, even if there are lots of exceptions and subsidies. If the law is ever passed, Republicans will run ads highlighting the fines and penalties in the law for those who don't buy insurance. These attacks will be much easier to defend against if the bill also gives people an inexpensive, reliable public option."
• Atrios: "As Hunter says, there isn't meaningful reform without a public option. More than that, reform without a public option is actually likely to make things worse, pouring even more money into the corrupt insurance industry and giving them even more political power. And someone should inform Baucus that if he wants to get a good CBO score he just needs to include a robust public option. But saving money is less important that keeping insurance companies happy, so that's not going to happen."

Firedoglake's Scarecrow is particularly critical of the outline: "Apparently, the major focus is on cutting federal budget costs, rather than providing health care at affordable cost to all Americans. [...] That's a pretty pathetic package, and the Committee should be embarrassed to call it 'reform.' It also looks like the Committee is just bouncing alternative packages off CBO to find one that gets the budget impact under $1 trillion. There's no connection to any other public policy goal."

Meanwhile, other lefty bloggers continue to press hard for a public option.

HEALTH CARE REFORM II: Since When Do We Need 60 Votes?

Liberal bloggers are growing increasingly frustrated by what they perceive to be Senate Dems' willingness to make unnecessary compromises (e.g., giving up on a public option) in order to win GOP votes:

• Daily Kos' Jed Lewison: "The Senate Dem's problems are mostly caused by a handful of senators hiding behind the crazy notion that health care reform should require a supermajority. Senators like Kent Conrad are pushing the nonsensical notion that the success of health care reform depends on votes from Republicans. Al Franken will be the 60th Democratic Senator. You don't need 60 votes to pass health care -- you only need 60 votes to block a filibuster, and no Democrat who filibusters health care reform will manage to get through a primary. If Senate Dems are banking on a 'we're not Republicans' strategy to pass health care reform, they'll be sorely disappointed. Instead of playing procedural games, they had better get around to the business of joining President Obama in making the public case for health care reform. If they don't, they'll learn how quickly electoral fortunes can change."
• Oliver Willis: "The Dems are about to screw up health care reform by trying to give in too much to the fringe Republican party. Stop it. We didn't win the White House, House and Senate to ask [IA Sen.] Chuck Grassley for permission to do stuff."
• Balloon Juice's Tim F.: "Someone please explain to me why a bunch of House Democrats are more afraid of making Republicans sad than letting their party's most important agenda item collapse."
• Daily Kos' Moulitsas: "Why can't Dems in Congress realize America voted them huge majorities because they DIDN'T WANT REPUBLICANS involved in legislating?"
• AMERICAblog's John Aravosis: "Kiss real health care reform goodbye. This is what happens when you have a Democratic president and Congress who fear angering the right, who put 'bipartisanship' -- read: appeasing Republicans -- above substantive policy. They cave on everything of importance that might cause 'controversy.' But hey, passing crap still lets you claim a victory, provided nobody reads the fine print (or in this case, gets sick). Get ready for the health care version of the gay 'benefits' bill. Less filling, tastes great. Coming to an Oval Office near you."

DASCHLE: Over? Did You Say "Over"? Nothing Is Over Until We Decide It Is!

Liberal bloggers are blasting ex-Sen. Tom Daschle (D-SD) for giving up on a public health insurance option:

• The Huffington Post's Mike Lux: "Tom Daschle has been a friend to me for many years, a mentor and some who has done a great deal for me personally. I admire him greatly, and will always be appreciative to him. But I have to break from him on this issue: Tom Daschle is dead wrong on the public option in health care. Dropping it from the health care plan is not a minor issue, and doing it will not help get health care reform passed. In fact, it will almost certainly make the bill die a quick death. [...] This kind of politics -- trying to avoid a fight with the big special interests by walking away from the most important piece of the puzzle -- is exactly what has gotten Democrats into political trouble time and again over the last 40 years."
• Daily Kos' Hunter: "Add Tom Daschle to the list of people who think that serious healthcare reform is simply not possible, and so instead we should all reach for the consolation prize of substanceless bipartisanship. [...] Again, I point out -- 76% of Americans want this 'public option.' That's a mandate, as close as you can possibly get in red-blue-purple-whatever America. The fact that we're struggling to find 51 senators willing to do what the public demands, rather than what the insurance companies want, demonstrates how badly even three-quarters of America can be outnumbered by the interests of a single industry."
• Firedoglake's Eli: "Back in February, I pointed out that Daschle received close to $2.5 million from the healthcare industry and its lobbyists over two years, and he's still on Alston & Bird's payroll. But despite that glaringly obvious fact, Daschle is treated as a Serious Statesman with A Serious Plan instead of just the latest healthcare industry shill trying to kill off the public option with a half-assed substitute."

MyDD's Josh Orton wonders if the WH shares Daschle's view that a public option is no longer feasible: "The ground is starting to feel shaky on health care reform. Daschle was Obama's longtime rabbi on Capitol Hill -- so if he's floating this view, it must not be dead in the White House. This is one to watch carefully..."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Don't You Guys Know How To Debate?

The New Republic's Jonathan Chait:

"President Obama has taken a cautious tone toward the demonstrators in Iran, with his stated reason being that more open support would discredit their cause. This strikes me as a sensible position. The revealed preferences of both sides suggest a mutual belief that an American embrace would hurt the protestors. The regime is trying (so far, without much success) to tie the demonstrators to the U.S., and the demonstrators are embracing the symbolism of the Iranian revolution (the color green, chants of 'Alluah Akbar,' and so on) in order to demonstrate their patriotism and mainstream cultural status

Still, this kind of judgment about an unfamiliar country's internal politics is just a guess, and it's a rebuttable proposition. What's remarkable to me is that those on the other side refuses to rebut it. Today's Washington Post op-ed page has two more columns lambasting Obama for failing to embrace the demonstrators. Today's offerings are by Charles Krauthammer and Paul Wolfowitz. Neither one of them even mentions, let alone answers, Obama's argument for why embracing the demonstrators would be counterproductive.

I don't understand how you could write a column without ever once addressing the primary argument for the proposition you're arguing against. The low quality of argument on this topic from the right is striking."

LEST WE FORGET: Iran Crisis Temporarily Disrupts CNN's Jon and Kate Coverage

The Huffington Post's Andy Borowitz:

"CNN apologized to viewers last night after a story about the political crisis in Iran temporarily disrupted its 24-hour coverage of the 'Jon and Kate Plus 8' reality show.

The disruption occurred during a broadcast of "Larry King Live" in which the host, Larry King, who was interviewing comedian Kathy Griffin about 'Jon and Kate' at the time, inexplicably tossed to a story about Iran instead.

Viewers were forced to watch a story about the political unrest in Iran for several minutes before CNN returned to its regular programming."

6/18: Is Health Care Reform In Danger?

Liberal bloggers are growing increasingly worried about the prospects for health care reform. After the CBO projected that the Senate Finance Committee's proposed bill would cost $1.6T over 10 years, Committee Chairman Max Baucus told reporters that Dems "need more time to work on bringing the bill's cost to below $1 trillion." Now liberal bloggers are concerned that Senate Dems will significantly weaken the bill in an effort to cut costs. Jonathan Cohn complains that "knocking the price tag all the way down to $1 trillion will mean a lot less money to subsidize insurance for people who can't afford it and far fewer guarantees that insurance would be adequate." Ezra Klein agrees, calling the $1T number "an arbitrary target." Conservative bloggers, on the other hand, are delighted by the recent developments. Ed Morrissey declares: "Republicans have a great opening here, as the Democrats appear completely unprepared for the mammoth costs associated with ObamaCare."

What else is happening in the blogosphere?

• Liberal bloggers (Bowers, Hamsher, digby, desmoinesdem) continue to push hard for a public health insurance option. Several bloggers (Attaturk, Dworkin) are citing the new NBC/WSJ poll, which found that "three in four people said a public plan is extremely or quite important."
• Conservative bloggers (Lowry, Morrissey) continue to criticize Pres. Obama's response to the situation in Iran; some (Johnson, Hawkins, Steyn) are even accusing Obama of "siding with the regime." Liberal bloggers (Ackerman, Yglesias, Duss) are defending Obama's approach and blasting his conservative critics.
• Liberal bloggers (Roth, Partridge, Benen, Willis) are buzzing about the latest details concerning Sen. John Ensign's (R-NV) extramarital affair with a former campaign staffer. On the right side of the blogosphere, Michelle Malkin is pleased that Ensign resigned his leadership post as chair of the Senate GOP Policy Committee, while Mike Potemra thinks this move was "an overreaction."
• Liberal bloggers (Moulitsas, Benen) are offering Obama qualified praise for his decision to extend benefits to same-sex partners of federal employees, but they still think he has a long way to go. LGBT bloggers are still very upset with Obama.
• Conservative bloggers (Lane, Goldberg, Morrissey, Hinderaker, McCain) are keeping up a steady stream of buzz about Obama's firing of inspector general Gerald Walpin.

HEALTH CARE REFORM: The Going Gets Tough

Liberal bloggers are growing increasingly worried about the prospects of health care reform now that the Senate Finance Committee may "postpone action on a health-care overhaul bill until July":

• The Washington Post's Klein: "Health reform is, I think it fair to say, in danger right now. [...] Put simply, the Finance Committee wanted its bill to cost $1 trillion over 10 years. The CBO returned an early estimate to the panel on Tuesday night: $1.6 trillion over 10 years. The specifics of the estimate have not been made public. But the final number changed everything. Max Baucus, the chairman of the committee, pushed markup back behind the July 4th recess. He has promised to get the bill below $1 trillion over 10 years. That's very dangerous."
• Firedoglake's Scarecrow: "If you were hoping for meaningful healthcare reform this year, the chances just diminished, a lot. This NYT article depicts Congressional Democrats working on healthcare reform as leaderless and in near panic over how easily the Republicans conned them on the CBO cost analysis and how quickly the Republicans misrepresented that incomplete analysis to disparage the entire health reform effort."
• The New Republic's Cohn: "Attention fellow liberals who want health care reform: You are in danger of losing the fight for universal health insurance. And it's not only -- or even primarily -- because of the public plan. It's because of the money."

Conservative bloggers, on the other hand, are delighted by the recent developments:

• Malkin: "[Is] Obamacare on the rocks? [...] With delay comes opportunity...opportunity to continue making your voices heard."
• AmSpec Blog's Philip Klein: "Roll Call is reporting that the Senate Finance Committee is delaying the markup of its health care bill -- scheduled for next Tuesday -- until after the July 4 recess. The reason why this is major news is that Congress was already looking at an ambitious timeline to get health care legislation passed by July 31, before lawmakers go on summer recess. Now the earliest the Finance Committee will begin to rewrite its bill would be July 6, meaning they'll have less than a month to: finalize their proposed legislation, merge it with the bill currently under consideration by the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP) Committee, introduce it to the broader Senate, debate it, and pass it."
• Hot Air's Morrissey: "Republicans have a great opening here, as the Democrats appear completely unprepared for the mammoth costs associated with ObamaCare. The same lack of realization doomed the [Bill] Clinton effort in 1993-4 as well. [...] Supposedly, all of the Hope and Change would make 2009 different from 1993, but so far, it looks like a replay. Obama has outsourced the development of the plan to Congress, but it's generating the same problems for the Democrats as it did before. It would cost far too much, especially as deficits skyrocket from other Obama spending initiatives."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Strategic Nonviolence

Think Progress' Matthew Yglesias:

"Jon Chait observes that 'For a revolution to succeed, it generally needs one of two things to happen: Either it needs its own weapons, or it needs mass defections by the state security forces.' He also sees some evidence that some elements of the [Iranian] security forces may be contemplating defection.

I think it's worth emphasizing that in the modern world at least, the balance is tipped pretty overwhelmingly to security service defection rather than actual armed overthrow of the powers that be. The reality is that modern military technology makes it extraordinarily difficult to actually defeat a state on the battlefield. An dissident movement just isn't going to be able to be able to blow up tanks and airplanes. Under the circumstances, strategic nonviolence is a vital tactic. If you were to try to fight the security forces -- shoot some policemen, say -- you'd encourage a more serious crackdown. It's through nonviolent resistance that you heighten the psychological contradictions, and encourage the regime and its enforcers to blink. From the Velvet Revolution to Tiananmen Square to the Orange Revolution to what's happening today in Iran, the brave dissidents are essentially daring the security forces to beat or kill them. The bet is that when push comes to shove, people in the Iranian security forces have some humane and patriotic instincts and will recoil from the idea of using mass violence against their fellow citizens. And it's a terrifying bet. We've seen time and again that it's a bet that often pays off, but as we learned in China 20 years ago there are no guarantees."

LEST WE FORGET: Actually, They're Not Similar At All

TPM's Eric Kleefeld reports that Rep. Peter Hoekstra (R-MI) received "massive heckling" from other Twitter users after he wrote: "Iranian twitter activity similar to what we did in House last year when Republicans were shut down in the House":

• ArjunJaikumar @petehoekstra i spilled some lukewarm coffee on myself just now, which is somewhat analogous to being boiled in oil
• chrisbaskind @petehoekstra My neighbor stopped me to talk today. Now I know what it is like to be questioned by the Basij!
• luckbfern @petehoekstra I stand in solidarity with the oppressed rich white men of Repub Party in the House. #GOPfail Allah Akbar!
• ceedub7 @petehoekstra I got a splinter in my hand today. Felt just like Jesus getting nailed to the cross.
• TahirDuckett @petehoekstra ran through the sprinklers this morning, claimed solidarity with victims of Hurricane Katrina
• paganmist @petehoekstra Had to move all my stuff to a new office w/o a corner view. Now i know what the Trail of Tears was like. #GOPfail

6/17: The Supplemental Fight

Bloggers on both sides of the political divide were disappointed that the House narrowly passed the $106B supplemental bill yesterday. As we've noted previously, this unlikely alliance of liberal and conservative bloggers had been furiously lobbying against the bill's passage. Righty bloggers were primarily opposed to the IMF funding, while lefty bloggers were primarily opposed to the funding for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan (although some of them were opposed to the IMF funding as well).

While lefty and righty bloggers had different reasons for opposing this bill, they both believe that Dems will pay a political price for passing it. Liberals are declaring that "it's the Democrats' war now," while conservatives are warning Blue Dog Dems that they'll have to defend their decision to use U.S. tax dollars to "prop up Iran and European banks." On the other hand, many netroots bloggers are arguing that House GOPers are hypocrites for voting against the bill en masse. Markos Moulitsas writes: "I wonder what ever happened to 'voting against war supplementals is voting against the troops'? It was always bullshit, of course, but now that Republicans oppose the supplemental, that media theme appears quite dead. Hmmmm...."

What else is happening in the blogosphere?

