September 30, 2009

9/30: Down, But Not Defeated

Although the netroots expected the Senate Finance Committee to reject the public option amendments being offered by Sens. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and Nelson Rockefeller (D-WV), they're still upset about it. Liberal bloggers are particularly angry at the three Dems who voted against both amendments: Max Baucus (D-MT), Kent Conrad (D-ND), and Blanche Lincoln (D-AR). David Dayen writes: "Now we know which Democrats want to protect the insurance industry at the expense of people."

That said, liberal bloggers don't believe that the public option's prospects are nearly as bleak as some observers are suggesting. Because Sens. Tom Carper (D-DE) and Bill Nelson (D-FL) both voted in favor of the more cautious public option proposed by Schumer, liberal bloggers are confident that at least 50 senators are willing to vote for a bill that includes this type of provision. The big question, then, is whether any Dems would join the GOPers in filibustering a bill that includes a Schumer-type public option. Lefty bloggers are warning Dems that they would consider such a move "tantamount to mutiny".

What else is happening in the blogosphere?

• Liberal bloggers (Lewison, Benen, Steven D, Aravosis) are criticizing Rep. Trent Franks (R-AZ) for calling Pres. Obama "an enemy of humanity" and urging Obama to release his birth certificate. Meanwhile, conservative bloggers (Allahpundit, Erickson) are criticizing Rep. Alan Grayson (D-FL) for declaring: "If you get sick, America, the Republican health care plan is this: Die quickly."
• Liberal bloggers (Kurtz, Morrill, Dayen, Benen, Yglesias) are mocking Sen. John Ensign (R-NV) for arguing that U.S. health care is superior to European health care "if you take out gun accidents and auto accidents."
• Conservative bloggers (Malkin, Jessup, Morrissey) continue to criticize Obama for traveling to Denmark in order to support Chicago's bid for the 2016 Summer Olympics.

HEALTH CARE REFORM: You Call Yourselves Democrats?

Although liberal bloggers expected the Senate Finance Committee to reject Schumer's and Rockefeller's public option amendments, they're still angry at the Dems who voted against those amendments:

• Daily Kos' Markos Moulitsas: "Why are 'fiscally conservative' Dems and Republicans opposing a money-saving public option?"
• Open Left's David Sirota: "In case you were looking for a good, succinct mathematical example of what corruption really looks like, consider this: (1.) The latest poll shows two-thirds of Americans back a robust public option. (2.) Two-thirds of the Senate Finance Committee just voted down a robust public option. I'd say that just about sums it up: On issues of economic and corporate power, you can basically take the majority percentage of public support for a given measure and expect to get that many Senate votes against it."
• Oliver Willis: "So, 5 Democrats voted with the Republicans against the Rockefeller public option. Good job. In 2006 and 2008 people circled around the Democrats in congress to give them their majority to make reform in America. In the realm of health care, they've taken the ball to the 20 yard line then took a knee. In 2012, we'll be on the front lines advocating for President Obama's second term. But next year, the Senate Dems are well-on the path of telling us to stay home."

Lefty bloggers mocked the logic employed by Baucus, who repeatedly claimed that even though he personally supported a public option, he felt compelled to vote against it because it wouldn't receive 60 votes in the full Senate:

• Daily Kos' mcjoan: "Max Baucus is a tool. 'We can't get 60 votes for a public option so I have to vote against it.' Well, gee, Max, maybe if you voted for it and actually worked for it, you could get your fellow ConservaDems on board. You failed, Max. On more levels than we've even been able to count."
• dday: "It's the 'innocent bystander' theory of government. Why, if only a Senator like Max Baucus had a vote on the bill, surely it could attract the necessary votes!"
• TalkLeft's Big Tent Democrat: "I would love for Rockefeller to vote No on [the final Finance Committee bill] and intone, in open mockery of Baucus, that he is voting no on the bill because it does not have 60 votes."
• AMERICAblog's Joe Sudbay: "Baucus proves over and over that he's really a fool. It's pathetic that the White House gave him so much control over the process -- and [WH CoS] Rahm Emanuel and [WH aide] Jim Messina did give Baucus way too much power."

Liberal bloggers also criticized Conrad:

• Big Tent Democrat: "While Max Baucus continues to look like a fool, the smoke has certainly cleared on Kent Conrad - he is a vehement opponent of a public option and always has been. All his protestations to the contrary, in the words of Don Corleone, it was always Conrad."
• mcjoan: "One thing that that's clear from today's Finance Committee votes on the public option: Kent Conrad is the problem for the Dems. He provided the cover today for Lincoln, who was virtually invisible, to vote against the Schumer 'level playing field' public option that would have done away with Conrad's supposed problem with Rockefeller's amendment -- that it was tied to Medicare rates. If that was truly Conrad's big problem with the bill, he should have had no problem with Schumer's bill."

HEALTH CARE REFORM II: Give Us An Up-Or-Down Vote!

Even though the Finance Committee rejected Schumer's and Rockefeller's amendments, liberal bloggers are still hopeful that the final Senate bill will include a public option -- assuming that no Dems join the GOPers in filibustering it:

• digby: "Carper and Nelson flipped on the Shumer public option amendment, leaving only Conrad, Lincoln and Baucus voting against it. This is good news believe it or not. It indicates that there are 51 votes for a public option in the senate. The question most certainly is whether or not the president can change their minds. And frankly, if he doesn't have enough juice to at least hold them together for one cloture vote then I have to wonder if he has any real juice at all. Every one of these corporate lackeys can vote against the final bill if they dare. Assuming they can bring Byrd in to do it, all they need to do is break a Republican filibuster and 'allow an up or down vote.'"
• mcjoan: "Progressives in the Senate need to take a page from their House colleagues. Tell [Senate Maj. Leader] Harry Reid and Max Baucus that there aren't 60 votes for public option-less bill. There are certainly more Democrats who support the public option than who do not. With that strong majority, Reid has no excuse not to be an enforcer over breaking a filibuster."
• Big Tent Democrat: "Finance is going to report a no-PO bill but then Senate leadership has to merge it with the HELP bill. The ConservaDems will threaten not to vote for cloture. Will Reid call their bluff? What if PO supporters start making the same threat? All it takes is 1 or possibly 2. If Senate leadership reports a PO-included bill to the floor, then the PO game is won. If it is not, then we should whip Progressives in the Senate to filibuster it (just like the Progressive Caucus in the House.)"
• Open Left's Chris Bowers: "It is all up to the White House now. If it pushes for a public option to be included in the health care bill sent to the Senate floor, then a public option will pass as part of health care reform (at that point, all we would need are 60 votes for cloture, and from what I hear we have 57 already). However, if it allows a health care bill to go to the floor without a public option, it is pretty unlikely that a public option will pass as part of health care reform."

BooMan: "The ideal situation from a parliamentary point of view is to include the HELP version of the public option in the base bill, and then force the opponents to strip it out with an amendment. But that might not work out for the best. For example, if the Senate has a knock-down drag-out fight over the public option and defeats it, it will be harder to get them to turn around and support it if it comes back at them in the Conference Report. The liberal majority in the Senate Democratic Caucus might be better served to save their ammunition. Pass whatever can pass without a lot of fuss and then fight like hell to include the House's public option in the Conference Report. I could go either way on the strategy. The most important thing is that the progressives in the House hold firm in their pledge to vote against a Conference Report that doesn't have a public option. They must make sure it is included in the House bill and they must prevail for its inclusion in the Report."

Not every liberal blogger is impressed by Schumer's public option, however. FiveThirtyEight's Nate Silver writes:

"Preventing the public option from charging Medicare rates may weaken it as much as adding a trigger. Nelson and Carper, who had indicated they'd support a public option only if it included a trigger, voted for the trigger-less version from Schmuer. This may reflect a point I had made a couple of weeks ago: it's not clear to me that a Schumer-type public option which lacks a trigger but must abide by 'level playing field' provisions is any better than one that contains a trigger but could charge Medicare rates if it were enacted."

HEALTH CARE REFORM III: Who Says We Need 60 Votes?

