7/14: Sessions Plays To The Base

In his list of "winners and losers" from Day 1 of the Sonia Sotomayor confirmation hearings, The Washington Post's Chris Cillizza placed Senate Judiciary Committee ranking member Jeff Sessions (R-AL) in both categories. According to Cillizza, Sessions emerged from Day 1 as a winner because "Republicans, to a person, cheered [his] aggressive tone in his introductory remarks." However, Cillizza also labeled Sessions a loser because "Democrats insisted that [his] tone was way over the top, coming across as mean-spirited rather than merely challenging."

Cillizza's analysis mirrors the blogosphere's reaction to Sessions' combative opening statement. Liberal bloggers thought it was "pretty rich" that Sessions -- whose '86 nomination to a federal court was rejected by the Senate Judiciary Committee due to accusations of racial insensitivity -- would argue that Sotomayor displayed "prejudice" against white firefighters in the Ricci case. Armando Llorens thinks Sessions "play[ed] the Angry White Southern Male to a tee" while Matthew Yglesias declares: "I would pay good money to hear Sonia Sotomayor say, 'Senator Sessions, I think it's ironic to be facing these questions from a man whose judicial nomination was rejected by this very committee on the grounds that he's a huge racist.'" Conservative bloggers, on the other hand, thought Sessions was "fantastic" and praised him for having "laid out clearly and eloquently the difference in judicial philosophy between Republicans and Democrats." If Sessions is indeed "play[ing] base politics over Sotomayor" (as NBC's First Read suggested this morning), then he appears to be doing a good job of it.

What else is happening in the blogosphere?

• Liberal bloggers (Chait, Fernholz, Drum, Yglesias, Clarke) are criticizing AK Gov. Sarah Palin's (R) Washington Post editorial on cap-and-trade, while conservative bloggers (Gateway Pundit, Morrissey, Lane) are praising it. Meanwhile, Palin won 70% of the vote in a Hot Air poll of WH '12 contenders -- destroying ex-MA Gov. Mitt Romney in the process.
• Prominent liberal blogger Jane Hamsher is criticizing Reps. Steve Cohen (D-TN) and Joe Courtney (D-CT) for refusing to pledge to vote against any health care bill that doesn't include a public option. Meanwhile, Chris Bowers supports the House proposal to pay for health care reform by raising taxes on people who earn more than $350K/year.
• Liberal bloggers (Morrill, Benen, DougJ, digby) are blasting one of their favorite targets, the AP's Ron Fournier, for his latest piece about Sotomayor.

SESSIONS: Glass Houses

Liberal bloggers are arguing that Sessions -- who has reportedly made racially insensitive comments in the past -- is in no position to accuse Sotomayor of "prejudice":

• Think Progress' Yglesias: "I would pay good money to hear Sonia Sotomayor say, 'Senator Sessions, I think it's ironic to be facing these questions from a man whose judicial nomination was rejected by this very committee on the grounds that he's a huge racist.'"
• The Washington Monthly's Steve Benen: "He can go through the motions if he likes, but to hear Jeff Sessions accuse anyone of 'prejudice' is pretty ridiculous. All it does is offer a chance to revisit Sessions' own lengthy record."
• AMERICAblog's Joe Sudbay: "Jefferson Beauregard Sessions III set an ugly tone -- to hear him express concern about prejudice is rich. (Note to Sessions: Look in the mirror.)"
• TalkLeft's Big Tent Democrat: "Sessions plays the Angry White Southern Male to a tee -- even attacks Sotomayor for being Puerto Rican -- his attack on the Puerto Rican Legal Defense Fund was blatant bigotry. He lived up to all my expectations."
• TAPPED's Adam Serwer: "Remarkably, Sessions, who called the ACLU and the NAACP 'communist-inspired' as an Alabama District Attorney in the 1980s, called the Puerto Rican Legal Defense Fund (which he had previously referred to as 'radical') a 'fine organization' before suggesting that Sotomayor's ruling in the Ricci case was due to Sotomayor's work for the PRLDEF. Sessions declared that 'Judge Sotomayor's empathy towards one group of firefighters resulted in prejudice towards another'. In other words, Sessions spent his opening statement calling Judge Sotomayor a racist. That's pretty rich coming from a man who once thought white civil rights lawyers were 'race traitors.'"