• Liberal bloggers (Sudbay, Morrill, Singer, Eli, Kleiman, Willis) are calling Sen. John Ensign (R-NV) a moral hypocrite now that he's admitted to having an extramarital affair with a former campaign staffer. On the right side of the blogosphere, Michelle Malkin calls Ensign "a wretched dog" while Dan Riehl defends him.
• Conservative bloggers (Morrissey, Hewitt, Leibsohn, Lowry, Johnson) continue to criticize Pres. Obama's statements about the situation in Iran, while liberal bloggers (Drum, Yglesias, Ackerman, hilzoy, Heilbrunn) are defending Obama's approach. Meanwhile, conservative bloggers are pleased that Rep. Mike Pence (R-IN) has introduced a resolution "expressing support" for the Iranian dissidents, while liberal bloggers call this resolution "counterproductive."
• Liberal bloggers (Moulitsas, Aravosis, Orton, Ruby-Sachs, Spaulding) are not impressed by Obama's decision to extend benefits to same-sex partners of federal employees -- a decision that came as Obama faced criticism from gay rights leaders over his admin.'s defense of the Defense of Marriage Act.
• Conservative bloggers (Malkin, Reynolds, Allahpundit, Riehl, McCain) are complaining about the news (which was promoted by Matt Drudge) that ABC News will air a prime-time White House interview with Obama on health care issues.
• Conservative bloggers (Malkin, Hillyer, Morrissey, Hengler, Hinderaker) continue to accuse Obama of firing inspector general Gerald Walpin for corrupt reasons.

SUPPLEMENTAL BILL: So Close, Yet So Far...

Liberal bloggers were disappointed that the House voted to approve the $106B bill:

• digby: "It's the Democrats' war now. And they're congratulating themselves for it. That whole Vietnam thing evidently didn't really make an impression ... Still, kudos to FDL, Democrats.com and After Downing Street and all the others for their hard work trying to remind the Democrats why they won the last two elections."
• Firedoglake's Jane Hamsher: "218 votes for war funding. Yeah. It's a Democratic war now."

Open Left's Chris Bowers looks on the bright side: "Given what was at stake -- increasing Progressive influence and ending the Washington Consensus -- this is definitely disappointing. However, it is still impressive how close this effort came, that the Democratic leadership was delayed for as long as they were, and that President Obama had to eventually start whipping votes himself. While the desired outcome did not take place, this is still an advance for Progressive Caucus influence, and a sign that they are a force to be reckoned with."

Conservative bloggers who opposed the bill were primarily upset about the provision appropriating money to the IMF:

• Michelle Malkin: "Is there any bill that can pass on Capitol Hill these days without a multi-billion-dollar bailout attached to it? Nope. The Beltway politicians can't even keep the war-funding bill free of taxpayer handouts to failing enterprises."
• RedState's Erick Erickson: "Bad News: H.R. 2346, the supplemental, passed. [...] Better News: By the time it came to a vote, there was no doubt left that the IMF will use the money to prop up Iran and European banks. That means some Blue Dog Democrats just got big old targets on their backs and now we must concentrate our political fire on them."

SUPPLEMENTAL BILL II: Now It's The GOP's Turn To Vote Against The Troops

Liberal bloggers are calling House GOPers hypocrites for opposing a bill the provides funding for the troops, even though the GOP has historically "portrayed the bills funding the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan as matters of national security and accused Democrats who voted against them of voting against the troops":

• Daily Kos' Moulitsas: "I wonder what ever happened to 'voting against war supplementals is voting against the troops'? It was always bullshit, of course, but now that Republicans oppose the supplemental, that media theme appears quite dead. Hmmmm...."
• Think Progress' Matthew Yglesias: "We can all recall the days when voting against an emergency war supplemental bill was the most evil and un-American thing ever."
• Daily Kos' BarbinMD: "Reasonable people can certainly disagree with elements of the $106 billion war supplemental spending bill, but the hypocrisy by the Republican Party on this is stunning, even for them. [...] For eight years, with supplemental after supplemental, the GOP position was that voting against funding was voting against the troops. And so today, the Republicans plan to vote against the troops."

While some liberal bloggers were opposed to the IMF funding, others think this was a foolish reason for House GOPers to vote against the bill:

• Yglesias: "Beyond the pure hypocrisy play, it's worth observing that this is a really bad reason to vote against the bill. Nina Hachigian did a brief piece for CAP about this but suffice it to say that the world economy continues to be in a very perilous situation. It now looks like things might start getting better. But it's possible that some 'other shoe' or two may drop -- most likely the meltdown of an Eastern European country -- and the IMF exists to stop that kind of thing from happening. As with TARP, the net fiscal cost is likely to be dramatically lower than the headline appropriation (because money gets repaid) and the macroeconomic impact of collapses is much more severe than the cost of ponying up the money."
• Mother Jones' Kevin Drum: "Hypocrisy is overrated as a vice, but this is still pretty stunning. I mean, they're doing this over $5 billion in net IMF contributions to help out with the global financial meltdown? Seriously? That's about .1% of the federal budget, and one of these days it might help prevent a collapse that spreads across the ocean and sends Wall Street into yet another tailspin. That's what Republicans are going to the mat for these days? Crikey."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: The Ensign Fallout

FiveThirtyEight's Nate Silver offers his thoughts on Ensign's admission that he had an extramarital affair with a former campaign staffer:

"It seems unlikely...that Ensign will resign [...]. Although Nevada's governor is a Republican and could appoint another Republican to replace him, that would nevertheless trigger a special election in 2010, when Democratic incumbent Harry Reid is also on the ballot. Nevada Republicans have a very poor bench right now and are already having trouble recruiting a credible candidate to run against the unpopular Reid. They might have a lot of difficulty retaining Ensign's seat in the event of a special election, or alternatively, might compete for it at the price of giving Reid a free pass.

Remember, senators don't have to govern, or to preside over any legislature. They don't have any particular use for political capital, and other than their ability to be re-elected, they don't have any particular reason to popular. That's why [ex-NY Gov.] Eliot Spitzer resigned and [LA Sen.] David Vitter (whom many Louisanans seem to have forgiven) didn't. It's why [IL Sen.] Roland Burris is still in the Senate.

Still, whether Ensign runs for re-election or not, this certainly would seem to give the Democrats a leg up on the seat in 2012, a cycle in which they'll have few other opportunities to play offense as they try to defend the gains they made in 2006. And Ensign's is a valuable seat at that: only one state more Democratic than Nevada currently has a Republican senator. That's Maine, which has two of them. But whereas Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe are moderates, Ensign is a staunch conservative who chairs the Senate Republican Policy Committee."

LEST WE FORGET: The Palin-Letterman Dust-Up

Wonkette's Jim Newell:

"Christ, it's not like there's any election going on, when this public celebrity nonsense sometimes can matter, for a few hours, but here we are finally getting all intrigued-like over some snit on Todd & Sarah Palin's Facebook page about a baseball sex joke David Letterman made on television one night. What's going on now. Letterman apologized again last night for making whatever joke, a monologue quickie, that Sarah Palin pretended to interpret as pervert code for 'I'm gonna rape your 14-year-old Willow daughter.' Now Palin has 'accepted' Letterman's lengthy apology with one of the more obnoxious statements in her endless, vapid, snarling canon. Read this a couple of times:

'Letterman certainly has the right to "joke" about whatever he wants to, and thankfully we have the right to express our reaction,' Palin said. 'This is all thanks to our U.S. Military women and men putting their lives on the line for us to secure America's Right to Free Speech -- in this case, may that right be used to promote equality and respect.'

Yeah that's right, the military. She weaves the military into her apology acceptance. Perhaps only once in a generation can a trashy politician stretch ambition and shamelessness into this large a surface, a playing field, on which to act like an idiot. Here she has thanked the United States Military, the fine folks fighting the Taliban and stuff in various Middle East wars, for achieving its 'real' overseas goal, which was to 'secure' part of the First Amendment from the terrorists -- one of them was keeping the little scrap of paper in his pocket -- so that David Letterman and Sarah Palin could legally bicker about baseball sex jokes on teevee and Facebook for a couple of weeks."

6/16: Walking The Line

The post-election tumult in Iran continues to captivate bloggers on both sides of the political divide. Conservative bloggers reacted critically to Pres. Obama's first public response to the events in Iran, in which he said that he was "deeply troubled" by the violence but that he did not want the U.S. to become a "political football" in Iran's domestic politics. Hugh Hewitt is annoyed that Obama didn't offer "a blunt condemnation of the killers" while Michael Rubin complains that "Obama's silence is a failure of leadership and a betrayal of freedom on a Carter-esque scale."

Liberal bloggers, on the other hand, are defending Obama's careful approach to the situation, as they believe that an aggressive U.S. response would only hurt the cause of the protesters. Steve Benen writes: "If Iran's regime is on the defensive, pushed by massive protests by Iranians taking to the streets, active U.S. intervention runs the risk of throwing [Pres. Mahmoud] Ahmadinejad a public-relations life preserver."

What else is happening in the blogosphere?

• Liberal bloggers were impressed by Obama's speech to the American Medical Association, although they remain quite critical of the AMA as an organization. Conservative bloggers (Erickson, Tanner) were not impressed by Obama's speech.
• Liberal bloggers (Lewison, digby, Aravosis) are stepping up their criticism of Senate Budget Cmte Chair Kent Conrad (D-ND), who is pushing his co-op model as an alternative to a public health insurance option.
• An unlikely alliance of liberal bloggers (Hamsher, Heller) and conservative bloggers (Erickson, Morrissey) continues to lobby against passage of the 2009 Supplemental Appropriations Act. Both lefty and righty bloggers are buzzing about rumors that WH CoS Rahm Emanuel is trying to cajole vulnerable GOPers into voting for the bill.
• Liberal bloggers (Moulitsas, Singer) are wondering if Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX) will resign her Senate seat early now that she appears to be running for governor. Bloggers are also discussing the upcoming Senate primaries in PA, FL, and MO.
• Conservative bloggers (York, Hinderaker, Walpin, Field) continue to accuse Obama of firing inspector general Gerald Walpin for corrupt reasons.

OBAMA: Where's The Outrage?

Conservative bloggers are criticizing Obama's response to the situation in Iran:

• Michelle Malkin: "Where's Barack Obama? Sitting on the sidelines, 'troubled.'"
• Hot Air's Allahpundit: "Fun fact: Whereas The One was 'shocked and outraged' by the murder of George Tiller, the most he can muster here for mass beatings and cold-blooded killings across Iran is that he's 'troubled.' Make of it what you will."
• Power Line's Scott Johnson: "[Obama] affirmed his belief in Iranian sovereignty. But does sovereignty reside in the people or the mullahs? If it resides in the people, now is the time for him to say so, but Obama didn't say so. Instead, Obama followed his avowal of Iranian sovereignty with the assertion that he was 'deeply troubled by the violence I've been seeing on television.' I believe that 'deeply troubled' is about five notches more acceptable than 'unacceptable,' which is how Obama described the Iranian nuclear program he has come to accept. He should be able to overcome the disturbance of being 'deeply troubled' in the next few days."
• Townhall's Hewitt: "We have to hope that the United States Congress acts today to stand with the demonstrators against the killers and in uncompromising terms, and that the president tries to get the message right a third time. (Strike one was the Veep on Meet the Press. Strike two was last night's incoherent statement about abhorring violence. A blunt condemnation of the killers isn't that hard to draft.)"
• NRO's Rich Lowry: "Obama has to be judicious here, but his statement just now was pretty weak: 1) he seemed to take the election-review process seriously, when it's going to be a rubber stamp; 2) there was a sense in which he seemed to be patting the demonstrators on the head and saying, 'Nice work -- but better luck next time'; 3) he went way, way out of his way to say he'll basically negotiate with Ahmadinejad no matter what."
• NRO's Rubin: "Obama's silence -- and his lack of moral clarity -- are quickly making his reaction akin to George H. W. Bush's infamous 'Chicken Kiev' speech, when the elder Bush effectively sided with Moscow against the freedom of the Ukraine. Indeed, had Obama not broken with formula and recognized the ayatollahs as the legitimate representatives of the Iranian people during his Nowruz greeting, he might not have found his reaction so constrained. Regardless, Obama's silence is a failure of leadership and a betrayal of freedom on a Carter-esque scale."

Salon's Glenn Greenwald thinks these conservative bloggers are hypocrites: "Much of the same faction now claiming such concern for the welfare of The Iranian People are the same people who have long been advocating a military attack on Iran and the dropping of large numbers of bombs on their country -- actions which would result in the slaughter of many of those very same Iranian People. [...] Imagine how many of the people protesting this week would be dead if any of these bombing advocates had their way -- just as those who paraded around (and still parade around) under the banner of Liberating the Iraqi People caused the deaths of hundreds of thousands of them, at least."

Atrios agrees: "Like Glenn, I really don't get how certain people square their support for the Iranian people with their desire to bomb the shit out of them."

OBAMA II: The Right Approach

Liberal bloggers are defending Obama's response to the situation in Iran:

• The Washington Monthly's Benen: "[House Min. Whip Eric] Cantor is outraged by the administration's 'silence.' But in our reality, the administration hasn't been 'silent' -- it's been speaking out strategically, in statements and in media interviews, raising doubts about the legitimacy of the election. It's not about passive disinterest; it's about avoiding steps that would be counterproductive. If Iran's regime is on the defensive, pushed by massive protests by Iranians taking to the streets, active U.S. intervention runs the risk of throwing Ahmadinejad a public-relations life preserver."
• The Washington Independent's Spencer Ackerman: "[A]n American voice is more likely to be counterproductive than helpful. The cardinal rule ought to be to follow the lead of the Iranian opposition. As I reported, the Obama administration isn't considering endorsing Ahmadinejad's bogus victory, and everyone from Vice President Joe Biden on down says that the United States is going to highlight electoral discrepancies. For the United States to weigh in on what Iran ought to do can't possibly help. It's time to treat Iran in terms of what aids the opposition, not what makes us feel good about ourselves. 'We should not have the U.S. lead,' Hadi Ghaemi of the International Campaign for Human Rights in Iran told me over the weekend. That's prime-directive stuff."
• TAPPED's Tim Fernholz: "[T]he last thing the Iranian opposition needs right now is an aggressive response from the United States. The tone struck by the administration thus far has been the appropriate one: questioning the announced results of the election, condemning human rights abuses, but not prejudging the outcome or explicitly allying themselves with opposition candidate and 'real' election winner Mir Hossein Mousavi. For one, as many have observed, a Mousavi victory will not necessarily change the balance of interests in the region, but even if he will put a more pragmatic face on Iranian policy-making, explicit U.S. support will hurt his popular legitimacy and give Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and his allies credence in claiming authenticity. This last point will probably strike many as pretty obvious, but it's apparently never occurred to Bill Kristol."

The American Conservative's Daniel Larison: "As John [Schwenkler] has already said, U.S. involvement in the Iranian election controversy in any form is unwise. Except for the most generic statements condemning violence and urging peaceful resolution to the crisis, Washington should say nothing, and I mean nothing. After all, whose interests do we serve by having our government speak up? The casual assumption is that condemning foreign election fraud, of which there was probably a great deal in Iran, is both some kind of moral imperative and a strategically wise thing to do in order to aid Mousavi, which in turn is based on another questionable belief that Westerners are somehow obliged to aid him and his supporters. The first part of this is very dubious, and the second is clearly wrong."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: The Impact Of The Iranian Election

The Washington Post's Ezra Klein:

"There are a couple things to say about [the situation in Iran], all of them depressing. First, those of us who have long argued for the fundamental rationality of the Iranian regime have seen our case fundamentally weakened. A rational regime might have stolen the election. But they would not have stolen it like this, where there is no doubt of the theft. This is like robbers leaving muddy footprints and a home address. Tehran's evident vote-tampering is tempting both domestic revolution and international isolation. That they appear to fear neither says something very unsettling about the mental state of the regime.