Liberal bloggers were surprised -- and worried -- when Schumer said, "We don't have the 60 votes on the floor for the public option":

• The Washington Post' Ezra Klein: "There are two questions here. The first is '60 votes for what?' Do they not have 60 votes in favor of a health-care plan that includes a public option? Or do they not have 60 votes against a filibuster of a health-care plan that includes a public option? If it's the former, that's okay: You only need 51. If it's the latter, that's a bigger problem. But I'd be interested to hear which Democrats will publicly commit to filibustering Barack Obama's health-care reform bill. If that's such a popular position back home, why aren't more Democrats voicing it loudly?"
• Firedoglake's Jane Hamsher: "Chuck Schumer and Max Baucus just said that there were not 60 votes for the public option in the Senate. The Public Option doesn't need 60 votes. It needs 51. That is, unless the GOP filibusters it. What Baucus and Schumer are saying -- explicitly -- is that there are Democrats who would support a GOP filibuster to keep the public option from having an up-or-down vote on the floor of the Senate. They are saying that there are Democrats who would vote with the GOP to block a vote on something that the President says he supports -- a public option. That is a very serious charge. It's tantamount to party treason. Schumer and Baucus need to say who these members are immediately."

Liberal bloggers are warning Dem senators who oppose a public option not to join a GOP filibuster of a bill that includes a public option:

• Atrios: "The real test will be when Dems do or don't filibuster a good health care bill or amendments. I'll be rooting for any of those who do to lose. If 60 votes doesn't mean shit, then... who needs'em."
• MyDD's Jerome Armstrong: "The big question [is]: would any Democrat not vote to bring about cloture for the up-or-down vote to happen? I would consider such a thing tantamount to mutiny. Is there a precedent for such a thing happening?"
• Think Progress' Matthew Yglesias: "[C]onsider two separate questions. One is if there's a health care bill on the Senate floor that does not feature a public option and an amendment is brought to the floor to add one, are there 60 votes to break a filibuster and pass the amendment? Another question is whether if you brought a bill to the floor which included a public option, would Democrats filibuster the overall bill? Those are separate things. To say 'I'm against such-and-such' is not equivalent to saying 'I'm against any bill that includes such-and-such.' Obviously you can't get 60 people to each get their way on each and every provision of health care. Is Blanche Lincoln so hostile to a public option that she would filibuster a massive health care package she otherwise likes just to avoid it?"

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: 2009's Results Can Have A Big Impact On 2010's Recruitment

NRO's Jim Geraghty:

"I had heard a version of this statistic, but wanted to find the precise numbers: '51 of the 74 Republican freshmen who won House seats in 1994, when the GOP won control of Congress, signed on as candidates in the two weeks following the election of Republican governors in Virginia and New Jersey in 1993.'

That was the year Christie Whitman and George Allen won (along with Rudy Giuliani as mayor of New York); one wonders how many potential Republican candidates will be willing to make it official if, 35 days from now, we're talking about Governor-elect Chris Christie and Governor-elect Bob McDonnell? And how many will hesitate a bit if Jon Corzine and/or Creigh Deeds pull off come-from-behind victories?"

LEST WE FORGET: Pepsi To Cease Advertising

From The Onion:

"PURCHASE, NY -- PepsiCo sent shockwaves through the carbonated beverage industry Monday when the multibillion dollar corporation announced that it would cease all advertising of its popular soda product, effective immediately.

'We know it's good, and everyone's pretty happy with the overall taste, so why spend all our time worrying about what other people think?' PepsiCo CEO Indra K. Nooyi told reporters during a press conference at the company's corporate headquarters. 'Frankly, it just feels sort of weird and desperate to put all this energy into telling people what to drink. If they don't like it, then they don't like it.' [...]

Executives then released a statement to shareholders declaring that PepsiCo is now 'what it should have been all along: a company that just makes soda, and doesn't get caught up in trying to make everyone like it.'"

Posted by Ian Faerstein at 01:00 PM

September 29, 2009

9/29: It's Public Option Day!

Several liberal bloggers are live-blogging today's Senate Finance Committee markup of the health care bill. Although most lefty bloggers expect the committee to reject the public option amendments being introduced by Sens. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and Nelson Rockefeller (D-WV), they still believe it's important that the committee members debate and vote on these amendments. Joan McCarter explains:

"[G]etting as much Dem support for any of [these amendments] in this committee as possible is important. It will reinforce the message and the reality that the majority of Democrats -- you know, the actual party that is in the majority in the Senate -- support the public option, and that it needs to be in the bill the Senate sends to conference."

What else is happening in the blogosphere?

• Conservative bloggers (Malkin, Jessup) and even some liberal bloggers (Willis, Lemos) are criticizing Pres. Obama's decision to travel to Denmark in order to support Chicago's bid for the 2016 Summer Olympics. Several righty bloggers (Ponnuru, Geraghty, Allahpundit) suspect that Obama is only going to Denmark "because he knows that Chicago has already won."
• Liberal bloggers (Moulitsas, Llorens) are arguing that Blue Dog Rep. Jim Cooper (D-TN) is too conservative for his district and deserves a primary challenge.
• Liberal bloggers (Hamsher, McCarter) are pointing out that a sizeable number of Blue Dog Dems have previously expressed support for a public health insurance option.

HEALTH CARE REFORM: Senate Signals

Liberal bloggers were furious yesterday when The New York Times reported that Senate Dem leaders had already decided that the combined Senate health care bill wouldn't include a public option (Senate Maj. Leader Harry Reid's spokesperson subsequently disputed the Times' report):

• Daily Kos' mcjoan: "This morning's NYTimes breaks the news that we already suspected: Harry Reid will let President Snowe be the decider on healthcare reform."
• AMERICAblog's Joe Sudbay: "[ME Sen.] Olympia Snowe rules the world of the professional Democrats here in DC. It's just astonishing how much power they give away to her. And, even if Snowe is critical (and she shouldn't be), do 'Senate Democratic aides' need to broadcast that in the New York Times? By doing this, the Democrats not only give away power to one GOP Senator, they're ceding good policy."

Liberal bloggers still expect the Finance Committee to reject Schumer's and Rockefeller's public option amendments, however, so they're currently discussing how to ensure that the final bill includes a public option. Chris Bowers thinks "the only viable way to get a public option in health care reform legislation will be for a public option to be included by the Budget committee when they merge the HELP committee and Finance Committee bills." Bowers then argues that the only way to ensure that the Budget Committee includes a public option in its combined bill is for progressive activists to pressure Reid.

In other Senate news, liberal bloggers are blasting Sen. Ben Nelson (D-NE) for declaring that the health care bill needs at least 65 Senate votes in order to have "legitimacy":

• The Washington Monthly's Steve Benen: "By [Nelson's] logic, health care reform legislation isn't 'legitimate' unless some opponents of health care reform vote for it. Nelson is deliberately creating an environment in which the biggest progressive policy achievement in a generation won't be impressive enough, because conservative Republicans didn't like it."
• TPM's David Kurtz: "For the record, Nelson first won election in 2000 with just 51% of the vote and won re-election in 2006 just shy of his new superduper legitimacy standard, with 64%."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: The Enemy Of My Enemy Is My Friend

NRO's Mark Steyn:

"...Our old comrade David Frum wrote a piece called 'Whose Side Is Glenn Beck On?' Well, in the space of a week Beck claimed the scalps of [ex-WH adviser] Van Jones, ACORN and that Yosi Sergant guy at the NEA, none of whom should ever have been anywhere near the corridors of power but who'd still be there if it weren't for Beck. So whoever's side he is on, it seems pretty clear he's not on the Obama administration's. Hence, Media Matters's sudden obsession with such pressing concerns as Glenn's mom's three decade-old suicide.

The media would like the American Right to be represented by the likes of [ex-KS Sen.] Bob Dole and [AZ Sen.] John McCain, decent old sticks who know how to give dignified concession speeches. Last time round, we went along with their recommendation. If you want to get rave reviews for losing gracefully, that's the way to go. If you want to win, look at whom the Democrats and their media chums are so frantic to destroy: That's the better guide to what they're really worried about."

LEST WE FORGET: Palin's Memoir Due In November; English Edition To Follow

The Huffington Post's Andy Borowitz:

"NEW YORK (The Borowitz Report) -- A memoir by former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin will be published this November, with an English translation due shortly thereafter, her publisher confirmed today.

According to Carol Foyler, a spokesperson for the publisher, translators are working 'around the clock' to translate Ms. Palin's text into English.

'We have hired the best linguists in the country, but this is still hard work,' Ms. Foyler acknowledged. 'It must have been easier to crack the Enigma code in World War II.'

Ms. Foyler said that the publishing company was 'delighted' with Ms. Palin's manuscript and 'deeply relieved that she didn't quit in the middle of it.'"