SESSIONS II: You Tell Her, Jeff!

Conservative bloggers, on the other hand, praised Sessions' opening statement:

• NRO's Wendy Long: "Senator Sessions was fantastic. He was personally gracious and statesmanlike, yet he made the strong statement that 'our legal system is at a dangerous crossroads'..."
• Power Line's John Hinderaker: "[Sessions] laid out clearly and eloquently the difference in judicial philosophy between Republicans and Democrats."
• The Heritage Foundation's Brian Darling: "This is Sessions' first high profile hearing as Ranking Member and Sessions has delivered a strong statement explaining the differences between a conservative and liberal view of the proper role of a federal judge."
• Hot Air's Ed Morrissey: "Sessions hits exactly on the problem of 'empathy' as a model for judicial action. When judges start tweaking their rulings based on the relative sympathy of the plaintiff or the defendant, they deviate from the rule of law into the rule of whim -- and even worse, the rule of politically-correct bias. Judges should impartially act according to the law, and not their sympathies."

Meanwhile, several conservative bloggers were annoyed by Sen. Lindsey Graham's (R-SC) prediction that barring "a complete meltdown, [Sotomayor is] going to get confirmed":

• Power Line's Paul Mirengoff: "For the first time in the memory of most, we have a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on a Supreme Court nominee in which Sen. Arlen Specter is not participating as a Republican. Unfortunately, the Republican committee membership still includes Sen. Lindsey Graham, the Arlen Specter of the South. And in his opening statement, Graham served up a cornpone rendition of Specter. Graham opined that, barring a meltdown, Judge Sotomayor wil be confirmed. That may be true, but shouldn't Graham's role be to provide analysis about whether she should be confirmed, not predictions about whether she will be?"
• Michelle Malkin: "I think Graham's Kabuki act is rather transparent. He'll wait for Sotomayor to reassure him that she can be impartial, and after all his obligatory sound and fury, he will vote for her."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Is The Clock Ticking On Health Care Reform?

Ex-Bill Clinton Labor Sec. Robert Reich:

"Universal health insurance won't happen unless [Barack] Obama can light a fire under the Senate Finance Committee this week. Within the next two weeks, the Committee must report out a bill that contains a public option and a credible source of money (either limiting deductions of the wealthy to 28 percent or capping tax-free employer-provided health care, or some of both). Obama then has to get both the Senate and the House (which reports out a bill today) to approve their respective bills before August 7, when Congress heads home for recess.

Why is timing so important? Because the health-care clock is ticking, and doesn't have many weeks left. Universal health care is so complicated -- touching on so much of the economy, stepping on the toes of so many vested interests -- that to allow the bills to languish past recess risks the entire goal. Speed is essential. Recall that after Bill Clinton was elected, universal health insurance looked inevitable. A year later, it was doomed. As Lyndon Johnson warned his staff after the 1964 landslide, 'every day while I'm in office, I'm gonna lose votes.'

Republicans don't want any bill. Blue Dog Democrats are afraid of the costs of any bill. The AMA, private insurers, and pharmaceutical companies would be delighted if universal health care died. If bills aren't passed in the House and Senate before August 7, the fights in both chambers over the public option and money will carry over into the fall, where they'll become more intense and more prolonged. Obama won't have a bill on his desk before the end of the end of the year. That's a death sentence for health-care reform. The gravitational pull of the mid-term elections of 2010 will frighten off Blue Dogs and delight Republicans."

LEST WE FORGET: AIG Bonus Recipients Upbeat About Economy

The Huffington Post's Andy Borowitz:

"In a sign that the economic stimulus may be beginning to work, AIG executives who have received multimillion-dollar bonuses in recent days now say they are upbeat about the national economy.

'I was definitely feeling negative about the economy last year, when I lost the company billions of dollars and all,' says Josh Harbock, an AIG executive who just cashed a seven-figure bonus check. 'But now I'm starting to feel like things are beginning to turn a corner.'

Mr. Harbock says that his consumer confidence has also taken a positive turn since receiving his bonus check, which totaled $5.4 million.

'I was tightening my belt the last few months, but now I think I'm going to buy a house in the Hamptons,' he says."