The second is that it is likely to disrupt what was, to my mind, a very positive trend in the United States: the long-overdue effort to pressure Israel on the settlements. Among America's points of leverage was that Israel desperately needed our help to handle Iran. Among the trends freeing our hand was the apparent quieting of Iran's drumbeat of provocations. Now that Iran appears to be more of an independent problem and less likely to fall into a period of relative quiet, it's hard to imagine either Israel or America spending too much time worrying about their relationship with each other.

The third is that energy prices tend to dislike turmoil in the Middle East. The economist James Hamilton has previously argued that rocketing oil prices were the key driver behind the recession of 2008 and 2009. Conversely, some of the recent pick-up in the economy is presumably related to the fact that energy costs had fallen pretty sharply (due, in part, to the slackening demand brought about by the recession). In recent weeks, however, oil had been trending back upward, and if things devolve in Tehran, we can expect it to spike. And a spike in oil prices is exactly the sort of things that could choke off an emergent recovery."

LEST WE FORGET: Academic Humor

From Overheard in the Office:

Art teacher, looking at another eating Pringles: Pringles are the perfect chip, based on the texture, shape, and lines. They fit perfectly in your mouth.
History teacher: I don't know. If you asked me, I'd just prefer a Lay.

6/15: The Revolution Will Be Blogged

Throughout the weekend, bloggers were transfixed by the disputed election in Iran, which resulted in massive protests and a subsequent government crackdown. Many bloggers (Sullivan, Klein, Allahpundit, Kleiman) are posting photos and videos of the violence. The overwhelming consensus among bloggers on the left (Uygur, Cole, Yglesias) and right (Hewitt, Lowry) is that the election was rigged in favor of Pres. Mahmoud Ahmadejinad.

Where conservative bloggers and liberal bloggers disagree is how Pres. Obama should respond to the situation. Righty bloggers want Obama to "[speak] out on behalf of the people rioting in the streets for freedom" and deliver some "forceful, blunt talk directed at [Mohammad] Khamenei, Ahmadinejad and their allies". Lefty bloggers, on the other hand, think that Obama would only hurt the protesters' cause by forcefully criticizing the ruling regime. Hilzoy writes: "I can't imagine anything more counterproductive than doing anything to make it easier for Ahmedinejad to cast the opposition as American puppets, especially given our history in Iran."

What else is happening in the blogosphere?

• Liberal bloggers (Farley, Benen, Dayen, Willis) and conservative bloggers (Hewitt, Riehl) are both complaining about the cable news networks' limited coverage of the Iranian election.
• Liberal bloggers (Aravosis, Sudbay, digby, Hamsher) are accusing Obama of betraying the gay community after DoJ lawyers defended the Defense of Marriage Act, which "prevents couples in states that recognize same-sex unions from securing Social Security spousal benefits, filing joint taxes and other federal rights of marriage" (and which Obama pledged to repeal during his campaign).
• Conservative bloggers (York, Malkin, Hinderaker, Reynolds) are accusing Obama of firing inspector general Gerald Walpin for corrupt reasons.
• Conservative bloggers (Malkin, Geraghty, Reynolds) are criticizing Sen. Chris Dodd (D-CT) after the Hartford Courant reported that "a new appraisal of [Dodd's] Irish cottage...concludes that it is worth about three times as much as Dodd has been reporting on his financial disclosure forms."

OBAMA: Say Something, Mr. President!

Conservative bloggers are criticizing Obama for not speaking out more forcefully about the situation in Iran:

• Right Wing News' John Hawkins: "If Barack Obama were a real leader, if he had any courage, if he cared about freedom, he would be speaking out on behalf of the people rioting in the streets for freedom -- not staying mute on the sidelines, while a nuclear-bomb-making hostile theocracy is teetering on the brink. This is a moment for leadership, but unfortunately Barack Obama is just another empty suit, not a real leader of men."
• NRO's Victor Davis Hanson: "If Obama were wise, he would get out pronto a statement condemning the anti-democratic violence of the Iranian government, and suggesting it follow the Iraq example of free and internationally inspected elections. At some point, one should see that moral equivalence and multicultural non-judgementalism, however catchy for the moment, are as stupid as they are amoral, and will put the U.S in a foolish, 'make it up as we go along' position."
• Townhall's Hugh Hewitt: "I am hoping for two things in President Obama's speech to the AMA Monday. First, that he begin with an honest review of the past 72 hours in Iran that includes a demand upon the mullahs and their thugs that human rights be respected as protests grow. Forceful, blunt talk directed at Khamenei, Ahmadinejad and their allies will encourage the opposition and also cue the MSM to continue the coverage as best it can of the crack-down underway in Tehran and other cities."
• The Weekly Standard's Stephen F. Hayes: "[Obama] does not need to call openly for an uprising, but he should be taking the accounts of reporters and our intelligence operatives in Iran and broadcasting them to the world. He should be amplifying the voices of the Iranians who have, once again, been deprived of any say in how they will be governed, and using them to pressure the Iranian regime at a time when it is plainly very fragile."
• Townhall's Carol Platt Liebau: "Will [Obama] choose a course designed to embolden those brave enough to speak out against the mullahs and attempt to secure their protection -- or will he allow them and their aspirations to be brutally abused by Ahmadinejad, because he's afraid of the fallout? So far, his words have not been encouraging for those who love freedom. And will anyone in the MSM be brave enough to ask Obama where he stands?"

OBAMA II: This Probably Isn't The Best Time For The President To Open His Mouth

Liberal bloggers strongly disagree with their conservative counterparts about how Obama should respond to the situation in Iran. Lefty bloggers believe that Obama would only hurt the protesters' cause by criticizing the regime:

• BooMan: "[G]iven the United States' history with Iran, there is almost nothing sincere that Obama can say that will actually help those people in the streets. Any sign of sympathy from America is likely to undermine the advocates of democracy."
• Firedoglake's Spencer Ackerman: "In my previous post, I wondered whether the Obama administration would need to make a stronger statement about Iranian electoral fraud or consider other measures for dealing with the regime. The strongly anti-Ahmedinejad Hadi Ghaemi, New York-based spokesman for the International Campaign for Human Rights in Iran, explains why that's a mistake. [...] 'We should not have the U.S. lead,' says Ghaemi. Instead, the Iranian people have to lead, and the international community, with the U.S. in a background and muted role, ought to refuse acceptance of the regime's contentions, and not offer positive endorsements of the dissidents and the protesters."
• Obsidian Wings' hilzoy: "Ackerman details some of the criticism Obama's approach is getting from people who would like to see us come down clearly on the side of the demonstrators, along with the view of Iranian human rights activists that this would be an enormous mistake. They know a lot more than I do, obviously, but for what it's worth, I completely agree. I can't imagine anything more counterproductive than doing anything to make it easier for Ahmedinejad to cast the opposition as American puppets, especially given our history in Iran."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: The Tragedy In Iran

Obsidian Wings' publius:

"[T]hese stories [from Iran] make me grateful for the stability of our own government. In America, our political fights -- which can get quite nasty -- take place upon an invisible foundation of legitimacy and stability. We have the luxury of ignoring this foundation and pretending it doesn't exist. Politics is a fight for power, always -- but we are fortunate enough to fight things out within an underlying structural framework that enjoys widespread acceptance.

It's only when you see the alternative -- when you see the cruel and brutal repression in Iran -- that our own underlying framework becomes visible. In Iran, the fight has now spilled out beyond its predefined channels. It now threatens to become that most fundamental of political fights -- a fight over the very foundation of government. And historically, these fights tend to be bloody."

LEST WE FORGET: Machiavellian White House Groundskeeper Gaining Influence Among West Wing Staff

From The Onion:

"WASHINGTON -- In one of the most startling horticultural power plays to strike the executive branch in years, conniving groundskeeper Irv Williams is gaining sway over the West Wing staff, anonymous sources said Tuesday. The 83-year-old has reportedly used his favor to place aides in prime gardening posts, silence hostile landscapers, and manipulate his way into daily classified security briefings. 'It started with a few tiny water elms along the edge of the property, and then there was a koi pond, the zinnias, and that ficus he gave [Press Secretary Robert] Gibbs,' said one source, peering over his shoulder. 'Now he's taking late night meetings with the attorney general to address "concerns" he has about the president's ability to pick perennials. Christ have mercy on every last one of us.' Sources close to Williams said he will stop at nothing, or when he gets a new watering can."

6/12: The AMA Vs. The Netroots

Liberal bloggers spent much of yesterday criticizing the American Medical Association after it announced its opposition to the creation of a government-sponsored health insurance plan. Even though lefty bloggers weren't surprised by the announcement (considering the AMA's long history of opposing public plans), they were still annoyed by it. digby dismissed the AMA as "mostly a bunch of rich conservatives" while Matthew Yglesias accused the organization of being compromised by its associations with the pharmaceutical lobby. The APA later tried to soften its stance by releasing a follow-up statement declaring its willingness to "consider other variations of the public plan," but the netroots were not appeased. It's clear that many progressives believe that a strong public option is essential for health reform to succeed, and they're not particularly impressed by the proposed alternatives floating around Congress.

What else is happening in the blogosphere?

• Liberal bloggers (McCarter, Reich) don't view Senate Budget Cmte Chair Kent Conrad's (D-ND) co-op model for healthcare reform as an acceptable substitute for a strong public plan. Meanwhile, Chris Bowers praised Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) for declaring that a health care bill that didn't include a public option wouldn't make it through the House because it "wouldn't have the votes."
• Conservative bloggers (Malkin, Morrissey, Reynolds, Gateway Pundit) are accusing Pres. Obama of engaging in "cronyism" now that he has fired the inspector general who investigates AmeriCorps and other national service programs.
• Conservative bloggers (Painter, Wolf, Hinderaker) are arguing that James von Brunn, the accused Holocaust Museum shooter, is closer to the left side of the political spectrum than he is to the right. Liberal bloggers (Blue Texan, Marshall, Roth) are arguing the opposite. Philip Klein is tired of the whole debate.
• Liberal bloggers (Clawson, Senate Guru) expect the VA GOV race to be very close, but they're excited about the new Rasmussen poll showing state Sen. Creigh Deeds (D) leading ex-AG Bob McDonnell (R) 47-41%.

AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION: Standing Up For The Profits Rights Of Doctors

Liberal bloggers spent much of yesterday criticizing the American Medical Association after it announced its opposition to the creation of a government-sponsored insurance plan:

• Firedoglake's Scarecrow: "It was only a matter of time before the American Medical Assocation put its well heeled foot down and put a stop to this nonsense talk about creating a public insurance option to compete against its partner in profits, America's lucrative private insurance system."
• digby: "So the AMA came out in opposition to a public plan. Anyone who is surprised by that hasn't been paying attention. They were always going to fight any effort to control costs because one of the main costs is them. (The AMA has always been mostly a bunch of rich conservatives. There are other, newer physician groups who are far less reflexively ideological.)"
• The Washington Monthly's Steve Benen: "[T]he AMA's track record is consistent -- which is to say, consistently awful -- on reform efforts. [...] It was the AMA that helped block Franklin Roosevelt's administration from including health care reform in the Social Security package. It was the AMA that undermined [Harry] Truman's reform effort. It was the AMA that blasted Medicare as a step towards totalitarianism. It was the AMA that came up with 'socialized medicine' as a catch-all attack to describe any government intervention in the health care system. And now the group is outraged by the notion of a public option? You don't say."
• The Washington Post's Ezra Klein: "[O]f course the American Medical Association is opposed to the public plan. It has opposed all public plans proposed by all presidents in all contexts. [...] And the group is not necessarily wrong to do so. The AMA represents the interests -- which it tends to define as the profits -- of doctors. [...] But I think it would be useful for folks to ask themselves whether they really think America would be better off without Medicare and Medicaid and if they really think that the point of health reform should be to protect the profit margins of the medical industry. The AMA has one set of interests to protect, and taxpayers have another. And sometimes, the two will diverge."

Think Progress' Yglesias argues that the AMA is compromised by its associations with the pharmaceutical lobby: "[O]ver the course of at least a century the AMA has found that it can't rely on membership dues to generate the kind of revenue that the AMA leadership is looking for. Instead, they've turned to corporate sponsorship -- businesses with money to make by casting a veneer of medical respectability around their pursuit of profit find a relationship with the AMA to be useful. [...T]he pharmaceutical lobby...provides at least 20 percent of the AMA's budget. And PhRMA is in the midst of a multimillion dollar advocacy campaign against many progressive health reform ideas."

AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION II: We Didn't Intend For It To Sound That Way...

A few hours after the New York Times article about the AMA was published, the organization tried to soften its stance by releasing a follow-up statement:

"Today's New York Times story creates a false impression about the AMA's position on a public plan option in health care reform legislation. The AMA opposes any public plan that forces physicians to participate, expands the fiscally-challenged Medicare program or pays Medicare rates, but the AMA is willing to consider other variations of the public plan that are currently under discussion in Congress. This includes a federally chartered co-op health plan or a level playing field option for all plans. The AMA is working to achieve meaningful health reform this year and is ready to stand behind legislation that includes coverage options that work for patients and physicians."

Liberal bloggers were not impressed by the AMA's statement:

• Daily Kos' mcjoan: "Is this a real reversal on their part? I'm not holding my breath that they'll do anything but obstruct. [...] Thankfully, not all physicians are on board with the AMA, either individually (as doctoraaron testifies) or in their trade associations. The American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Academy of Family Physicians, Physicians for Reproductive Choice and Health, the National Physician Alliance, and the Community of Interns and Residents/SEIU Healthcare are all part of the HCAN coalition."
• Scarecrow: "After announcing its adamant opposition to any public health insurance option and encountering a storm of criticism and resignations, the American Medical Association has turned half way around in hours. [...] So in less than a day, they've moved from 'no, never' to 'well, maybe' provided they're not forced to treat patients! . . . and the public plan is available on a 'level playing field.' To the industry, that means, 'hobble it' so it can't really offer the natural advantages of a robust public plan."

Klein sees the APA's "backtrack" as evidence that Dems are playing "hardball" on healthcare reform.

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: What The Iranian Election Means

Marc Lynch (h/t Kevin Drum):

"The Iranian election has already captivated the Arab public sphere -- it has been all over the headlines and the TV stations. I imagine that many of the Arabs who see democracy as an important and positive issue find this Iranian election inspiring (as they did [Mohammad] Khatemi's 1997 campaign). The Arab public may regard a [Mir-Hossein] Mousavi victory as the same kind of opportunity to rethink relations with Iran as Obama's victory offered for relations with the United States. Arab leaders may find it harder to mobilize opposition to Iran with the seemingly reasonable Mousavi in office than with the cheerfully inflammatory [Mahmoud] Ahmedenejad.