Posted by Ian Faerstein at 12:30 PM

September 28, 2009

9/28: Murder In Kentucky

The blogosphere buzz about the gruesome death of a U.S. census field worker is growing louder. The census worker -- a 51-year-old single father named Bill Sparkman -- "was found bound and gagged, with his Census Bureau identification card taped to his head." Liberal bloggers are suggesting that Sparkman's death "may have been a politically-motivated slaying," and they're blaming conservatives such as Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN) who have attacked the Census. Meanwhile, righty bloggers are accusing their lefty counterparts of "exploiting every bloody opportunity to redefine conservative political expression as an incitement to violence."

What else is happening in the blogosphere?

• Liberal bloggers (Sirota, digby) are criticizing the Obama admin. following reports that it offered a job to ex-CO House Speaker Andrew Romanoff (D) in a failed effort to deter him from challenging Sen. Michael Bennet (D). In other SEN news, lefty bloggers are excited about rumors that Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA) may be getting a top-tier Dem challenger.
• Conservative bloggers (Stevens, RS Insider) are criticizing CA SEN candidate Carly Fiorina (R) for skipping last weekend's CA GOP convention.
• Liberal bloggers (Levine, Greenwald) are excited that the Accountability Now PAC is recruiting a candidate to challenge Blue Dog Rep. Jim Cooper (D-TN).
• Conservative bloggers (Malkin, Johnson, Liebau, Lane, Reynolds) are accusing the New York Times of being biased in favor of liberals after its public editor criticized the newspaper for being slow to cover the ACORN controversy. However, liberal bloggers (Benen, Marshall, Black) are complaining that the Times is taking the wrong lesson from the controversy.

SPARKMAN: A Political Statement?

Several liberal bloggers are suggesting that Sparkman's murder was politically motivated:

• The Reality-Based Community's Mark Kleiman: "I can't think of an interpretation of taping the victim's Census ID to the body other than as a political statement; if the man had just stumbled across a meth lab, he might have been killed, but hardly in such a dramatic fashion. Unless and until contrary facts emerge, I'm prepared to call this a terrorist incident, and to say that Glenn Beck* very likely has Bill Sparkman's blood on his tongue and lips. Here's hoping that the President will make a full-throated statement that all the power of the Federal government stands behind each and every Federal employee attacked for doing his job."
• The Washington Monthly's Steve Benen: "As was the case earlier in the week, it's still worth emphasizing that this is an open investigation and additional information is needed before reaching any conclusions. [...] That said, what we've learned thus far is gruesome, and continues to raise the prospect of what may have been a politically-motivated slaying. [...] The record on that front is clear -- Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.), Glenn Beck, and Neal Boortz have invested considerable energy in trying to convince confused, right-wing activists that the Census and those who work for the Census Bureau are not to be trusted, and may even be dangerous. Here's hoping that their reckless and irresponsible rhetoric did not have deadly consequences."
• MyDD's desmoinesdem: "If conservative politicians and opinion leaders keep stoking fears about the government using census data to steal from or perhaps even round up law-abiding citizens, I am concerned that mentally unstable individuals will commit further acts of violence against census-takers next year. Republicans should condemn the hatemongers and make clear that the census is not only permitted, but required under the Constitution."

SPARKMAN II: Stop Pointing Fingers!

Conservative bloggers are accusing their liberal counterparts of trying to politicize Sparkman's death:

• Legal Insurrection's William A. Jacobson: "We do not know how or why Bill Sparkman -- a part time Census worker -- was killed in Kentucky. Let me repeat this, since this is the internet and lower case lettering does not carry any meaning: WE DO NOT KNOW HOW OR WHY BILL SPARKMAN WAS KILLED. [...] Left-wing politicians and blogs appear to be hoping for an act of right-wing violence so that they can justify their attacks on ordinary citizens who are against the overly intrusive and destructive Democratic policies. The problem is, right-wing extremists have not obliged, fortunately. So in the absence of right-wing death squads, the left-wing agitators invent facts and events to fit their narrative. So here's my moderate voice on the subject: You are a bunch of ghouls who would love to do nothing more than perform a political dance on the grave of poor Bill Sparkman, about whom you really don't give a damn."
• Michelle Malkin: "They did this with the George Tiller shooting and the Holocaust Museum shooting and the Binghamton immigration center shooting. Motives had yet to be determined and bodies were still warm, but that did not stop the stampede from exploiting every bloody opportunity to redefine conservative political expression as an incitement to violence. [...] The criminalization of conservatism continues."

Meanwhile, conservative blogger Dan Riehl speculates that Sparkman may have been "a child predator" -- a suggestion that drew strong condemnation from other bloggers.

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: "Rising Rightroots And Declining Netroots Now at Parity (or Better)"

The Next Right's Patrick Ruffini:

"Lost in the hubbub about the tea parties, the health care town hall protests, [SC Rep.] Joe Wilson, and the ACORN sting is the outcome of a long-simmering meta debate about the vibrancy of the grassroots right and its capacity to organize online. Along with a slew of other bad political indicators, the perception that the GOP might be stuck in a permanent Luddite rut reached its peak with the election of Obama and the role the Internet played in his victory. Nearly a year later, not only have things turned around, but they've done so faster than anyone could have dreamed or imagined in those post-election doldrums.

First, hundreds of thousands of people showed up, flash mob-like, at Tea Parties not even three months after Obama Nation reached its apogee with the inauguration. [...] In August, the rightroots gained further velocity with the health care protests. This was significant in that it was the first head to head match with OFA and the unions, and it was no contest. The third key moment came when Joe Wilson was able to raise as much (if not more) money than his Democratic opponent after the 'You lie!' outburst. The left's immediate rallying around Rob Miller was a textbook netroots play, aided by ready-made infrastructure (an ActBlue page ready to accept contributions without crashing and display real-time feedback). For a Republican -- especially one deemed to be on the 'wrong' side of a PR war -- to have been competitive in money raised with a netroots Democrat is something that simply would not have happened in the [George W.] Bush years. [...] Finally, the [James] O'Keefe/[Hannah] Giles video bust of ACORN -- the right's biggest media coup since Rathergate -- showed the right to be getting its sea legs in investigative journalism, a space virtually patented by the left in recent years.

What we seem to be witnessing is the Feiler Faster Thesis in action, with a robust grassroots opposition to Obama, aided by the Internet, taking shape far more quickly than anyone could have predicted, and comparatively speaking, in a far more timely fashion than it took the left to gets its act together against Bush."

LEST WE FORGET: You Set 'Em Up, I Knock 'Em Down

From Overheard in New York:

Kid #1: It's so hard!
Kid #2: That's what she said!
(Kid #3 high fives Kid #2)
Kid #1: That sucked.
Kid #2: So does your mom!
Kid #3: Yeah! (high fives Kid #2)

Posted by Ian Faerstein at 12:49 PM

September 25, 2009

9/25: It Ain't Over 'Til It's Over

In a legislative fight as drawn out and complicated as the current debate over health care reform, it's not surprising that individual comments from lawmakers and WH officials can have a major impact on the mood of the grassroots. On Wednesday, liberal bloggers were feeling pessimistic about the prospects of passing a health care bill with a public option, thanks to comments from anonymous WH staff and OMB dir. Peter Orszag. Today, however, the netroots are feeling a bit more hopeful, thanks to comments from three Dem senators. First of all, NY Sen. Chuck Schumer and WV Sen. Nelson Rockefeller expressed confidence that the final health care bill will include a public option -- which surprised and cheered lefty bloggers. OH Sen. Sherrod Brown subsequently made a similar prediction, which also pleased the netroots. Although liberal bloggers doubt that the Finance Committee will include a public option in its bill, they're still hopeful that a public option will find its way into the health care bill that Pres. Obama ultimately signs.

What else is happening in the blogosphere?

