June 02, 2009

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.

Posted by Ian Faerstein at June 2, 2009 12:30 PM