[...] Of course, if Ahmedenejad wins, the reverse effect may take hold. When George W. Bush defeated John Kerry in 2004, a very wide swathe of Arab public opinion concluded that this meant that the American people really did bear responsibility for Bush's unpopular policies. If the U.S. is really a democracy, they asked, then didn't Bush's victory mean that his war on terror and invasion of Iraq really did represent the American popular will? If Ahmedenejad wins, the same dynamic may hit Iran in the Arab world: the Iranian people had the chance to correct their policies, and chose to continue as they were. That might lead to a hardening and deepening of anti-Iranian sentiment, at least among elites and leaders."

LEST WE FORGET: Aesop's Wife's Fables

McSweeney's contributor Doug Lieblich:

• The Ant and the Grasshopper Who Forgot Their Anniversary
• The Boy Who Cried Wolf But Still Can't Communicate His Feelings
• The Mouse and the Lion Who Always Wants Sex Even When She Has A Headache
• The Cat That Should Have Married The Athenian Senator When She Had the Chance
• The Bear Who Went To Go Drinking With His Friends Even Though He Just Went Out With Them Last Night
• The Hen and the Fat, Lazy, Selfish Ass
• The Peacock and the Increasingly Enticing Pool Boy
• The Dog, the Eagle, and the Refusal to Have a Baby
• The Tortoise and the Alimony

6/11: Political Killings

As they did after the murder of abortion doctor George Tiller, liberal bloggers are portraying yesterday's murder at the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum as evidence that the DHS was right to publish its controversial report about "rightwing extremism." Barbara Morrill asks: "With the second rightwing political shooting in as many weeks, will the conservative media apologize for their 'outrage' at the Department of Homeland Security report on 'rightwing extremism'?" Conservative bloggers, on the other hand, are denying that yesterday's crime vindicates the DHS report. Matthew Vadum declares: "None of this changes the fact that [DHS Sec. Janet] Napolitano's politically motivated directive was wrong then and remains wrong now."

What else is happening in the blogosphere?

• Liberal bloggers (McCarter, Uygur, Aravosis) continue to demand that Congress pass a health care reform bill that includes a public option. Matthew Yglesias is disappointed (but not surprised) that the A.M.A. has announced its opposition to the creation of a public plan, while Yuval Levin is cheered by the news. Meanwhile, lefty bloggers (digby, Scarecrow) are criticizing Sen. Kent Conrad (D-ND) after he declared that he is "frankly not terribly interested" in the views of the Health Care for America Now coalition, which supports a public option.
• Conservative bloggers (Lane, Badeaux, Allahpundit) are criticizing the Obama admin. after it announced "that some detainees captured and held abroad have been read Miranda rights to preserve evidence for a potential prosecution."
• Liberal blogger Jane Hamsher and conservative blogger Erick Erickson continue to urge their readers to call members of Congress and tell them to vote against the 2009 Supplemental Appropriations Act.

HOLOCAUST MUSEUM SHOOTING: A Growing Trend?

Liberal bloggers believe that yesterday's crime vindicates the DHS memo about "rightwing extremism":

• Daily Kos' BarbinMD: "With the second rightwing political shooting in as many weeks, will the conservative media apologize for their 'outrage' at the Department of Homeland Security report on 'rightwing extremism'?"
• Think Progress' Matthew Yglesias: "Following up on the assassination of George Tiller, we appear to have a new outbreak of right-wing domestic terrorism as white supremacist James Von Brunn goes on a shooting spree at the U.S. Holocaust Museum. Not a great deal more to say about this right now, but I hope that everyone who mau-maued the Department of Homeland Security for expressing concern about this kind of thing feels appropriately ashamed of themselves."
• The Washington Monthly's Steve Benen: "The Republican hysteria over the DHS report -- which was, by the way, initiated by a [George W.] Bush administration official -- was always based more on a partisan scheme than reality, but the incessant complaints look especially misguided today."
• AMERICAblog's John Aravosis: "So, this would be the second act of domestic terror committed by someone specifically mentioned in the DHS report that the agency pulled after the GOP and the religious right criticized them. First was the abortion doctor killer (DHS warned that far right extremist might use abortion to rally their crazies) and second is a former member of the US military tied with extremist hate ideology (again, the DHS report warned about former military being recruited by far-right anti-govt hate groups). The Obama administration made a big mistake pulling this report only weeks before two acts of domestic terror, practically predicted in the report. They were right, and they caved. Will the report now be revived?"
• Balloon Juice's DougJ: "How many acts of right-wing terrorism have to occur before DHS is allowed to start keeping track of it? I really don't get the conservative reaction to the original DHS pronouncement. No one is trying to lump angry Red State commenters in with honest-to-God terrorists...except, weirdly enough, the Red State commenters themselves."
• The Reality-Based Community's Mark Kleiman: "Should Blue Blogistan kick the crap out of buffoons like Ed Morrissey and Michelle Malkin for claiming that vigilance against right-wing extremism amounted to 'smear[ing] half the country' and that the report was a 'hit job' and a 'sweeping indictment of conservatives'? Why not? Should the Democrats shamelessly exploit this tragedy to make Republicans on Capitol Hill (e.g., [Jim] Inhofe, [Tom] Coburn, [David] Vitter, [Sam] Brownback, [Jim] DeMint, [Richard] Burr, and [Lisa] Murkowski pay a price for having called that report 'absurd and offensive'? You betcha. I suggest a resolution: (1) Denouncing domestic terrorism in general and the killings of Tiller and Johns in particular; (2) Commending DHS for being alert to the threat; and (3) asking all federal law enforcement agencies to take the necessary steps to detect and prevent such plots. The wingnuts are free to vote against it."

The Atlantic's Andrew Sullivan: "That DHS report doesn't look so iffy any more, does it?"

Meanwhile, several liberal bloggers (Marshall, Aravosis) are observing that the suspected shooter subscribes to the right-wing conspiracy theory that Obama isn't a natural-born U.S. citizen.

HOLOCAUST MUSEUM SHOOTING II: Vindication? What Vindication?

Conservative bloggers are pushing back against the argument that yesterday's crime vindicates the DHS report about "rightwing extremism":

• Michelle Malkin: "[The] shooter wasn't 'left' or 'right,' just plain loony."
• Hot Air's Morrissey: "[O]ur criticism was that the DHS report didn't focus on known, specific threats, instead making generalized threats about abortion opponents and other vague and broad generalizations about conservative issues. In fact, it never mentioned Holocaust denial at all, nor did it mention anti-semitism at all [see Update V below], either; those terms don't appear at all in the report. And despite being well-known as a threat since the 1980s, the DHS never bothered to identify von Brunn or his organization as a specific threat in the report -- which, again, was the heart of our criticism."
• AmSpec Blog's Vadum: "None of this changes the fact that Napolitano's politically motivated directive was wrong then and remains wrong now. As I wrote in an article called 'Thoughtcrime Redux', it was a malicious un-American smear calculated to ridicule and intimidate opponents of the left's policy goals. It goes without saying that police need to be on guard against right-wing extremists, left-wing extremists, and anyone planning to carry out violent attacks. But police should not be on guard against or investigating individuals and groups solely because they don't happen to agree with the Obama administration or the Democratic majority in Congress."
• RedState's Erick Erickson: "If the right were to blame for the tragedy at the Holocaust Museum, Markos Moulitsas, Keith Olbermann, [Senate Maj. Leader] Harry Reid, and Barack Obama must be positively scrubbing the blood off their hands after the tragic murder of Pvt. [William] Long in Arkansas last week and wounding of Pvt. Quentin Ezeagwula. I'm surprised leftwing bloggers can type with all the blood on their hands. Kos and the lunatic gunman today and the lunatic gunman who killed Pvt. Long share more in common [than] the rest of us -- their world view is centered on contempt for what this nation stands for and are consumed with an abiding hatred of George W. Bush and the 'neocons.'"

Meanwhile, Hot Air's Allahpundit criticizes Obama's statement about the murder: "Guy who attended Jeremiah 'Them Jews' Wright's church for 20 years: We must be vigilant about anti-semitism. [...] 'Remaining vigilant' evidently doesn't include periodically checking your church bulletin for Hamas screeds or challenging the right of Holocaust-deniers who pine publicly for Israel to be wiped off the map to possess nuclear power."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: The Working NRA Majority

Open Left's Chris Bowers:

"[O]utside of the 60-vote rule in the Senate, the NRA is emerging as the right-wing's top weapon against progressive legislation. Earlier this year, Oklahoma Republican Senator Tom Coburn succeeded in attaching a concealed weapons amendment to the credit card legislation. Now, the D.C. Voting rights bill has been stalled indefinitely because the Senate attached a measure to the bill stripping current D.C. gun laws, and also preventing D.C. lawmakers from passing gun control legislation in the future. So, while Republicans remain discredited and unpopular, their machinery is still able to prevent, or modify, progressive legislation from passing into law. Apropos, two people were shot at the D.C. Holocaust Museum today.

With this success, it is worth wondering what other legislation Republicans will attempt to kill via gun related amendments. The NRA is more than a single-issue advocacy group, it is the centerpiece of the entire right-wing policy infrastructure. Already, it is expanding into other areas beyond guns, working to block credit card reform and D.C. voting equality. Given that it still has a working majority in Congress, Republicans could theoretically use it to block, or at least modify, almost any legislation they wish."

LEST WE FORGET: Elderly Man Skipping Work Uses 'Dead Grandson' Excuse Again

From The Onion:

"SARATOGA, FL -- Arousing the suspicions of his boss, senior fry-cook Harold Mason, 72, cited the death of yet another grandchild in order to leave work early Thursday. Records showed that Mason has already missed 12 days of work this year, six of which were marked as sick days, and the remainder as funeral services for his late grandchildren, Johnny, Timmy, Susie, Bobby, Ricky, Johnny, and Harold, Jr. 'I'm beginning to think he just likes taking a long weekend,' said manager Jason Holmes, adding that the Korean War veteran's decedents have a way of dying on inventory days. 'I don't know who he spends his time off with, anyway. His wife died last year on his birthday.' Holmes went on to say that if Mason doesn't start taking his job at Sonic seriously, he will probably be demoted back to roller-skate waiter."

6/10: Good Deeds

Liberal bloggers are pleased that state Sen. Creigh Deeds won yesterday's VA GOV Dem primary -- not because they love Deeds, but because they're relieved that ex-DNC Chair Terry McAuliffe lost. John Cole thinks "Democrats dodge[d] a bullet" by nominating someone other than McAuliffe, while Oliver Willis argues that "Deeds is much better positioned to win and lead Virginia than a glad-hander like McAuliffe." That said, Steve Singiser thinks McAuliffe deserves praise for emailing his supporters within hours of his concession speech and urging them to donate to Deeds.

On the right side of the blogosphere, Ed Morrissey thinks Deeds' win makes things tougher for the GOP: "[GOP nominee] Bob McDonnell would have an easier time painting McAuliffe as too liberal and out of touch for most Virginians, while Deeds showed that he can compete anywhere in the state."

What else is happening in the blogosphere?

• Liberal bloggers (McCarter, Hamsher, digby, Lemos, Waldman) are blasting Sens. Joe Lieberman (I-CT) and Lindsey Graham (R-SC) for threatening to shut down the Senate until Congress passes legislation prohibiting the release of the detainee abuse photos.
• In an unlikely alliance, liberal blogger Jane Hamsher and conservative blogger Erick Erickson are both urging their readers to contact members of Congress and tell them to vote against the supplemental bill.
• Liberal bloggers (Bowers, Eli) are annoyed that Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-LA) is now opposed to the creation of a public health insurance plan (which she previously supported). Meanwhile, conservative blogger Hugh Hewitt is urging his readers to contact Dem senators up for re-election in '10 and tell them to oppose the public plan.
• Conservative bloggers (Rubin, Lane, Hawkins, Hemingway) are criticizing the Obama admin.'s decision to transfer the 17 Uighur detainees from Guantanamo to the North Pacific island of Palau.
• Liberal bloggers (Marshall, Benen) are criticizing Rep. Mark Kirk (R-IL) after he admitted to telling Chinese leaders "that the budget numbers that the US government had put forward should not be believed."

VA GOV: Dodging The McAuliffe Bullet

Many liberal bloggers are relieved that McAuliffe lost:

• Balloon Juice's Cole: "Democrats dodge[d] a bullet. [...] There were two scenarios should McAuliffe win. First, he could lose the general quite easily to McDonnell. Second, he could win, and then be a national embarrassment for four years. I have no idea how Virginians as a whole think about this, since so few of them showed up to the polls, but I am relieved as hell that McAuliffe was sent packing."
• Willis: "Virginia has chosen Creigh Deeds over Terry McAuliffe whose claim to fame to date had been presiding over one of the worst eras in history for the Democratic party. Virginia's likely to be a close fought race, but Deeds is much better positioned to win and lead Virginia than a glad-hander like McAuliffe."
• BooMan: "For me, Terry McAuliffe is kind of a distilled, pure form of Clintonism. He basically represents the crystalline heart of Clintonism. Terry McAuliffe got his ass handed to him today in the Virginia governor's Democratic primary. [...] This is a guy who had the best rolodex of big-money donors on the planet. And he failed, utterly. If only more Democrats like him could be rejected, we might actually get some positive change in this country."
• Daily Kos' Markos Moulitsas: "Terry McAuliffe, PLEASE don't try this again!"

On the other hand, Daily Kos' Singiser thinks McAuliffe deserves praise for emailing his supporters within hours of his concession speech and urging them to donate to Deeds: "I have been following politics for about half of my lifetime. And I have never seen a vanquished candidate in a primary exhort his supporters to financially support the primary winner within hours of the polls closing in the election. That was an 'A+' move from the guy, and a sign that any divisions in the Democratic Party in Virginia are bound to heal rather quick. It is pretty common for candidates to talk about unifying their party after an election. Good on McAuliffe for, on this occasion, actually doing something about it."

VA GOV II: Bad News For The GOP?

Several liberal bloggers think Deeds will be a strong general election candidate:

• Moulitsas: "Republicans had their worst nightmare realized. This Deeds/McDonnell rematch is going to be quite the battle."
• Ed Kilgore: "If I were Bob McDonnell, I wouldn't be real happy about tonight's results. Deeds showed no real regional weaknesses, and with all due consideration of the problems that [ex-state delegate Brian] Moran and McAuliffe caused themselves and each other, it does look like the Bath County senator knows how to run a campaign. The win was decisive enough that there shouldn't be too many hard feelings among Democrats, and Deeds will get some nice media buzz. And let's don't forget that Deeds basically tied McDonnell in the AG race four years ago, despite being outspent. The first couple of head-to-head polls between Deeds and McDonnell should be very interesting."
• FiveThirtyEight's Nate Silver: "Well, I think both parties are going to go into November with a candidate they're feeling pretty happy about. And the stakes are fairly high: given Virginia's newfound status as a swing state, whomever wins is a decent bet to make a VP short list in 2012 or 2016."