• Liberal bloggers (Klein, Benen) are pleased that MA Gov. Deval Patrick (D) appointed Paul G. Kirk Jr. (D) to the late Edward Kennedy's (D) Senate seat. Now, lefty bloggers (Bowers, Sudbay) are waiting to see whether all 60 members of the Senate Dem caucus will vote for cloture on a health care bill.
• Conservative bloggers (Geraghty, Rubin, Ledeen) are criticizing Obama's foreign policy (again) following reports that Iran is building a secret nuclear plant. In contrast, Andrew Sullivan is very impressed by Obama's approach to Iran.
• Conservative bloggers (Lane, Reynolds, Goldberg) are pleased that NEA comm. dir. Yosi Sergant resigned after coming under fire from the right for encouraging artists to support Obama's agenda.
• Liberal bloggers (Lemos, TBogg) are criticizing CA GOV candidate Meg Whitman (R) for "regularly skipp[ing] elections in California and several other states where she lived and worked." Meanwhile, NRO's Larry Kudlow complains that Whitman is "vague on tax policy" and praises her GOP primary rival, Steve Poizner.
• According to (unscientific) polls on the conservative blogs Instapundit and Right Wing News, ex-AK Gov. Sarah Palin (R) is far and away the righty blogosphere's top choice to become the '12 GOP WH nominee.

HEALTH CARE REFORM: Reasons For Optimism?

Lefty bloggers were surprised and pleased by Sens. Schumer and Rockfeller's prediction that the final health care bill will include a public option:

• Daily Kos' mcjoan: "That growing certitude in the Senate could be an outgrowth of the developments we've seen in the last few days in the House: the Progressive's continued strong stance on the public option, Speaker Pelosi's refusal of triggers, and the Blue Dogs' weakening opposition. Even Emanuel recognizes that the House will have a public option. Taken together, there is a reason for optimism."
• The Washington Monthly's Steve Benen: "That sounds pretty exciting, but if I were a betting man, I wouldn't put money on the public option getting out of the Finance Committee. Rockefeller said there's a 'good shot' that the panel will approve the measure. I'm not sure how -- Dems have a 13-10 margin on the committee, but at least two Dems (Conrad and [AR Sen. Blanche] Lincoln) oppose the provision, and even Chairman Max Baucus is likely to vote against it. Indeed, it's long been assumed that the public option has no shot in the committee, and would have to be considered later in the process. Nevertheless, spirited support for the measure is welcome, and if/when it falls short today, we can expect Schumer and Rockefeller to push even more aggressively if/when the bill progresses."

Meanwhile, the netroots are also feeling mildly encouraged by two recent developments in the House. First of all, liberal bloggers (Bowers, McCarter, Walker, Llorens) were pleased to learn that blocking a public option is reportedly "a relatively low priority for conservative Blue Dog Democrats." Second, liberal bloggers (Sudbay, Llorens) were pleased to see Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) make a strong statement against the "trigger" compromise favored by Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-ME).

In other health care news, lefty bloggers (Drum, Walker, Dayen) are hammering Sen. Kent Conrad (D-ND) after he made some surprising statements about other countries' health care systems during an interview with The Washington Post's Ezra Klein.

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Carpe Diem

Ezra Klein:

"Andrew Gelman thinks the Democrats might lose the House in 2010. Other people try to debunk him. I try not to make predictions on these things 13 months before the next election, but here's a prediction I'm comfortable making: Sometime in the next two or three election cycles, Democrats will lose one or both chambers of Congress.

That's how it goes. The midterms are traditionally bad for the incumbent party. The second set of midterms -- so 2014, if Obama holds the White House -- are traditionally really bad for incumbent party. History's pretty clear on this stuff.

The point of having a majority in Congress is not to retain your majority in Congress. It's to do as much good stuff as you can before the structural dynamics of American politics -- or the idiocies and tactical errors of your colleagues -- put an end to your reign. [...I]f you're going to be some former chairman chafing in the minority in a few years, better to do so with the comforting knowledge that your many legislative achievements assured your place in the history books and bettered the lives of millions of Americans."

LEST WE FORGET: Spatial Skills Abandon Area Man During Search For Correct Tupperware Lid

From The Onion:

"WATERVILLE, ME -- The ability to judge different sizes and shapes was inexplicably lost on Waterville resident John Wyatt on Tuesday as he struggled to find the correct lid for a plastic container of chicken salad. According to witnesses, the seemingly rational man cycled through 17 separate lids in his desperate search to find a corresponding match, rotating each incorrect cover multiple times in hopes that it would somehow fit. 'Why won't this work?' asked Wyatt, who is reportedly an intelligent and astute individual most of the time. 'Just close already, goddammit.' At press time, Wyatt was attempting to secure a square lid onto a round container with several sheets of plastic wrap."

Posted by Ian Faerstein at 01:04 PM

September 24, 2009

9/24: I've Got A Bad Feeling About This...

Liberal bloggers have been carefully reading the tea leaves on health care reform, and they're not liking what they see. Yesterday morning, Open Left's Mike Lux (who previously served on the Obama-Biden Transition Team) created a mini-uproar in the lefty blogosphere when he reported that the WH was pushing the public option "trigger" mechanism in order to win Sen. Olympia Snowe's (R-ME) support for health care reform. Although the WH subsequently denied pushing the trigger compromise, liberal bloggers were still suspicious -- especially since Organizing for America is now urging Finance Committee members to vote for a bill even if it "isn't perfect." Lefty bloggers were also upset when OMB dir. Peter Orszag told Bloomberg News that "either" a trigger mechanism or an insurance co-op could be effective. Armando Llorens fumed: "If Orzag is right, on the issue of health care reform President Obama has turned over the reins to 'President' Olympia Snowe. What a wimpy Administration." It's clear the netroots are increasingly viewing the WH with suspicion when it comes to getting a decent health care bill out of the Senate.

What else is happening in the blogosphere?

• Conservative bloggers (Wehner, Greenwald, Johnson, Mirengoff, Liebau, Lowry) hated Obama's speech to the U.N.
• Conservative bloggers (Allahpundit, Reynolds, Malkin, Troy, Wolf) are ridiculing ACORN's decision to sue the conservative filmmakers who embarrassed the organization by secretly videotaping them. Liberal blogger Kevin Drum agrees that ACORN's lawsuit is foolish, calling it "a bad idea on so many levels it hurts just to think about it."
• Liberal bloggers (Cole, Lewison, Marshall) are mocking Rep. Steve King (R-IA) for claiming that same-sex marriage is "a purely socialist concept."
• Liberal bloggers (digby, Benen, Willis, Empsall, Aravosis) are buzzing about the death of a U.S. Census worker in KY, who was found hanging from a tree with the word 'fed' scrawled on his chest.

HEALTH CARE REFORM: Ominous Signs For Liberals?

Liberal bloggers were very upset when Lux reported that the WH was supporting Snowe's "trigger" mechanism (Lux later backtracked after the WH denied pushing the trigger compromise):

• Lux: "This trigger will never trigger a public option, but I can tell you what it will trigger: a civil war inside the Democratic Party just when you most need unity to pass health care reform. I am convinced that there are deals that can be struck that will bring progressive and moderate Democrats, House and Senate Democrats together on a good strong health care bill that will pass. But a trigger designed to never trigger isn't even close to being one of them."
• Firedoglake's Jane Hamsher: "[WH CoS] Rahm [Emanuel] told liberal interest groups in the veal pen to stop running ads against Blue Dogs on health care, and they complied. If you're a member of a progressive group or union, or a contributor to a think tank or action fund, contact them and let them know that you would like them to release a statement rejecting triggers. Because Mike is right -- this is a transparent attempt to kill the public option, and no progressive organization should be helping them."

Liberal bloggers were further incensed with Snowe voted for Sen. Jim Bunning's (R-KY) amendment that would have delayed the Finance Committee's vote on a bill until the CBO scored it:

• Daily Kos' mcjoan: "If any Democrat, and that includes the White House thinks that Olympia Snowe is negotiating with them in good faith, they need to think again. [...] Negotiating with her on her public option trigger amendment as a way to get her on board, is foolish and naive. She might not be at the top of the invite list to lunch with her Republican colleagues, but she's with them on their delay game."
• AMERICAblog's John Aravosis: "Snowe just voted for a cute little trick that would have effectively killed putting the bill on Reconciliation. [...] As Joan points out, Olympia Snowe is not a good faith partner. She may be a moderate in her soul, but her soul never has the courage to vote the right way."