Conservative blogger Morrissey thinks Deeds' win is both good news and bad news for the GOP: "Any time McAuliffe gets a setback, it seems like a win for Republicans. Furthermore, the overwhelming victory for a relative conservative in Virginia should be good news for the GOP. Unfortunately, that pits a conservative Democrat against a conservative Republican in a state that has gone purple the last few cycles. Bob McDonnell would have an easier time painting McAuliffe as too liberal and out of touch for most Virginians, while Deeds showed that he can compete anywhere in the state."

Meanwhile, NRO's Jim Geraghty talks to "sources close to McDonnell" about what they perceive to be Deeds' weaknesses.

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Boycotting GM

Right Wing News' John Hawkins explains why he supports Rush Limbaugh's boycott of GM:

"I'm not buying another car from Chryser or General Motors for the foreseeable future, despite the fact that I currently own a Dodge. There are good reasons for taking that position. At Chrysler, the UAW now owns more the 50% of the company and the sad fact is that union is run by people hostile to everything conservatives hold dear. Since the UAW is so slavishly devoted to the Democratic Party, every time you buy a Chrysler from this point forward, you're now essentially making a contribution to the Democratic Party with your purchase. [...]

As for General Motors, the federal government is going to be the majority shareholder in the company and given how stupid, slow, and incompetent the Feds are, you've got to believe the quality of their vehicles is going to drop. The Feds can claim that they're not getting involved with the day to day operation at GM, but they're neck deep in which plants remain open and closed, which dealers get axed, personnel matters, and what kind of cars are being made. Given the habitual ineptitude of the federal government, it seems rather foolish to risk buying a car from a company they're heavily involved with."

LEST WE FORGET: Another One Of Those Days...

From FMyLife.com:

• Today, I realized the senior thesis I turned in last week uses the word "asses" instead of "assess" 17 times. FML.
• Today, my friend had to take my cat who has a tumor to be put down when I wasn't home since I couldn't bear to take him myself. I have two cats. He took the wrong one. FML.
• Today, I was jogging in my neighborhood when I saw a kid's ball roll over to where I was jogging. I stopped, grabbed the ball for the kid and started to hand it to him. He then yelled "Stranger Danger" and his parents came sprinting out. I had to explain the story to the police for 30 mins. FML.
• Today, I went out for a smoke break. A homeless person walks up to me and asks for a cig. As I pull out my pack he says "Oh... Menthols... no I don't smoke that cheap shit." I was called cheap by a hobo. FML.
• Today, I went to meet my girlfriend's parents for the first time. I accidentally drove past their house the first time, but saw the whole family outside waiting to meet me. I pulled a U-Turn and heard a thud. The whole family watched me run over their dog. FML.

6/9: Give Me A Public Option, Or Give Me Death!

The debate over health care reform is heating up in the blogosphere, and the focal point has become the inclusion of a public health insurance option. Liberal bloggers are pressing hard for a public option that's strong enough to "negotiate deep discounts with providers [and] muscle its way into networks." Ex-Labor Sec. Robert Reich is urging his readers to "let your representative and senators know you want a public option without conditions or triggers -- one that gives the public insurer bargaining leverage over drug companies, and pushes insurers to do what they've promised to do."

The netroots are very suspicious of efforts to weaken the public insurance option in order to win GOP support. They're pointing to Finance Cmte ranking member Charles Grassley's (R-IA) weekend Twitter slap at Pres. Obama as evidence that Dems shouldn't consider Grassley a reliable negotiating partner. Joan McCarter complains that Grassley "isn't approaching health care reform in good faith" and that "bipartisanship in his mind means the usual, Dems capitulating on a public option." She continues: "[Finance Cmte chair Max] Baucus [D-MT] needs to realize that he's got no partner in Chuck Grassley when it comes to meaningful, effective health care reform. He needs to worry more about crafting a proposal that the HELP Committee and the majority of House Dems, not to mention the President, will sign off on. That was the whole point of structuring this so the bill can pass through reconciliation."

Conservative bloggers, meanwhile, are strongly opposed to the inclusion of a public health insurance option, which they consider a precursor to "a complete federal government takeover." Influential righty blogger Michelle Malkin is urging her readers to participate in an "an Obamacare poster contest" in order to "inform the public of the consequences of Obamacare."

What else is happening in the blogosphere?

• Liberal bloggers (Moulitsas, Kilgore, BooMan) and conservative bloggers (Geraghty, Krikorian) are offering their thoughts on today's VA GOV Dem primary.
• Prominent liberal bloggers are eager to support Rep. Joe Sestak (D-PA) should he decide to challenge Sen. Arlen Specter (D-PA). Markos Moulitsas announces that he "can't wait to hop aboard that bandwagon," while Chris Bowers has already signed up to volunteer for Sestak.
• Liberal bloggers (Hamsher, Waldman, Greenwald, Dayen) are pleased that an amendment allowing the WH to suppress the release of detainee abuse photos was reportedly stripped from the supplemental war spending bill. However, the amendment's authors -- Sens. Joe Lieberman (I-CT) and Lindsey Graham (R-SC) -- are threatening to "employ all the legislative means available" to block the House from overturning their amendment.
• National Review blogger Ed Whelan apologized (twice) to the pseudonymous blogger Publius for disclosing his identity, and various bloggers (Benen, A.L., Sullivan, Cole, Riehl) are praising Whelan for doing so. However, some conservative bloggers (Mirengoff, Goldberg) contend that Whelan has nothing to apologize for.

HEALTH CARE REFORM: Some Things Are Not Negotiable

Liberal bloggers are stepping up their calls for a public insurance option:

• Bowers: "Here is a message that progressive organizations and media outlets need to start sending to all Democratic party committees and members of Congress: We are done attacking Republicans until you pass a public option for health care. Until a public option is passed, I don't want to hear about the latest hate and idiocy spewing from [Rush] Limbaugh, or [Tom] Tancredo, or [Sarah] Palin, or [Newt] Gingrich, or whoever. And to tell you the truth, I don't want to attack them for it, either. Because, right now, Republicans are not the obstacle to progressive governance. Instead, Democrats who refuse to support a public option are the obstacle."
• AMERICAblog's Joe Sudbay: "The health care debate is going to get really ugly and intense. The insurance industry and its lobbyists will do anything and everything to prevent real reform. Obama is going to really have to step up if we're going to get the change he promised. Without a public option to keep the insurance industry, there will be no change."
• TAPPED's Reich: "This is it, folks. The concrete is being mixed and about to be poured. And after it's poured and hardens, universal health care will be with us for years to come in whatever form it now takes. Let your representative and senators know you want a public option without conditions or triggers -- one that gives the public insurer bargaining leverage over drug companies, and pushes insurers to do what they've promised to do. Don't wait until the concrete hardens and we've lost this battle."

Liberal bloggers (McCarter, Green, Sudbay) are also blasting the Third Way think tank after someone leaked a draft of the organization's policy paper on health care reform, which advocates an "alternative" to "an overly intrusive public plan."

Meanwhile, conservative bloggers (Hinderaker, Klein) continue to criticize the Dems' health care reform proposals, while Malkin urges her readers to participate in an "an Obamacare poster contest" designed to "inform the public of the consequences of Obamacare."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: When Do Newspaper Endorsements Matter?

Ed Kilgore:

"Thinking back to Nate [Silver]'s Iowa 2004 analogy, it's worth remembering that the startling end-game in that contest involved not only a surge for the ultimate winner, John Kerry, but another surge by near-winner John Edwards, from even further back in the pack, that seemed to be fed by an endorsement of the North Carolinian by the Des Moines Register. With all due respect for the Register's atavistic dominance of Iowa media, its endorsement of Hillary Clinton in 2008 didn't, to use a familiar phrase, seem to amount to a hill of beans.

But just to toss a theory out, perhaps newspaper endorsements do matter, or at least reinforce trends, when late-deciding voters are casting about for another candidate in reaction to unsavory front-runner rasslin': [Howard] Dean and [Dick] Gephardt in Iowa 2004, and [Terry] McAuliffe and [Jim] Moran in Virginia 2009. If that's the case, then obviously Creigh Deeds could be benefitting from the dynamics that helped both Kerry and Edwards in Iowa in 2004, punctuated by a major media endorsement."

LEST WE FORGET: New Homely Doll To Improve Self-Image Of Young Girls

From The Onion:

"EL SEGUNDO, CA -- Executives at Mattel Inc. held a press conference Monday to unveil the toy company's latest product, Plain Pamela, a homely doll designed to boost the confidence of girls ages 7 to 12. The pale, unsightly plaything, which has a plastic torso scaled to the proportions of a 5-foot-4, 179-pound woman in her mid-30s, is being touted as the first toy expressly intended to raise the sense of physical and emotional self-worth in preteen females.

'While we still value our classic Barbie franchise, we understand the need for dolls that offer an alternative body image,' Mattel CEO Robert Eckert said. 'And that's why we've created Plain Pamela. She's drab, she's dumpy, she's nothing to write home about, and she's going to make the girls of America feel like beauty queens.'

Added Eckert, 'Relatively speaking.'"

6/8: Yes, In-Deeds!

Bloggers are offering their last-minute thoughts and predictions about tomorrow's VA GOV Dem primary. The general consensus in the blogosphere (confirmed by the most recent PPP poll) is that state Sen. Creigh Deeds is in the driver's seat. However, some lefty bloggers contend that ex-DNC Chair Terry McAuliffe and ex-state delegate Brian Moran have stronger GOTV operations than Deeds, which could make the race closer than it appears. Jerome Armstrong (who serves as Moran's Netroots Consultant) writes: "I know both McAuliffe and Moran have much better field organizations than Deeds, by far -- it's not even close. Deeds has gotten all the breaks in the polls; now, does he have the votes? The turnout will tell."

One thing is clear: if McAuliffe prevails tomorrow, some liberal bloggers will be sorely disappointed.

What else is happening in the blogosphere?

• Several liberal bloggers (Hamsher, Klein) are urging their readers to contact their Representatives and tell them to vote against the supplemental appropriations bill for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Reps. Jim Moran (D-VA), Eric Massa (D-NY), and Jerry Nadler (D-NY) are among the Dem congressmen who have come out against the supplemental.
• Liberal bloggers (Dworkin, Yglesias, Aravosis) continue to demand that the health care reform bill include a public insurance option, while conservative bloggers remain opposed to the idea.
• Liberal bloggers (Benen, A.L., Cole, TBogg, Drum) are criticizing National Review blogger Ed Whelan for "outing" (i.e., revealing the identity of) a pseudonymous blogger who criticized him. Conservative bloggers are divided in their reactions: some (Adler, Morrissey, Riehl) think Whelan was wrong to do what he did, while others (Goldberg, Murray, Reynolds) think his action was justified. Meanwhile, Whelan has written two follow-up posts defending himself.

VA GOV: The Final Countdown

Liberal bloggers are offering their final thoughts on tomorrow's Dem primary election:

• Daily Kos' Markos Moulitsas: "Given the absentee totals, I'd put my money on the low end of the scale, which means GOTV will play an outsized role. McAuliffe has the money to pay for good field, and Moran has the NoVa political machine behind him (supposedly). Deeds always had the smallest staff, and laid a bunch of it off to have more money for the air war. He's hoping to ride the Washington Post endorsement to decent results in NoVa, while hoping strong turnout in the rest of the state carries him over. [...] The race is volatile, but the last round, from mid-week, had McAuliffe with Joementum, Moran increasing slightly, and Deeds skyrocketing."
• Armstrong: "I really am not too excited about the conservative Democrat Creigh Deeds. Deeds has really come out of nowhere, and is a blank slate to most voters. He's not very environmental, being in favor of offshore oil drilling and new coal plants, and he's backwards on gay marriage. That said, he's better by far than Terry McAuliffe and way better than [GOP nominee] Bob McDonnell. As PPP shows, he captured the huge anti-McAuliffe vote here in the state in their polling, which he owes to Moran for creating. Without Moran beating the shit out of McAuliffe, there is no Deeds surge in the polls, but that's 3-way primaries. It's not issue-based at all, with the poll finding liberal NoVA Democratic voters backing the conservative -- just a surge of electability vs McAuliffe. A 14-16% lead seems unbeatable, but remember that PPP is predicting a huge turnout too. I know both McAuliffe and Moran have much better field organizations than Deeds, by far -- its not even close. Deeds has gotten all the breaks in the polls; now, does he have the votes? The turnout will tell."

Daily Kos' Steve Singiser isn't ready to count Moran out: "[Moran] has locked down a huge number of NoVa endorsements, and the area includes the home base for his brother, Congressman Jim Moran. If there is any 'turnout machine' in some of the larger cities in the north, it will likely be a Moran machine. Watch turnout here, specifically, on Tuesday. If NoVa's share of the electorate is in the 20-29% range, that is exceptionally bad news for Moran (and, for what it's worth, great news for Creigh Deeds). If it is in the 30-39% range, watch out for Moran. If it approaches 2006 levels comparable to the rest of the state, Moran is going to be extremely difficult to catch."

Al Giordano hopes that McAuliffe loses: "I'm not sure which of these two scenarios would be worse for the future of the Democrats: Terry McAuliffe wins Tuesday's primary for governor, and Independent voters, horrified, begin an exodus from their fairly recent Democratic voting patterns to bring a resurgence of the GOP in the Old Dominion, or that McAuliffe could win on Tuesday and then somehow pull off a general election victory to become a daily embarrassment to the national Democratic Party from his mansion in McLean, just a golf ball's shot from Washington, DC. [...] Although it is my general sense that Moran is somewhat more liberal-progressive than Deeds, the overriding question here is which of them can best shovel the dirt onto McAuliffe's political grave, saving the Commonwealth, the Republic and the Party from his disgraced and corrupted pay-to-play method of politics. The polling trends suggest Deeds is better positioned, and frankly, even if Moran were my bestest dearest lifetime friend, if I were a Virginia voter, I would right now be looking to Deeds as the emerging anti-Terry."

Meanwhile, conservative blogger Matt Lewis passes along a rumor that GOPers may try to vote in tomorrow's Dem primary: "Already, I've heard from some Republicans who are planning to engage in 'Operation Chaos, Virginia.' One conservative I spoke to believes Brian Moran would be the weakest opponent (McAuliffe has tons of money and Deeds might actually pick off some conservative voters down-state) and, thus, will be voting for Moran. While some may question the ethics of this sort of strategic voting, the situation is ripe for the possibility that even a few hundred Republican votes might influence the 2009 gubernatorial election, which might, in turn, impact the 2010 mid-term elections ..."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Is Obama Trying To Overthrow Bibi?

The Atlantic's Jeffrey Goldberg:

"It seems to me that Obama is trying to force the collapse of [Israeli PM Benjamin] Netanyahu's government. I base this mostly on intuition. Of course, the Obama Administration would never claim to be interfering in the internal politics of another country, but it seems obvious that Netanyahu's narrow coalition won't survive sustained American pressure on the settlements question. Netanyahu is in a terrible spot: He must preserve, at all costs, Israel's strategic relationship with Washington; on the other hand, he has right-wing coalition partners who are myopically obsessed with the status of the Neve Manyak outposts. Something is bound to break, and when it does, the Netanyahu government collapses. Which doesn't mean that Netanyahu is out of power. It means that he then shares power with Tzipi Livni's centrist Kadima Party. If I were an American policymaker, that's the Israeli coalition I would hope for: Netanyahu-[Ehud] Barak-Livni, rather than Netanyahu-Barak-[Avigdor] Lieberman. You watch: It's coming."