Liberal bloggers were also disturbed when Orszag told Bloomberg News that "either" a trigger mechanism or an insurance co-op could be effective:

• TalkLeft's Big Tent Democrat: "Three points. One, 6 weeks is AFTER the deadline for including a public option in a reconciliation bill. Second, it has been established that co-ops are usless. Third, it has been established that President Snowe's trigger proposal is a joke. If Orzag is right, on the issue of health care reform President Obama has turned over the reins to 'President' Olympia Snowe. What a wimpy Administration. Jimmy Carter comes to mind."
• Firedoglake's Jon Walker: "Orszag's statement directly contradicts a CBO report that says co-ops will not provide the necessary competition. [...] I guess former CBO director Peter Orszag now also backs the new [Kent] Conrad CBO Standard. He must share the belief that whatever the CBO determines is incredibly important unless they disagree with Senator Kent Conrad."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Neither Can Live While The Other Survives

Open Left's Adam Bink:

"In every election, Democratic Party institutional structures (principally the party committees and, if a Democrat is President, the White House) target vulnerable Republicans, many of whom are moderates. Think [Mike] DeWine-[Sherrod] Brown, [Lincoln] Chafee-[Sheldon] Whitehouse, [Jim] Talent-[Claire] McCaskill, [Susan] Collins-[Tom] Allen, [John] Sununu-[Jeanne] Shaheen, [Gordon] Smith-[Jeff] Merkley. If [Arlen] Specter had not switched, he would have a big bulls-eye on his back, too. They also target moderates and drive them into retirement with the threat of a strong challenger -- see Warner, John. They also target open seats where voters may have elected moderate Republicans -- there are places, for example, where moderate Republicans decide not to run because they are facing a high-profile, highly-recruited Democrat who will mop the floor with them.

Targeting resources in this way keeps moderates out of the House and Senate and decreases opportunities for bipartisanship. Yet the White House keeps insisting on bipartisanship, and we find ourselves in a no-win scenario. If this were 2002, the Republicans looking at our side across the negotiating table probably would have been Chafee, [Olympia] Snowe, Collins (at least initially), Specter, Ben Nighthorse Campbell, and maybe DeWine or [George] Voinovich. Instead, we're dealing with [Chuck] Grassley, [Mike] Enzi, and Snowe. Why? Because we kicked out all the rest (and tried to beat Collins with Tom Allen). That is a major ideological shift. When you have this going on, and the White House keeps pursuing bipartisanship, it is self-defeating. Instead of compromising with a Lincoln Chafee, you find yourself compromising with a John McCain. If you beat McCain, you find yourself at the table with a Saxby Chambliss. And so forth. [...]

This whole set-up reminds me of the prophecy in the Harry Potter series -- 'neither can live while the other survives.' You can't have (a) a strategy of targeting moderates (b) an insistence upon bipartisanship, and (c) a willingness to drag things on/not muscle legislation when you can't get bipartisanship, all at the same time. Something has to give. The White House and Democratic Congressional leaders have to pick and choose, and for our country's sake, I hope they give up this blind pursuit of bipartisanship."

LEST WE FORGET: John Edwards On Verge Of Admitting He Is Total Douche

The Huffington Post's Andy Borowitz:

"In what amounts to a complete about-face, former presidential candidate John Edwards is about to admit that he is a total douche, aides to Mr. Edwards confirm.

The former North Carolina senator had been attempting to maintain the fiction that he is a decent human being, but recent revelations about his affair with videographer Rielle Hunter have cemented his douche status.

'People were willing to stand by John, but then it came out that he was planning to hire Dave Matthews to play at his wedding to Rielle,' said one Edwards aide. 'I think people were like, whoa, what a douche.'

But Mr. Edwards' decision to admit he is a douche might not spell the end of his political career, says historian David Logsdon of the University of Minnesota.

'Of our country's forty-four Presidents, over thirty of them were total douches,' he says."

Posted by Ian Faerstein at 12:52 PM

September 23, 2009

9/23: A Numbers Game

Liberal bloggers are (mostly) pleased that the MA Senate approved a bill granting Gov. Deval Patrick (D) the power to appoint an interim replacement for the late Sen. Edward Kennedy (D). However, lefty bloggers still don't know if 60 Dem senators will be enough to pass health care reform. Some think that Dems need to find a way to replace the ailing Sen. Robert Byrd (D-WV) with a Dem who actually votes. Others argue that Dems should "stop chasing the unattainable 60 votes" and instead use the reconciliation process to pass a bill that includes a public option. And still others think that Dems should use the "nuclear option" to end the GOP's use of the filibuster.

What else is happening in the blogosphere?

• Liberal bloggers (Waldman, Benen, Willis, Cole) are buzzing about reports that Blue Dog Rep. Mike Ross (D-AR) sold a piece of commercial property to a pharmacy chain for "an eye-popping price" in 2007. Lefty bloggers think this transaction helps explain Ross's opposition to a public insurance option, and they're stepping up their efforts to target Ross with a critical TV ad. Meanwhile, the netroots (McCarter, Dayen, Benen, Aravosis) are pleased that Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) is reportedly backing away from an agreement with the Blue Dogs and instead "planning to include a government-run public option in the House version of the healthcare bill."
• Liberal bloggers (Walker, McCarter, Black) are calling Sen. Kent Conrad (D-ND) a hypocrite for disregarding the CBO's negative assessment of his "co-op" proposal after Conrad repeatedly defended the CBO's negative assessments of competing health care bills.
• Liberal bloggers (Lewison, Marshall, Singer, Aravosis) are buzzing about the new MoveOn.org ad featuring Will Ferrell and other celebrities, which seeks to build support for a public insurance option. Conservative bloggers (Geraghty, Morrissey) are arguing that a high-paid actor like Ferrell isn't in a position to criticize high-paid insurance executives.
• Conservative bloggers (Faughnan, Field, Morrissey, Ace) are criticizing Dem efforts to sanction insurance companies for allegedly sending misleading information to seniors. Righty bloggers (Klein, Malkin, Jessup, Mirengoff) are also complaining that Dems are providing favorable treatment to the AARP.
• Liberal bloggers (Marshall, Drum, Lemos) are expressing skepticism about the U.S. mission in Afghanistan, and they're praising Pres. Obama (Ackerman, Lemos, publius) for "exploring alternatives" to a major troop increase in the region. On the other hand, conservative bloggers (Hewitt, McLaughlin, Allahpundit) are upset that Obama is reevaluating his Afghanistan strategy.
• Liberal bloggers (Bonin, digby, Benen) are excited about the prospect of using the Defund ACORN Act to deny federal funds to other organizations that have been charged with fraud, such as Lockheed Martin and Northrop Gumman.

HEALTH CARE REFORM: Senate Strategizing

Liberal bloggers are (mostly) pleased that the MA Senate approved a bill granting Gov. Patrick the power to appoint an interim U.S. senator:

• TalkLeft's Big Tent Democrat: "For the record, I was not paying much attention to what Massachusetts did in 2004, but after the fact, it was pretty outrageous. This? Common sense. It's good legislation."
• Daily Kos' Steve Singiser: "After a couple of days of stall tactics from legislative Republicans, the second hurdle in getting full representation in the Senate for Massachusetts has been cleared."

However, dday thinks Dems still need to address Byrd's continued absence: "Democrats may gain one seat in Massachusetts by the end of the week if the appointment law goes through, but Byrd has been in and out of hospitals for months and is rarely seen on the Senate floor. Nobody wants to tell Robert Byrd to retire -- he's been in the Senate since 1958 and he probably wants to die right there on the Senate floor. But for the good of the country he ought to resign and not have his illness affect the quality of life for millions of Americans. West Virginia allows for a temporary appointment, Governor Joe Manchin is a Democrat, and within a matter of days the Democrats could have 60 able-bodied members. But instead of that, and instead of coming up with a process where Byrd can vote by proxy, we are hampered with endless filibusters based on Robert Byrd's physical health, which I don't think was the founders' intentions."

Big Tent Democrat advocates a different approach: "I think it is time to stop chasing the unattainable 60 votes for real health care reform and instead pursue the [NY Sen. Chuck] Schumer Strategy -- a good bill with a public option through reconciliation and a second bill with the mythical '80%' that 'everyone' agree on."

Open Left's Chris Bowers thinks Dems should vote to eliminate the filibuster: "Progressives far and wide have mocked and attacked Senator Max Baucus [D-MT] for deciding to negotiate with an even number of Democrats and Republicans despite the 60-40 Democratic majority. However, the entire Senate Democratic caucus is doing the exact same thing as Max Baucus on every single piece of legislation except the budget. Because they are not challenging the Republican abuse of the filibuster, they have all effectively decided to give themselves the same number of votes in the Senate as Republicans on every issue, and even allowed Senator Byrd to serve as a tie-breaker in favor of Republicans while he recovers in the hospital. It doesn't have to be this way, but Senate Democrats have decided that it should be that way. And so, we are not taking anywhere near full advantage of the best chance for progressive federal legislation since 1965. Senate manners are apparently the most important policy of all."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: In Defense Of Washington

The Washington Post's Ezra Klein:

"I love the anecdotes streaming forth from Matt Latimer's tell-all about the [George W.] Bush administration. And I love the counter-anecdotes angrily administered by Latimer's former boss. But what does annoy me is Latimer's refrain that this is really the tale of a wide-eyed Midwestern Everyman being slowly ground down beneath the jackboot of the Beltway. 'I wanted to give people a glimpse of Washington from someone who came from the middle of the country,' he said this morning on MSNBC's Morning Meeting. 'I wanted people to see what Washington is really like.'

Washington is a big place. If you hang around cynics and frauds, that says something about the company you keep and the cohort you've chosen. It doesn't say much about Washington. The folks at the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities, for instance, keep a firm grasp on their souls. Some Hill offices have long since veered into careerism, but many are filled with exhausted staffers who are trying -- and maybe failing -- to make the world a better place, and doing so for a lot less than they could make in the private sector. As an example, I've spent the whole day posting comments from experts who spend all day studying delivery system reform and trying to explain their findings to the political system. They don't do it because it's glamorous or enriching. It's not being a presidential speechwriter or penning a dishy book. But it's important.

Latimer's experience, obviously, is his own, and not for me to question. But it's not a reflection of what 'Washington is really like.' It's about what Senator Jon Kyl's [R-AZ] office was really like, and what [ex-Energy Sec.] Spencer Abraham, and [ex-Def. Sec.] Donald Rumsfeld, and the Bush administration were really like. You can argue that it's about what the modern Republican Party is like. But Washington? That's a more complicated place."

LEST WE FORGET: Republican S&M Safe Words

McSweeney's contributor Nathan Pensky:

• "Trickledown"
• "Surge"
• "Cut and Run"
• "Bait and Switch"
• "Flip-Flop"
• "Wide Stance"
• "Gerrymander"

Posted by Ian Faerstein at 12:44 PM

September 22, 2009

9/22: To Escalate, Or Not To Escalate...

It's been over 36 hours since Gen. Stanley McChrystal's leaked Afghanistan memo was published in The Washington Post, but the topic of Afghanistan is still generating considerable commentary in the blogosphere. Conservative bloggers are upset that Pres. Obama is expressing skepticism about following Gen. McChrystal's recommendations and sending more troops to Afghanistan. Jennifer Rubin warns that failing to deploy more troops "will only cement [Obama's] image as a Jimmy Carter-esque figure -- weak, irresolute, and easily manipulated -- and invite endless challenges to the U.S."

Liberal bloggers, meanwhile, are still preoccupied with health care reform, and they've yet to fully engage on the Afghanistan topic in the way that they did with Iraq. That said, skepticism about the U.S. mission in Afghanistan appears to be growing in many corners of the lefty blogosphere. digby is particularly explicit in her opposition to a troop escalation:

"Escalation is a bad idea. The Democrats backed themselves into defending the idea of Afghanistan being The Good War because they felt they needed to prove their macho bonafides when they called for withdrawal from Iraq. Nobody asked too many questions sat the time, including me. But none of us should forget that it was a political strategy, not a serious foreign policy. There have been many campaign promises 'adjusted' since the election. There is no reason that the administration should feel any more bound to what they said about this than all the other committments it has blithely turned aside in the interest of 'pragmatism.'"

What else is happening in the blogosphere?

• Liberal bloggers (McCarter, Benen) are mildly encouraged by reports that Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D-MT) is modifying his health care bill in order to appease Dems. However, lefty bloggers (Green, desmoinesdem) are still raising money in order to run a TV ad criticizing Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-ME) for opposing a public insurance option. Similarly, the liberal blog Firedoglake is targeting three House Dems whom it perceives as insufficiently committed to a public option.
• Conservative bloggers (E Pluribus Unum, Rubin, Hawkins) are upset that deposed Pres. Manuel Zelaya has returned to Honduras three months after he was ousted in a coup, and they're criticizing the Obama admin. for supporting Zelaya.
• Conservative bloggers (Malkin, Hinderaker, Lane, Vadum, Geraghty, Morrissey) are buzzing about Patrick Courrielche's claim that the NEA is pushing artists to advocate for Obama's agenda. Liberal bloggers think conservatives are hypocritical to complain about the NEA's conduct.

AFGHANISTAN: Weak! Weak! Weak!

Conservative bloggers are furious that Obama is expressing skepticism about sending more troops to Afghanistan:

• NRO's Jim Geraghty: "If Obama thinks the war is unwinnable, it would have been nice for him to tell the American public during the campaign, instead of completely reversing himself on a key provision of his foreign-policy vision less than a year into his presidency. Why, if we didn't know any better, we might think that Obama was dovish and unwilling to defy his party's pacifist grassroots the whole time, and that all of his 'this is a war that we have to win' talk during the campaign was empty window-dressing to hide an out-of-the-mainstream worldview."
• Hot Air's Allahpundit: "Has there ever been a president less interested in foreign policy than The One? Does anyone, right or left, think he wouldn't happily take a pass on international issues for four or eight years to concentrate on remaking America's economy in his statist image? His Afghanistan posture was always transparently a sop to centrists, to prove that he was a 'hawk' on some wars even though he was famously a dove on Iraq. Now he senses some public reluctance to invest further in the 'good war' and suddenly he's 'skeptical' about more troops for the counterinsurgency strategy."
• Commentary's Rubin: "Now [Obama] hasn't collapsed yet on Afghanistan. Maybe his spine will stiffen and he'll realize that a confrontation with his military commanders is going to add to and not lessen his political problems. He may want to consider just how ludicrously flighty and weak he would appear if he reversed himself on not one but two major national-security positions. Even if he can't stomach disappointing the left wing of his own party, someone in his administration must surely realize that a second reversal of this magnitude will only cement his image as a Jimmy Carter–esque figure -- weak, irresolute, and easily manipulated -- and invite endless challenges to the U.S. After all, if he's going to back down whenever someone screams loudly, there will be a lot of very loud screaming."
• RedState's haystack: "[W]e DON'T have the right strategy, he HAS sent in more troops, he's being told that wasn't enough, and we stand ready to have defeat snatched from the jaws of victory...AGAIN...because of the whims and fancies of a man and his minions who were never qualified to make National Security and life and death decisions for us..."

AFGHANISTAN II: Are We Doing The Right Thing?

Some liberal bloggers are expressing growing doubts about the U.S. mission in Afghanistan:

• digby: "For me, this one is easy. Afghanistan is the most unlikely place to win a war on the planet. To apply the lessons learned in Iraq (such as they were) to this country seems insane to me --- especially the concept of 'counter-insurgency,' so beloved by the McChrystalites, which is being bizarrely misapplied. [...] Escalation is a bad idea. The Democrats backed themselves into defending the idea of Afghanistan being The Good War because they felt they needed to prove their macho bonafides when they called for withdrawal from Iraq. Nobody asked too many questions sat the time, including me. But none of us should forget that it was a political strategy, not a serious foreign policy. There have been many campaign promises 'adjusted' since the election. There is no reason that the administration should feel any more bound to what they said about this than all the other committments it has blithely turned aside in the interest of 'pragmatism.'"
• Daily Kos' Meteor Blades: "If everybody agrees there is no wholly military solution, why is there a 20-to-1 military-to-civilian budget ratio for Afghanistan operations? Can the U.S. counter-insurgency plan really work without hundreds of thousands of combat troops? After eight years, is U.S. presence more of a problem than a solution, creating more enemies with each air strike that kills civilians? What benchmarks will have to be met before success can be declared? And what's a realistic guessestimate for when the troops can come home? Is it General [David] Petraeus's suggested decade or more? Or British Army Commander General Sir David Richards's 40 years? President Obama has asked the most important question of all. 'Are we doing the right thing?' Most Americans say no."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Is Glenn Beck Harmful To The Conservative Movement?