LEST WE FORGET: Cranky Chuck

Here are three recent messages from Sen. Chuck Grassley's (R-IA) Twitter feed:

• My carbon footprint is abt 25per cent of Al Gore. I'm greener than Al Gore. Is that enuf?
• Pres Obama while u sightseeing in Paris u said 'time to delivr on healthcare' When you are a "hammer" u think evrything is NAIL I'm no NAIL
• Pres Obama you got nerve while u sightseeing in Paris to tell us"time to deliver" on health care. We still on skedul/even workinWKEND.

Wonkette's Sara K. Smith is unimpressed by Grassley's Twitter-ing:

"Jesus fucking christ. Remember back in 1780-something, when we had actual smart people writing our founding documents in beautiful longhand when they weren't inventing new kinds of ploughs and bifocals and shit? Now our nation's top legislators just type away like petulant teenage girls, with their thumbs, about how the president is so awful for spending the weekend in Paris. We are all stupider for having read this."

6/5: The Battle For The Commonwealth

The VA GOV Dem primary is Tuesday, and the race is starting to get more attention from liberal bloggers. Now that state Sen. Creigh Deeds is surging in the latest polls, several bloggers are proclaiming him "the new favorite". In fact, statistics guru Nate Silver puts Deeds' chances at "60-70%." However, other lefty bloggers contend that the race is far from over. Jerome Armstrong (who serves as ex-state delegate Brian Moran's Netroots Consultant) predicts that Moran "will wind up gaining above his final poll standing the most, due to having the largest and deepest Democratic activist GOTV operation." Markos Moulitsas (who's more anti-Terry McAuliffe than pro-Moran or pro-Deeds) wonders if Deeds has enough GOTV resources to get his newfound NoVa supporters to the polls.

In other news, Moulitsas was disappointed by DGA Chair/MT Gov. Brian Schweitzer's endorsement of McAuliffe, which Moulitsas calls a "terrible move" that "definitely takes a bite out of [Schweitzer's] grassroots cred." We find it interesting that while prominent national bloggers (Moulitsas, Armstrong) are strongly critical of McAuliffe, the leading VA bloggers are supporting the ex-DNC Chair. In the '06 Senate primary between Jim Webb and Harris Miller, national bloggers and VA bloggers were on the same side.

What else is happening in the blogosphere?

• Conservative bloggers (Huston, Erickson, Liebau, Geraghty, Hinderaker) continue to criticize Pres. Obama's Cairo speech. Other conservative bloggers (Lowry, Mirengoff) had a slightly more positive reaction to the speech. Meanwhile, liberal bloggers (Blue Texan, Kleiman, Yglesias) are mocking critics of Obama's speech.
• Yesterday, liberal bloggers (Yglesias, hilzoy, Marshall) criticized Rep. Gary Ackerman (D-NY) for saying, "I do not support a settlement freeze that calls on Israeli families not to grow, get married, or forces them to throw away their grandparents." Lefty bloggers were pleased when Ackerman subsequently clarified his comments.
• Liberal bloggers (Yglesias, Atrios, Benen, Dayen, Kurtz) are praising E.J. Dionne's column in which he alleges that "there is a deep and largely unconscious conservative bias in the media's discussion of policy."

VA GOV: Mr. Deeds Goes To Town

After the new Daily Kos/Research 2000 poll became the latest poll to show Deeds with significant momentum, several liberal bloggers are now calling him the favorite:

• FiveThirtyEight's Silver: "Deeds has all sorts of momentum. [...] McAuliffe does not have the momentum. In fact, his stock is dropping like a rock. Meanwhile, the third candidate, Brian Moran, is gaining ground on McAuliffe too but having trouble keeping up with Deeds. [...] My armchair assessment is that the probabilities here are something like Deeds 60-70%, McAuliffe 20-30%, and Moran 10-20%."
• Open Left's Chris Bowers: "The four-poll average is currently Deeds 28.8%, McAuliffe 27.8%, and Moran 24.5%. With such rapid movement and so many undecideds, it would appear that any of the three can win. However, the trend from Pollster.com shows that Deeds is surging. Deeds would have to be considered the new favorite, given that trend."

Other bloggers contend that the race is far from over:

• MyDD's Armstrong: "The latest Research 2000 poll shows McAuliffe slipping into 3rd, but its all within the MOE. [...] The falling of McAuliffe is nearly the identical inverse of the rise of Deeds. Meanwhile, Moran keeps upticking away. I think McAuliffe will wind up taking a bit of that back from Deeds, because he's got a big paid staff and Deeds laid off his staff to buy ads. Moran will wind up gaining above his final poll standing the most, due to having the largest and deepest Democratic activist GOTV operation."
• Daily Kos' Moulitsas: "Check out Deeds -- a whopping 17-point gain in just two weeks. The momentum is clearly his. Now Deeds has bet everything on an air campaign, even laying off staff to conserve resources to do it. Will he still have the resources to drag people out to the polls, especially his newfound support in NoVa? [...] In the 2005 Lt. Governor primary, 32.48 percent of the vote came from Northern Virginia (NoVa). In the 2006 Senate primary, 44.65 percent did. R2K is betting on 2005-like numbers, which given the strong southern-VA candidate, may be the safer bet. But if the numbers end up being closer to 2006's, then Moran has the edge -- especially since Moran's field operation appears concentrated in NoVa while Deed's has little in the region."

Meanwhile, AMERICAblog's John Aravosis thinks he's seeing too much of McAuliffe on TV: "I'm seeing a lot of Terry McAuliffe's ads featuring Terry McAuliffe. Let me tell you this: a little Terry McAuliffe goes a long, long, long way. His consultants made a mistake featuring McAuliffe so prominently in the ads. He's annoying and quickly becomes grating. I just want the Democrat to win in November. The Republican candidate is a right-winger named Bob McDonnell. I've seen a lot of ads trashing McDonnell already -- and he's on the air with his own spot. If McAuliffe pulls off the primary, he better get a new ad team or a new t.v. strategy."

Conservative blogger Jim Geraghty wonders if the competitive primary will hurt the Dem nominee in the general election: "Everything indicates that Tuesday's Virginia Democratic gubernatorial primary is going to be a barnburner -- another poll out today puts all three within the margin of error. While most Democrats will probably unify behind their nominee, it will be a bit of a unique challenge for the candidate to enter the general election with 60 percent of Democrats or more having voted for somebody else..."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: "An Absolutely Extraordinary Moment"

The Atlantic's Jeffrey Goldberg:

"An Absolutely Extraordinary Moment: An African-American President with Muslim roots stands before the Muslim world and defends the right of Jews to a nation of their own in their ancestral homeland, and then denounces in vociferous terms the evil of Holocaust denial, and right-wing Israelis go forth and complain that the President is unsympathetic to the housing needs of settlers. Incredible, just incredible."

LEST WE FORGET: God Texts The Ten Commandments

McSweeney's contributor Jamie Quatro:

1. no1 b4 me. srsly.
2. dnt wrshp pix/idols
3. no omg's
4. no wrk on w/end (sat 4 now; sun l8r)
5. pos ok - ur m&d r cool
6. dnt kill ppl
7. :-X only w/ m8
8. dnt steal
9. dnt lie re: bf
10. dnt ogle ur bf's m8. or ox. or dnkey. myob.

M, pls rite on tabs & giv 2 ppl.

ttyl, JHWH.

ps. wwjd?

6/4: Obama Goes To Cairo

The political blogosphere's reaction to Pres. Obama's Cairo speech is following a familiar pattern: conservative bloggers are mostly blasting the speech while liberal bloggers are mostly praising it. On the right side of the blogosphere, Michelle Malkin decries Obama's "explicit anti-American apologism" while Hugh Hewitt complains that the speech "communicate[ed] extraordinary weakness on the part of the United States." Erick Erickson goes even further, warning that "Barack Obama's ivory tower naiveté will get us all killed." On the left side of the blogosphere, Steve Benen calls the speech "a dramatic success" while M.J. Rosenberg gushes: "For the first time in memory, an American President spoke to Muslims and Arabs not as antagonists who need to take certain actions before achieving US acceptance but as equals."

Still, there were a few exceptions. Some righty bloggers wrote that they found the speech less offensive than they anticipated. Ed Morrissey thought the speech was "surprisingly good" and was impressed by "the depth of the defense of Israel's right to exist in peace, as well as the strong denunciation of 9/11 Trutherism that has been wildly popular among Arabs." On the other hand, liberal blogger Peter Daou complained that the speech was "disappointingly weak on human rights and specifically women's rights."

What else is happening in the blogosphere?

• Liberal bloggers (Dayen, hilzoy, Greenwald, Ackerman, Yglesias) are praising Obama for pressuring Israel to "freeze" settlement growth, even though Obama's policy is generating pushback from Israeli leaders.
• Liberal bloggers (Bowers, McCarter, Sudbay, Dayen, Benen) continue to demand that the health care reform bill include a public insurance option.

OBAMA SPEECH: All Apologies

Most conservative bloggers are blasting Obama's speech:

• RedState's Erickson: "Did he learn nothing from the [Jimmy] Carter administration? Does he really believe we are going to get China, Russia, and North Korea to give up nukes? If he does, Barack Obama is not just ignorant, he is a fool. And an ignorant fool is too dangerous to have running this country. Barack Obama's ivory tower naiveté will get us all killed."
• Commentary's Jennifer Rubin: "Will this speech accomplish anything? The American elites will swoon. But it won't do much of anything -- other than encourage Iran."
• Gateway Pundit: "[T]his was his second apology speech to the Muslim World. He also apologized for America two months ago in Turkey. Obama doesn't seem to think that liberating 50,000,000 Muslims from two of the world's most brutal regimes counted for much."
• Malkin: "[Obama] attemped to obfuscate his explicit anti-American apologism with a mixture of disingenuousness and naivete totally untethered to reality (including the '7 million Muslims' figure he hyped). Despite all his supposedly frank talk, Obama insists on hiding behind the euphemism 'violent extremism.' It's not only the 't-word' -- terrorism -- that failed to pass from his lips. It's the j-word -- jihad, violent jihad -- that Obama will not acknowledge. He clings to the myth that only a 'tiny minority' of 'extremists' subscribe to the deadly Koran-inspired mission to force infidels to submit. He refuses to acknowledge and confront the violent jihadi virus around the world and on American soil."
• Townhall's Hewitt: "The world is the worse for this speech because it was not honest about the situation in the Middle East, not honest about the threat from Iran, not honest about Israel's deep desire to be allowed to live in peace, and not honest about the determination of Hamas, Hezbollah and Iran to destroy Israel and to gain the weapons necessary to do so in an instant. No speech so deeply dishonest in its omissions or so rhetorically misleading its its assumptions and arguments can do anything other than communicate extraordinary weakness on the part of the United States."
• Right Wing News' John Hawkins: "As per usual, the TOTUS had a nice delivery on his speech and seemed to get a friendly reception from the crowd -- but, the grotesque pandering and weakness he displayed make this speech much more of a negative than a positive."

Conservative bloggers were particularly critical of Obama's remarks about the Israel-Palestine conflict:

• NRO's Kathryn Jean Lopez: "[It's] jarring to hear [the] POTUS refer to an 'occupation' when talking about the lives of Palestinian."
• Rubin: "The Palestinians don't lack a state because of Jewish settlements. They lack a state because they rejected one -- again and again. So long as Obama is being anything but 'honest' I suspect we won't see much progress, let alone peace."

Meanwhile, NRO's Michael Rubin complains that Obama "studiously avoid[ed] the word democracy" and "studiously avoid[ed] the word terrorism".

OBAMA SPEECH II: It Could Have Been Worse

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

• Hot Air's Morrissey: "[I]n most ways, [Obama's speech] wouldn't differ from a similar speech given by any recent American President. In fact, the Cairo audience may have been a little surprised about the depth of the defense of Israel's right to exist in peace, as well as the strong denunciation of 9/11 Trutherism that has been wildly popular among Arabs, even though Osama bin Laden claimed credit long ago for the attack. [...] Of course, the big question will be whether this does anything at all for our standing in the Muslim world. Frankly, I doubt it; this may wind up eroding Obama's standing instead. Still, a much better effort than I'd feared."
• RedState's Dan Spencer: "I found it Ironic that when Obama turned to democracy, religious freedom and women's rights, the speech was reminiscent of the remarkable series of speeches President Bush gave about the advance of freedom. This was one of President Obama's more important speeches and he rose to the occasion and delivered a fine speech. There are numerous things about Obama's speech to the Muslim world I could criticize, but I will save that for another article."
• Commentary's Max Boot: "Having just read Obama's Cairo speech, my reaction is: Not bad. It could have been better. But it also could have been a lot worse. [...] I realize that the Obama speech isn't going to satisfy those (like me) who once thrilled to Bush's unapologetic pro-democracy rhetoric but, for all of Obama's rhetorical sleight of hands and elisions, I thought he did an effective job of making America's case to the Muslim world. No question: He is a more effective salesman than his predecessor was. Which doesn't mean that his audience will buy the message."
• The Cato Institute's Christopher Preble: "The president hit the essential points without overpromising. He did not ignore that which divides the United States from the world at large, and many Muslims in particular, nor was he afraid to address squarely the lies and distortions -- including the implication that 9/11 never happened, or was not the product of al Qaeda -- that have made the situation worse than it should be. He stressed the common interests that should draw people to support U.S. policies rather than oppose them: these include our opposition to the use of violence against innocents; our support for democracy and self-government; and our hostility toward racial, ethnic or religious intolerance. All good."

OBAMA SPEECH III: A Good Speech, Except For The Part About Human Rights

Most liberal bloggers were impressed by the speech:

• The Atlantic's James Fallows: "[T]his was yet another in the series of speeches that individually and as a group really are out of phase with anything we have known in contemporary political rhetoric."
• The Washington Monthly's Benen: "[I]t appears Obama was intent on establishing a new foundation for the relationship between the Middle East and the United States. It was a dramatic success."
• TPM Cafe's Rosenberg: "Mission accomplished. For the first time in memory, an American President spoke to Muslims and Arabs not as antagonists who need to take certain actions before achieving US acceptance but as equals. Not only did the speech specifically reject western (and American) colonialism, its entire tone was the antithesis of colonial. This is a profoundly different American voice, one that will do much to advance American goals rather than to sabotage them."