Commentary's Peter Wehner:

"...[Beck] seems to be more of a populist and libertarian than a conservative, more of a Perotista than a Reaganite. His interest in conspiracy theories is disquieting, as is his admiration for [TX Rep.] Ron Paul and his charges of American 'imperialism.' (He is now talking about pulling troops out of Afghanistan, South Korea, Germany, and elsewhere.) Some of Beck's statements -- for example, that President Obama has a 'deep-seated hatred for white people' -- are quite unfair and not good for the country. His argument that there is very little difference between the two parties is silly, and his contempt for parties in general is anti-Burkean (Burke himself was a great champion of political parties). And then there is his sometimes bizarre behavior, from tearing up to screaming at his callers. Beck seems to be a roiling mix of fear, resentment, and anger -- the antithesis of Ronald Reagan.

I understand that a political movement is a mansion with many rooms; the people who occupy them are involved in intellectual and policy work, in politics, and in polemics. Different people take on different roles. And certainly some of the things Beck has done on his program are fine and appropriate. But the role Glenn Beck is playing is harmful in its totality. My hunch is that he is a comet blazing across the media sky right now -- and will soon flame out. Whether he does or not, he isn't the face or disposition that should represent modern-day conservatism. At a time when we should aim for intellectual depth, for tough-minded and reasoned arguments, for good cheer and calm purpose, rather than erratic behavior, he is not the kind of figure conservatives should embrace or cheer on."

LEST WE FORGET: Man Not Belonging To Movie's Target Demographic Escorted From Theater By Hollywood Officials

From The Onion:

"ST. LOUIS -- Hollywood officials removed David Sinclair, 24, from the AMC Esquire 7's 9 p.m. showing of The Time Traveler's Wife Monday for failing to meet the minimum gender, age, and socioeconomic status requirements set forth in new guidelines to ensure marketing is reflected in movie audiences. "Looks like this punk is a little too young and a little too male to be here," said Toby Emmerich, president of New Line Cinema, who spotted Sinclair trying to discretely watch the film from the back of the theater. "Didn't your mother ever teach you that a romantic thriller starring Rachel McAdams and Eric Bana is for professional women aged 26 to 40 who make between $45,000 and $60,000 a year?" Despite Sinclair's promises that he would buy a Coke and popcorn, officials escorted the single, college-educated city-dweller out of the theater complex and issued him a $1,500 fine."

Posted by Ian Faerstein at 12:25 PM

September 21, 2009

9/21: Pentagon Push-Back

The blogosphere is buzzing about Gen. Stanley McChrystal's leaked Afghanistan memo, in which he warns that the conflict "will likely result in failure" unless the Obama admin. sends more troops to the region. Liberal bloggers reacted to McChrystal's policy recommendations with skepticism. Kevin Drum writes: "I gotta ask: considering the unrelentingly grim assessment in the rest of his report, is it really likely that a few more troops and a change in emphasis toward COIN and away from counterterrorism will bear results within 12 months? Because that's what McChrystal says the timeframe is."

Meanwhile, conservative bloggers are accusing Obama of "going wobbly on his commitment to the [Afghanistan] war effort" because of growing skepticism among cong. Dems. They're urging Obama to stop paying attention to "domestic politics" and start following McChrystal's recommendations.

What else is happening in the blogosphere?

• Several conservative bloggers (Hemingway, Baker) were impressed by MN Gov. Tim Pawlenty's (R) speech at the Value Voters Summit. However, another conservative blogger thinks the most noteworthy story from the conference was ex-AR Gov. Mike Huckabee's (R) strong performance in the straw poll. Meanwhile, liberal bloggers (Sudbay, Benen, Partridge) are buzzing about MO SEN candidate Roy Blunt's (R) speech, in which he told a joke that involved monkeys.
• Liberal bloggers (Drum, publius, Aravosis) are cautiously optimistic about reports that the FCC plans to propose new rules "that would force Internet providers to treat all Web traffic equally."
• Conservative bloggers (Hinderaker, Mirengoff) continue to criticize Obama for scrapping George W. Bush's proposed antiballistic missile shield in Eastern Europe. Liberal bloggers (van der Linden, Phoenix Woman) continue to defend Obama's decision and hit back at his critics.
• Conservative bloggers (Podhoretz, Goldberg, Levin, Miller, Adler, Wehner, Johnson, Jessup) are paying their respects to Irving Kristol, the "godfather of neoconservatism" who died Friday at the age of 89.

MCCHRYSTAL: What's The Strategy?

Liberal bloggers reacted to McChrystal's troop recommendations with skepticism, with some complaining that the U.S. has no business conducting a counter-insurgency strategy in Afghanistan in the first place:

• Mother Jones' Drum: "I gotta ask: considering the unrelentingly grim assessment in the rest of his report, is it really likely that a few more troops and a change in emphasis toward COIN and away from counterterrorism will bear results within 12 months? Because that's what McChrystal says the timeframe is. That hardly seems likely to me."
• Democracy Arsenal's Michael Cohen: "Um, if the Afghan government is riddled with corruption and ISAF doesn't understand how to prosecute a counter-insurgency strategy...why exactly are we prosecuting a counter-insurgency strategy. I mean how exactly are we supposed to stand up an Afghan government if that same government is seen as corrupt and illegitimate? And why does McChrystal believe that the problems with ISAF and embracing COIN doctrine will be turned around in 12 months?"
• MyDD's Charles Lemos: "'The weakness of state institutions, malign actions of power-brokers, widespread corruption and abuse of power by various officials, and ISAF's own errors,' General McChrystal says, referring to NATO, 'have given Afghans little reason to support their government.' All the more reason to pursue a counter-terrorism strategy rather than this bloody counter-insurgency strategy. Winning over the fractious and diverse Afghan population to the cause of a greater Afghanistan is a task that eluded the Afghans themselves. The reality we face is no different than the one the Soviets faced. The Taliban like the Mujahideen before have a long-term strategy. [...] The Taliban will bleed us dry. Both in blood and in coin."
• Firedoglake's Siun: "It's clearly time for a complete re-evaluation of just why we are there at all -- and what, if anything might be done right. While the generals will of course continue to push for control, our civilian leadership must insist on something more than a full employment program for the four stars."

MCCHRYSTAL II: Listen To Your Friend, Stanley McChrystal; He's A Cool Dude!

Conservatives are urging Obama to follow McChrystal's recommendations:

• Hot Air's Ed Morrissey: "The left wing of [Obama's] party wants to retreat from both Afghanistan and Iraq, and this report gives them the bright line in the sand they need. The GOP have been very supportive on Afghanistan, with a few notable exceptions (George Will being the most prominent). The center bought Obama as something other than a typical liberal shrinking violet on American power based on his campaign pledges to fight and win in Afghanistan. A retreat might lose the GOP, which he never had except on this issue, and win back his left wing, but it will absolutely undermine his credibility with the center and further erode his political standing."
• The Weekly Standard's Michael Goldfarb: "It's probably not a coincidence that the McChrystal report leaked just as Obama looked like he was going wobbly on his commitment to the war effort. Democrats on the Hill are already threatening to obstruct funding for additional U.S. forces -- [Speaker Nancy] Pelosi, [MI Sen. Carl] Levin, and [PA Rep. John] Murtha among them -- and Obama was skeptical of the need for more U.S. forces on the Sunday shows yesterday. [...] McChrystal leaves no doubt about what must be done if Obama is to keep his word -- more troops and very soon. The president cannot delay that decision any more -- not for the sake of his health care initiative or anything else. And in any case, as a matter of politics the best thing for Obama and the Democrats is to win the war."
• Commentary's Jennifer Rubin: "It's daunting to make a tough national-security call in the face of domestic opposition from your own party. But at this point it seems that it's only domestic politics -- not a lack of facts or a failure to receive a recommendation -- that's holding back the president. [...W]hat is evident by the McChrystal recommendation (and by the apparent need to leak its contents, stemming no doubt from frustration with the White House stall) is that there is good reason to be concerned that the president's failure to make a prompt decision may in and of itself impair our ability to succeed. The president may not like what he's hearing [...], but he owes the country a timely decision -- or at least an honest explanation as to why he finds it so hard to make up his mind."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: What Makes Us Liberal Or Conservative?

The New Republic's Isaac Chotiner:

"Irving Kristol's most famous comment was probably that 'a neoconservative was a liberal who had been mugged by reality.' The obits for Kristol, who passed away yesterday, have tended to focus on his journey across the idelogical spectrum, and thus -- like the above comment -- invite the reader to speculate on what in fact makes us liberal or conservative. In Barry Gewen's nice New York Times obit, there appears another comment from Kristol, and I think that one's reaction to this remark is probably telling.