On the other hand, Daou disliked the speech: "I know many will gush over President Obama's Cairo speech and I'm likely swimming against the tide of the media and my fellow Democrats and progressives. But reading the transcript, I was struck by two things: (1.) Aside from a few platitudes, it is disappointingly weak on human rights and specifically women's rights. (2.) It betrays a naiveté, perhaps feigned, about how the Arab world works. [...] If we are to fix America's image in the world and if we are to heal the planet's myriad ills, it will not be done through contrite kumbaya speeches about how we are all one world and how we should all coexist peacefully, no matter whether the remarks are delivered in Cleveland or Cairo. It will be done by leading through example, by righting the many wrongs here at home, by seeking justice and fairness for all, by doing what is right, not saying what sounds pleasing to the media elite and the pliable punditocracy."

TAPPED's Dana Goldstein agreed: "I have to agree with Daou that Obama missed an opportunity to more strongly stand up for Muslim women's rights around issues like genital mutilation and rape."

TAPPED's Tim Fernholz made a similar complaint, although he liked the rest of the speech: "[M]y least favorite part of the speech was the discussion of democracy and human rights. It started off well by discussing of America's role in promoting democracy, but notably lost its truthiness by declining to point out America's role in promoting authoritarian governments, particularly Egypt's own regime. (Millions of dollars in democracy promotion aid were eliminated this year). It's not hard to understand why he chose to go the diplomatic route on democracy promotion, given recent history and his administration's tendency to avoid outright hypocrisy on foreign policy issues by remaining silent while pursuing realist policies, but it was a discordant moment within an otherwise blunt speech."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Going Beyond Sound Bites

Think Progress' Matthew Yglesias offers some thoughts on Obama's Cairo speech:

"[T]he execution first and foremost reminded me of why Obama has always been the writers' candidate in American politics. This is a guy who's not afraid to try to express complicated or difficult ideas. He wasn't afraid to do it in Dreams From My Father and now that he's long past writing his own material as a solo act, his whole team is clearly imbued with the same spirit and that same mandate to try to really explain the complicated and difficult ideas rather than sweep them under the rug.

This seems connected to me to the remarkable way in which this speech is being pushed out in multiple media -- on television, but also on Twitter and on Facebook and via SMS and all in multiple languages -- to a global audience. Part of the rise of Obama is the rise of a post-television, post-sound bite technological paradigm. You can deliver a speech at 7 AM Eastern Time and know that even though relatively few Americans will be up to see it, anyone who's interested will be able to Google up a transcript. And if people like the speech, it'll become a YouTube classic. It creates a whole new world from one in which the point of a speech is just to field test a couple of zingers in hopes that one or two of them gets picked up for the evening news."

LEST WE FORGET: Kim Jong-Il: 'Time to Pass Torch to New Generation of Madmen'

The Huffington Post's Andy Borowitz:

"North Korean dictator Kim Jong-Il today named his son, Kim Jong-un, to succeed him as president, but reassured his nation, 'Our rich tradition of lunacy and megalomania will continue.'

The mercurial Kim had kept Western observers guessing for years about a possible succession plan, but in naming his son the North Korean tyrant declared, 'It is time to pass the torch to a new generation of madmen.'

According to a source close to the dictator, the young Kim Jong-un had long been considered a dark horse to replace his father, 'but then in his twenties he showed signs of being a straight-up bananahead.'

In making the switch, Kim Jong-Il is hoping that his son will appeal to a coveted demographic group, lunatics between the ages of 18 and 25."

6/3: Pawlenty Of Speculation

Liberal bloggers were disappointed by MN Gov. Tim Pawlenty's (R) decision not to run for re-election -- not because they're nervous about him challenging Pres. Obama in '12 (although they do consider him a "formidable" candidate), but because they think his decision is bad news for Senate candidate Al Franken (D). Why? The netroots believe that Pawlenty is now less likely to sign a certificate of election that would allow the Senate to seat Franken, since the governor no longer has to worry about facing MN voters. In fact, now that Pawlenty appears increasingly likely to run for President, the netroots worry that he has "tons of incentive to pander to the hardcore tea-bagging wing of the GOP and keep Franken out of the senate as long as he can." Conservative blogger Scott Johnson thinks this speculation is "simply stupid" and writes: "I predict that Governor Pawlenty will follow the law and will issue the election certificate precisely when the time comes."

What else is happening in the blogosphere?

• Although liberal bloggers are intrigued by the possibility of capturing the NY House seat of Army Sec. appointee John McHugh, some of them (Singiser, Orton, Bowers) are annoyed that Obama has appointed yet another GOPer to a key national security position.
• Liberal bloggers (Sargent, Hamsher, Bowers) are buzzing about a new Susquehanna poll indicating that 63% of PA Dems believe that Sen. Arlen Specter (D) should face a primary challenge.
• Conservative bloggers (Huston, Gateway Pundit, Schlussel, Allahpundit) are buzzing about Jake Tapper's new article, "The Emergence of President Obama's Muslim Roots", which was heavily promoted by Matt Drudge. Liberal bloggers are accusing Tapper of "experimenting to see how many links he could get from wingnut websites."
• Conservative bloggers (Goldfarb, Spencer, Mirengoff, Morrissey) are criticizing Obama for saying, "[I]f you actually took the number of Muslims Americans, we'd be one of the largest Muslim countries in the world." Liberal blogger Greg Sargent thinks Obama's statement is perfectly reasonable.

PAWLENTY: Bad News For Franken?

Liberal bloggers think that Pawlenty's decision not to run for re-election means that he'll be less likely to sign a certificate of election that would allow Franken to be seated in the Senate:

• TPM's Josh Marshall: "I hope I'm wrong. But Gov. Tim Pawlenty's (R) apparent decision not to seek reelection does not bode well for Al Franken's ability to get seated in the senate any time soon. That's because the most probable next step in the endless Franken-[Norm] Coleman drama is that the Minnesota Supreme Court will rule in Franken's favor and it will fall to Pawlenty to issue the certificate of election that will get him seated in the senate. [...] As long as he was going to run for governor and had to face Minnesota voters again, there was good reason for him not to completely stick his finger in the eye of the election process. But now that's not holding him back. And since he's probably running for president, he'll have tons of incentive to pander to the hardcore tea-bagging wing of the GOP and keep Franken out of the senate as long as he can."
• dday: "[C]learly, not having to face Minnesota voters again frees him up to do whatever he deems necessary with respect to the US Senate election. Al Franken will probably get approval from the state Supreme Court within a couple weeks as the winner of the election. At that point the Court will, in all likelihood, request a certificate of election for Franken to be seated. The people of Minnesota want two Senators again. Pawlenty, by taking himself out of the running, removes himself of accountability and can now be free to show Republican primary voters what a good soldier he is. He'll refuse to sign the certificate. Heck, he makes this announcement THE DAY after the Supreme Court heard arguments in the Franken-Coleman case. He's practically begging you to make the connection."
• The Washington Monthly's Steve Benen: "[I]f the next set of folks Pawlenty has to impress is Republican presidential primary voters, look for the governor to back Coleman's efforts indefinitely."

Conservative blogger Johnson thinks the liberal speculation is unfounded: "The Minnesota Supreme Court has not yet ruled on Coleman's appeal of the election contest decision. It will do so shortly. When the Supreme Court's decision becomes final, Pawlenty will issue the certificate. Why? Because he has been following the law, not a partisan script. For [Josh] Marshall and his fellow liberals, politics is all."

Meanwhile, Hot Air's Ed Morrissey speculates about Pawlenty's future: "What are his options? In 2012, he has two choices to raise his national profile. He can either run for President against Barack Obama, or he can run against Amy Klobuchar for the other US Senate seat. If Al Franken gets seated after the court challenges, Minnesotans may want a more conservative representative in the upper chamber than the thus-far non-entity Klobuchar. Running for President entails a lot of risk, not just because incumbents win re-election more often than not. (Only Jimmy Carter and George H. W. Bush failed to win re-election in the last 30 years.) Pawlenty will have to go through other Republicans to get the nomination, and with the economy likely to be the main issue, [ex-MA Gov.] Mitt Romney may have the inside edge. Regardless, Pawlenty will only be 52 years old in 2012 and has plenty of time to pursue higher office. Minnesotans will lose out on one of the most effective guardians of fiscal policy we have seen in some time."

MCHUGH: Obama Grabs Another GOPer

Liberal bloggers are offering their thoughts about Obama's decision to tap Rep. McHugh as Army Sec.:

• Think Progress' Matthew Yglesias: "My guess is that the main political implications here relate to redistricting. Even if a Republican wins the seat, a cloutless freshperson is going to be a very likely candidate for getting screwed-over in a redistricting process that's likely to require New York to eliminate a congressional district."
• BooMan: "[NY-23 is] effectively a New England seat. It's unclear if the Republicans will be able to win a special election there to fill this vacancy. McHugh has been winning the district with over sixty-percent of the vote, but Obama took 50.33% of the vote in the November election. [...] This move by Obama has to be driving the Republicans nuts."
• Open Left's Chris Bowers: "With a PVI of R+1, [NY-23] was won by President Obama, and is actually slightly more favorable for Democrats than the NY-20, where Democrat Scott Murphy won a special election two months ago. McHugh himself proved unassailable, even during two consecutive wave elections for Democrats (he won by a little over 20% in both 2006 and 2008), but the seat is now clearly winnable. However, I also worry that many of the same problems that appeared in NY-20 will be repeated in NY-23. Four months ago, Scott Murphy was selected by local party leaders as the Democratic nominee without a primary election. Murphy then immediately promised to apply for membership in the Blue Dogs once he entered Congress. Progressives were thus completely shut out from the process right at the start. Will the same thing happen in NY-23?"

While liberal bloggers are excited to have a special election in NY-23, some of them are annoyed that Obama has appointed yet another GOPer to a key national security position:

• Daily Kos' Steve Singiser: "McHugh may prove to be an inspired choice, but there is no better way to perpetuate that shopworn Cheney-esque meme that Democrats can't be trusted with national security than repeatedly refusing to trust a Democrat with top-tier national security positions."
• MyDD's Josh Orton: "There's clear benefit in appointing Republicans to top military positions in a Democratic administration: it adds bipartisan cover to all sorts of progressive policy, from Iraq withdrawal to repealing DADT (assuming that happens before I'm 50). But a little gnome in the back of my head always complains when Obama appoints a Republican to a national security position like secretary of the Army -- on some level, does it confirm the longstanding conventional wisdom that only Republicans are serious enough to handle our nation's defense?"
• Bowers: "It is not exactly thrilling that yet another major national security position in the Obama administration has gone to a Republican. McHugh scores pretty low on military matters according to progressive punch, and his DW-nominate score hovers around a not-moderate 0.3. After Democrats retook Congress in 2006 largely because of Iraq, and after President Obama won the Democratic nomination significantly because of his early opposition to the war, it gives me a warm feeling for Republicans to still be occupying so many key national security positions."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Mitt Romney Should Run GM

The Atlantic's James Bennet:

"...Over decades now of restructuring plans at [GM], two things have demonstrably not helped get much done: Money and time. The government can't simply give more of each to the automaker. What's needed is forceful, even ruthless, leadership to insist on the changes that everyone -- the managers, the union leadership, the dealers, everyone -- has known were necessary for about 20 years now. [...]

Here's a modest proposal to drive things along: Obama should install Mitt Romney as GM's chairman. Romney grew up outside Detroit and around cars; his father, George W. Romney, saved American Motors from collapse in the 1950s -- by killing failing brands and focusing on compact cars! George Romney successfully took on the Big Three with a 'dinosaur fighter' strategy. The son would bring to GM that legacy, the turnaround expertise and credentials he developed at Bain & Company, and the outsider's eye that GM desperately needs. He would also usefully jack up even further the stakes and the drama of the undertaking.

And he would create a political firewall for the turnaround. An alliance with Romney to save GM would give Obama and [CEO Fritz] Henderson the protection they need to move briskly to shrink the company. Why would Romney do it? Maybe because the chance to renew an American icon, preserve America's manufacturing capacity, and save tens of thousands of jobs would mean something to him. Maybe because it would give him a platform to demonstrate what an effective leader he can be. Maybe because, along the way, it would allow him to save the Republican Party by proving that it stands for something besides...whatever it is that it stands for right now."

LEST WE FORGET: How Not To Order Coffee At Dunkin' Donuts

From Overheard in the Office:

Soccer mom: Can I have a medium iced latte? (pause) Wait, how much is a large?
Employee: $2.99.
Soccer mom: And how much is the medium?
Employee: $2.69.
Soccer mom: So which is the better value?
Employee: Huh?
Soccer mom: How many ounces are in the large? How many are in the medium? What's the cost per ounce of each?
Next customer in line: Here's thirty cents, just give her a large.
Soccer mom: I'm not sure if I want a large.
Rest of very long line: Argh!

6/2: Senate Speculation

Several liberal bloggers are discussing Brian Beutler's interview with Rep. Joe Sestak (D-PA), who plans on challenging Sen. Arlen Specter (D-PA) in next year's primary. During the interview, Sestak previewed some of his possible attacks on Specter, emphasizing the latter's "experience in the Washington senatorial establishment" and questioning whether he can really be trusted. Like most lefty bloggers, Chris Bowers is rooting hard for Sestak, but he wonders "if this message is enough." Josh Orton thinks Sestak knows something we don't know: "Bet money that Sestak's already poll-tested those attacks against Specter, and that they proved effective. If there's enough money behind this primary to get that message out, Arlen's happy numbers from last week might nosedive fairly quick."

In other Senate news, liberal bloggers are pleased that the MN Supreme Court justices were skeptical of the oral arguments made by ex-Sen. Norm Coleman's (R) lawyer. The netroots are fairly confident that the MN Supreme Court will soon rule in favor of Al Franken (D). Markos Moulitsas declares: "Bill O'Reilly's worst nightmare is about to become reality. All the foot dragging and dishonest arguments and bullshit legal filings are about to come to a close, and Democrats will finally have their 60th seat in the U.S. Senate."

What else is happening in the blogosphere?

• The debate over SCOTUS nominee Sonia Sotomayor continues to roil the blogosphere, with conservatives accusing Sotomayor of advocating "racial essentialism" and liberals defending her against those charges. Meanwhile, lefty bloggers (Lemieux, Yglesias, Morrill, Serwer) continue to flay National Journal columnist Stuart Taylor for his criticism of Sotomayor.
• Conservative bloggers (Impomeni, Malkin, Erickson) are accusing Pres. Obama of being inconsistent because he released a statement deploring the murder of KS abortion doctor George Tiller but did not release a statement deploring the murder of a U.S. military recruiter in AR. Meanwhile, liberal bloggers (Sudbay, Steven D, Benen, Willis) are blasting O'Reilly for his repeated attacks on Tiller.
• Gay marriage supporters in the blogosphere (Sullivan, Sudbay, Dayen) are pointing out that ex-VP Dick Cheney's views on gay marriage are more progressive than those of Obama.
• Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK) wrote a blog post urging RedState readers to join him in his re-election effort. Conservative bloggers are pleased that Coburn is running again.
• Several righty bloggers (Goldberg, Hewitt, Ikenson, Cianfrocca, Malkin) are discussing the significance of the GM bankruptcy.

PA SEN: Message-Testing

Liberal bloggers are buzzing about Beutler's interview with Sestak:

• MyDD's Orton: "On paper, Sestak might seem like a long-shot, but yet he's clearly convinced that a primary against Specter could succeed...so what does Joe know that we don't? Last week I speculated about the existence of internal polling that shows Specter vulnerable to negative messaging. Over at TPMDC, Beutler posts an interview that redoubles my suspicion. [...] Bet money that Sestak's already poll-tested those attacks against Specter, and that they proved effective. If there's enough money behind this primary to get that message out, Arlen's happy numbers from last week might nosedive fairly quick."
• Open Left's Bowers: "In an interview with TPMDC, Joe Sestak has started to trace out his message against Arlen Specter. Based on nothing but my own subjective appraisal, I think it has real promise: Specter can't be trusted. [...] The idea that you can't trust Specter is actually reinforced by his party switch. Does Specter care about anything except his own personal drive to power? It will be difficult for Specter to argue against that charge, given that he admitted Republican primary polling influenced his decision to switch parties. Then again, I wonder if this message is enough. Many voters simply assume that politicians are spineless, so a 'flip-flopping' charge doesn't mean much to them. Others might simply like that he flipped, because he now holds their position. So, the 'trust' charge is going to have to connected to something more concrete. Something more like: can you really trust Arlen Specter to fight for you on health care and creating jobs?"

On the right side of the blogosphere, RedState's Brian Faughnan thinks the latest Susquehanna poll offers good news for the likely GOP nominee, ex-Rep. Pat Toomey: "While the conventional wisdom tells us that [Toomey] can't win, he is holding Specter under 50 percent -- a sign of real trouble for a well-known incumbent like Specter. Further, in a low turnout model (as 2010 is likely to be) Toomey is in a dead heat with Specter. For a challenger with relatively low name identification in the state, this poll should be extremely encouraging. Right now Arlen Specter is probably wondering if it's too late to switch back."

MN SEN: Is The Clock Winding Down On Norm?

Liberal bloggers are pleased that the MN Supreme Court justices were skeptical of the oral arguments made by Coleman's lawyer, and they're confident that the Court will soon rule in favor of Franken:

• AMERICAblog's Joe Sudbay: "By almost all accounts, Norm Coleman had a rough day at the Minnesota Supreme Court yesterday. [...] We'll hopefully get the decision soon. And, based on what most observers seem to think, it should go Franken's way."
• Firedoglake's Phoenix Woman: "The UpTake counted up the number of questions that were asked by the Justices to each side. The reason: In the US Supreme Court, a study has shown that the more questions Justices ask of a side, the more likely a side will lose. (The UpTake didn't count the questions asked during Norm's rebuttal.) Final count: Coleman 26, Franken 18. Furthermore, the judges were at times quoting from Team Franken briefs. I think we know where this is going."
• TPM's David Kurtz: "Norm's lawyer got knocked around pretty good by the Minnesota Supreme Court justices in this morning's oral argument. Franken's lawyer got some grilling, too, though not of the same caliber. The smart money all along has been on the Supreme Court ruling for Franken, and nothing happened today to change that assessment, our Eric Kleefeld tells me. If anything, it reinforced it."

Daily Kos' Moulitsas: "The Minnesota Supreme Court heard oral arguments today on sore-loser Norm Coleman's efforts to overthrow the will of the voters just because he wants to stay in office. It didn't go well for him, per election lawyer Rick Hasen. [...] We should have a ruling in short order, and last we heard, Republicans were still claiming they'd appeal a loss to the federal courts. But will Gov. Tim Pawlenty refuse to issue a certificate of election, even if his state's highest court orders him to do it? He could drag his feet and hope that Coleman's people get an injunction from a federal court, but the odds of that happening are fairly slim. Bill O'Reilly's worst nightmare is about to become reality. All the foot dragging and dishonest arguments and bullshit legal filings are about to come to a close, and Democrats will finally have their 60th seat in the U.S. Senate."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: A Tradition Of Diversity

The New Yorker's Jeffrey Toobin (h/t Matthew Yglesias):

"In making nominations to the Supreme Court, Presidents care about diversity, which is a relatively new term for an idea that is nearly as old as the Court itself. In the early days of the republic, when regional disputes were the foremost conflict of the era, nominees were generally defined by their home turfs. So Presidents came to honor an informal tradition of preserving a New England seat, a Virginia seat, a Pennsylvania seat, and a New York seat on the Court. In the nineteenth century, as a torrent of European immigrants transformed American society, religious differences took on a new significance, and Presidents used Supreme Court appointments to recognize the new arrivals' growing power. In 1836, Andrew Jackson made Roger B. Taney the first occupant of what became known as the Catholic seat on the Court, and that tradition carried forward intermittently for more than a century, with Edward White, Joseph McKenna, Pierce Butler, Frank Murphy, and William J. Brennan, Jr., occupying the chair. In 1916, Woodrow Wilson nominated Louis D. Brandeis, establishing the Jewish seat, which later went, with brief overlapping periods, to Benjamin N. Cardozo, Felix Frankfurter, and Abe Fortas. [...]

Still, even Obama, in announcing his choice, shied away from stating the obvious: that Sotomayor was picked in part because she is a Hispanic woman. (The President called his choice an 'important step' but didn't say why.) There was no need for such reticence. Earlier Presidents didn't apologize for preserving the geographic balance, and this one need not be reluctant to acknowledge that Hispanics, the nation's fastest-growing ethnic group, who by 2050 will represent a third of the American people, deserve a place at this most exclusive table for nine. (Nor, of course, did he note that the nomination was in part to satisfy Hispanic voters -- the electoral benefit being another constant among Presidents.) As Barack Obama knows better than most, it is a sign of a mature and healthy society when the best of formerly excluded groups have the opportunity to earn their way to the top."

LEST WE FORGET: Have Her Fax Us a Whole Box, Okay?

From Overheard in the Office:

Boss to secretary: We're out of paper? Hold on, I'll call Julie and have her fax me a sheet and we can photo copy it.

6/1: In Cold Blood

The political blogosphere is buzzing about the murder of KS doctor George Tiller, who was "one of only a few doctors in the nation who performed abortions late in pregnancy." Liberal bloggers are hailing Tiller's courage and condemning what they perceive to be "the re-emergence of violent rightwing extremism". In fact, several lefty bloggers are arguing that this crime vindicates the controversial DHS memo about "right-wing extremism" that angered so many conservatives back in April. Mark Kleiman writes: "Remember how Repubicans in Congress were all in a dither about the DHS report on right-wing extremist organizations as potential terrorist threats? The Tiller gunman was affiliated with at least two of those organizations. In addition to his connection with Operation Rescue, he was a tax protester, a 'sovereign citizen,' and a member of the Freemen."

Meanwhile, conservative bloggers are strongly condemning the murder, although some are annoyed by the left's reaction to the crime. Michelle Malkin complains: "Those who have jumped to score political points before Tiller is even buried are no better than the Phelps family thugs of the 'Westboro Baptist Church' who respect no bounds of civility. [...] Prepare for whitewashed hagiographies of Tiller's career as an abortionist. Prepare for DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano's defenders to gloat about vindication. Prepare for collective demonization of pro-lifers and Christians -- and more gratuitous attempts to tar talk radio, Fox News, and the Tea Party movement as responsible for the heinous crime."

What else is happening in the blogosphere?

• Conservative bloggers (Hanson, Streiff, Johnson, Mirengoff) continue to criticize SCOTUS nominee Sonia Sotomayor's 2001 speech 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." Several right bloggers (Allahpundit, Hinderaker) were pleased to note that the Barack Obama admin. appears to be walking back the "wise Latina woman" comment, while lefty bloggers (Morrill, Scarecrow, digby) accused the Obama admin. of "buy[ing] into a rightwing, false talking point." Meanwhile, lefty bloggers (Serwer, Swopa, Atrios) continue to hammer National Journal columnist Stuart Taylor for his criticism of Sotomayor.
• Conservative bloggers (Erickson, Emanuel, Hawkins) are criticizing NRSC Chair John Cornyn's defense of his endorsement of Gov. Charlie Crist over ex-state House Speaker Marco Rubio in the FL GOP Senate primary. Righty bloggers continue to raise money for Rubio.
• Liberal bloggers (Morrill, Benen, DougJ, publius) are buzzing about the news that Gen. David Petraeus echoed Pres. Obama's rhetoric on Guantanamo Bay and torture during an interview with Fox News. In other national security news, liberal bloggers (McCarter, hilzoy) are criticizing the Obama admin. for opposing "the release of Chinese Muslim detainees at Guantanamo Bay into the United States," while conservative bloggers are praising the Obama admin.'s stance.
• Conservative bloggers (Bandes, Morrissey, Jacobson, Riehl) are criticizing the Obamas for flying to NYC on Saturday night in order to go to dinner and attend a Broadway show.

TILLER: Who's Afraid Of Right-Wing Extremism?

Many liberal bloggers see Tiller's assassination as evidence that right-wing extremism is becoming a real problem:

• Balloon Juice's DougJ: "At what point are we allowed to start worrying about right-wing domestic terrorism?"
• Open Left's Paul Rosenberg: "The murder of Dr. George Tiller is evidence of the re-emergence of violent rightwing extremism, which many observers expected in the wake of [George W.] Bush & [Dick] Cheney's exit from the White House."
• TPM's Josh Marshall: "Does [the] Tiller murder presage a surge in right-wing domestic terrorism?"
• digby: "It seems as if there's somebody shooting up churches and killing cops on the basis of some wingnut obsession every few months now. I wonder why? How many years has it been since there was a left wing terrorist killing in the US?"
• Al Giordano: "The original assassination attempt on Dr. Tiller came eight months into the [Bill] Clinton presidency. The parallel with today's offense ought to be obvious: a pro-choice president takes office and the violent extremists go all crazy, whipped up by some of the same right wing radio talkers today as sixteen years ago."
• Oliver Willis: "Dr. Tiller, as some of you may know, was a regular target of Bill O'Reilly. You've got to wonder: what's next? The wingnut faction is now the driving force on the right of America's political spectrum. They were insane before, but the election of President Obama has seemingly given them the sanction to run wild. Every day Glenn Beck explains to his viewers that Barack Obama is out to get them. Every day Rush Limbaugh feeds the paranoia of his followers, most recently equating Judge Sotomayor to a klansman, lying and saying that the lives of whites are under threat from her. Which disciple of conservative politics will be next to erupt in violence? And who will be the media personality that pulled his or her mental trigger?"
• Kleiman: "Remember how Repubicans in Congress were all in a dither about the DHS report on right-wing extremist organizations as potential terrorist threats? The Tiller gunman was affiliated with at least two of those organizations. In addition to his connection with Operation Rescue, he was a tax protester, a 'sovereign citizen,' and a member of the Freemen."

The Reality-Based Community's Quincy Adams: "It appears that today a U.S.-based Christian terrorist has done what no Al Qaeda related groups have done since 9/11 -- killed an American on US soil. I hope AG [Eric] Holder and the Judiciary committees will address with the FBI whether enough effort is being devoted to infiltrating and taking down fundamentalist networks and groups who have threatened and killed Americans."

TILLER II: The View From The Right

Most conservative bloggers are condemning Tiller's murder:

• Townhall's Hugh Hewitt: "The murder of George Tiller is the eighth time an anti-abortion extremist has killed since 1973, and each time the pro-life movement grieves for the victim and the family of the victim, and for the cause of the unborn which is deeply damaged by violence of any sort, but especially of the worst sort. Christians especially must forcefully condemn that which Christ would certainly denounce."
• Hot Air's Ed Morrissey: "The murder of George Tiller at his church is a heinous crime, without any sense or justice. Regardless of how one feels about George Tiller's profession, his murderer is nothing more than a domestic terrorist -- someone attempting to impose by force a policy that one cannot get in place through democratic means. Tiller's killer is no better than William Ayers, Kathleen Soliah, and Eric Rudolph, people who attempted to use violence for their extremist ends. Those who value life know that murder is the antithesis of the pro-life movement."
• Princeton Univ. prof. Robert P. George: "Whoever murdered George Tiller has done a gravely wicked thing. The evil of this action is in no way diminished by the blood George Tiller had on his own hands. No private individual had the right to execute judgment against him. We are a nation of laws. Lawless violence breeds only more lawless violence."
• Robert Stacy McCain: "Never...does the wise and faithful Christian resort to the kind of lawlessness practiced with such cruelty today in Kansas."

Several righty bloggers are analyzing the political dimensions of the crime:

• Right Wing News' John Hawkins: "[T]he only people who seem genuinely thrilled that Tiller is dead are the liberal bloggers who've been happily using his death to attack Christians, conservatives, and the pro-life movement. That being said, there are some people on the Right who've condemned Tiller's murder, sometimes bloodlessly, and then have gone on to attack abortionists and note the death toll created by abortion. That is a mistake for a simple reason: there's a time and a place for everything. After an event like this, what you don't want to do is unintentionally give people a mixed message. You don't want anyone wondering if the pro-life movement is tacitly approving of these sort of tactics: because we don't."
• Malkin: "Tiller's family is grieving. Those who have jumped to score political points before Tiller is even buried are no better than the Phelps family thugs of the 'Westboro Baptist Church' who respect no bounds of civility. Unfortunately, it's too much to ask the cable news networks and hyper-partisan snipers on the Internet to have the decency to restrain themselves. Prepare for a wall-to-wall onslaught of gleeful finger-pointing on the Left and heated responses on the Right. Prepare for whitewashed hagiographies of Tiller's career as an abortionist. Prepare for DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano's defenders to gloat about vindication. Prepare for collective demonization of pro-lifers and Christians -- and more gratuitous attempts to tar talk radio, Fox News, and the Tea Party movement as responsible for the heinous crime."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Will Bush-Bashing Work In 2010?

AmSpec Blog's Philip Klein:

"Chris Cillizza notes that in the 2010 Senate races, Democrats are once again trying to use the strategy of tying Republican candidates to former President Bush. Much of the article focuses on whether the practice will get too old and whether Bush's popularity will improve like other former presidents, but at the end of the day, the effectiveness of such an approach will depend on how Americans view President Obama. If Obama is still broadly popular, the economy has improved, and things are relatively stable on the foreign policy/national security front, then I think Democrats will be able to run campaigns saying, 'If you like the way the country is heading now, then don't vote for Republican X, because he wants to return to the old, failed Bush policies.' However, if Obama's popularity is starting to wane, the economy is in turmoil, and/or there's a major international crisis or national security incident, any Democrat who starts in with the Bush bashing will just look desperate, like they're trying to distract attention from the current administration's problems."

LEST WE FORGET: Changing Channel On Local Bar's TV More Of A Process Than Area Man Anticipated

From The Onion:

"CHEYENNE, WY -- Although no one at the Bleachers Bar and Grill seemed to be paying attention to the television set, the act of getting bartender Brian Smith to press a button on a remote control and change its channel was somehow far more difficult than patron Arthur Klein had anticipated. 'Boy, I don't know, that's going to be tough,' Smith said following the simple, straightforward request. 'That one's on the satellite and I don't really know how to use it. Plus some of the regulars might drop by a little later and they'll probably want to watch the ball game.' When pressed again to change the channel, Smith reportedly told Klein that the bar didn't carry CBS."