Liberalism led to 'moral anarchy,' Mr. Kristol said, arguing the point with one of his wisecracking encapsulizations: 'In the United States today, the law insists that an 18-year-old girl has the right to public fornication in a pornographic movie -- but only if she is paid the minimum wage.'

If you find this witty (and, more importantly, rich with irony) you are probably a conservative. If you find it rather banal, you are probably a liberal."

LEST WE FORGET: Good Fathering

From Overheard in New York:

Dad: So, what are you doing tomorrow night?
Son: Oh, you know, a usual Saturday night... Pizza, beer, and strippers.
Dad: Okay, can you just pick one of those, because all of those are unhealthy.

Posted by Ian Faerstein at 12:31 PM

September 18, 2009

BLOGGER SPOTLIGHT: Moe Lane

Today the Blogometer talks to Moe Lane, who blogs at RedState and MoeLane.com.

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

Where did you grow up?
Coastal New Jersey (Monmouth County); it is a point of some pride that I've never been inside The Stone Pony, because that's for tourists. Nothing against [Bruce] Springsteen (Greetings from Asbury Park; Nebraska is frankly overrated, except for "Atlantic City").

Where do you live now?
Howard County, Maryland. For those keeping score: Elijah Cummings' district.

If you have an occupation other than blogging, what is it?
My occupation is actually "stay-at-home dad:" blogging is what I do in-between.

What's on your iPod right now?
A combination of sea shanty collections: folk compilations ranging from the 1920s on; 'modern' neo-folk/SCA/traditional music bands; Weird Al Yankovic; and a spoken-word thing that came with iTunes that I keep meaning to delete.

What book do you think every person should read?
Silverlock, by John Myers Myers. It's perfect for encouraging people to actually go out and read Western literature in general.

Please finish this sentence: "When I'm not blogging, you'll probably find me..."
Doing various family-related activities, reading, sleeping, or general geekery.

What has been your favorite blog post, or your favorite story to write about?
Probably my ultimate response to the Great Democratic FISA Cave-In of 2008. I still get hate mail for that one.

Which blogger(s) do you consider indispensable, if any?
Me, of course: both at RedState.com and MoeLane.com. After that -- and the rest of RedState in my reflected glow -- Instapundit, Hot Air, and Ace of Spades are usually on my need-to-keep-track of list; so is Jim Geraghty's Campaign Spot. Dan Collins (of POWIP) and Jim Treacher are on my 'indispensable bloggers who tweet a lot' list. And while I don't really think that Drudge and Real Clear Politics are blogs, they're pretty useful.

Who's your favorite non-conservative blogger?
Technically, the Manolo.

Who's your favorite active politician? Least favorite?
Most favorite: Probably Michael Williams, Texas Railroad Commissioner and possible Senate replacement for KBH. Nice guy and good, solid conservative.

Least favorite: Now that William "...in his freezer." Jefferson's gone? Okinawa Jack Murtha. It takes a lot to make me hang an epithet on a politician, but those two were up to the challenge.

What would you realistically like to see Republicans accomplish in the next year?
Figure out how to turn the conventional wisdom of a 20-30 seat gain in the House in 2010 into a 30-40 seat gain.

If you could give President Obama advice, what would it be?
Break contact. The President made three mistakes: trusting the Democrats in Congress to come up with a workable agenda, assuming that the Republicans would not regroup, and thinking that the goodwill given to him by the populace was infinitely renewable (he also believed all the propaganda written about him, but that's a personal flaw, not a mistake). So President Obama needs to find the moral courage to throw in his cards, abandon the pot, and walk away while he still has some credit with the American people. He actually has a good bit, yet -- but another three months like the last three, and he won't.

Oh, and he should never let a day go by where he doesn't kick progressive Democrats around. It's great fun.

What keeps you up at night?
Since I got the CPAP machine for my sleep apnea? Nothing, really.

Please feel free to ask and answer your own question.
This is always a fun one to toss at people. OK: "Why, Moe? Why?"

Answer: "Because I did, that's why. Deal with it -- and dramatically unstaple your hand from your forehead, while you're at it. It's silly."

Posted by Ian Faerstein at 02:09 PM

9/18: Surrender, But Don't Give Yourself Away

Conservative bloggers are going ballistic (pun intended) over Pres. Obama's decision to "scrap former President George W. Bush's planned missile defense system in Poland and the Czech Republic and instead deploy a reconfigured system aimed more at intercepting short- and medium-range Iranian missiles." Righty bloggers are decrying the move as a "surrender to Russia" that will "embolden the most militaristic and dangerous elements of the Russian ruling class". They're also accusing Obama of being a "violence-averse community organizer" and comparing his foreign policy approach to that of ex-British PM (and favorite conservative boogeyman) Neville Chamberlain. Liberal bloggers, on the other hand, are praising Obama for "scrapp[ing] a useless initiative in favor of a sane, realistic one" and are calling his conservative critics "stupid and immoral."

What else is happening in the blogosphere?

• Liberal bloggers (Bonin, Drum) are pleased that the MA House approved a bill allowing Gov. Deval Patrick (D) to appoint a temporary successor to the late Sen. Edward Kennedy (D). Meanwhile, Matthew Yglesias is the latest liberal blogger (joining Laura Clawson) to demand that AG Martha Coakley (D) state her positions on "issues of national significance."
• Conservative bloggers (Morrissey, Geraghty, Faughnan, Klein, Mirengoff) are promoting a video in which VA GOV candidate Creigh Deeds (D) offers a convoluted explanation of his position on taxes.
• Liberal bloggers (Sargent, Clawson, Cole, Serwer, Kurtz, Benen) are calling Rep. Kevin Brady (R-TX) a hypocrite for complaining about the DC Metro service during the 9/12 protest, considering that Brady previously voted against funding for the DC Metro. Meanwhile, conservative bloggers (streiff, Hinderaker, McCarthy) are criticizing Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) for comparing the recent anti-Obama rhetoric to the anti-gay rhetoric of late-'70s San Francisco.
• The liberal blog Firedoglake is raising money in order to run an AR TV ad targeting Sen. Blanche Lincoln (D) and Rep. Mike Ross (D-04) for opposing a public health insurance option. Meanwhile, lefty bloggers (Aravosis, McCarter, desmoinesdem) are pointing out that the CBO confirmed their critique of the "co-op" proposal in Sen. Max Baucus's (D-MT) health care plan -- namely, that co-ops "will neither cover many people nor put downward pressure on costs, the two supposed benefits of the public option."

Finally, please check back later today for our interview with RedState's Moe Lane!

OBAMA: Surrendering To Russia?

Conservative bloggers are blasting Obama's decision to reverse Bush's plan to create an antiballistic missile system in Eastern Europe:

• Commentary's Jennifer Rubin: "Just when you think the Obama administration's foreign policy cannot get more feckless or timid, the Obama team tops itself. [...] Obama is in the business of kowtowing to the world's bullies. Russia didn't like the missile shield, so no more missile shield. Do we think we 'got something' for this? I'd be shocked if we did, given the obvious willingness of the U.S. to prostrate itself before rivals."
• Townhall's Carol Platt Liebau: "[This] is all too reminiscent of the Hungarian spring, when the US stood by and let the USSR crush the Hungarian freedom movement. This appeasement will do nothing but embolden the most militaristic and dangerous elements of the Russian ruling class. Message: America has retreated. [...] If he knows about this, there is a tear in Ronald Reagan's eye this morning."
• Power Line's Scott Johnson: "What signal does this send to the mullahs in Iran? The impending cancellation tells them nothing they didn't already know, but it confirms their perception of Obama as a clueless doofus who has done much to merit their utmost contempt? What signal does this send to our ally Israel? You are on your own, buddy, and you'd better get cracking. To be charitable one might say that the Obama administration does not know how to help friends or to hurt enemies. Yet this seems to be the way they like it."
• Dan Riehl: "Obama will be thought worse than [Jimmy] Carter. [...] At this rate, the Democrats are going to get hammered worse in 2010 than anything we've ever seen. And the distinction of Obama's one term will be that it let Carter and perhaps even any notion of [George] McGovern off the hook."
• Right Wing News' John Hawkins: "You have to go all the way back to WWII to watch the way that Hitler led Chamberlain around by the nose with these sort of meaningless promises to see a politician who was so easily baffled. In a sense, Obama is worse than Chamberlain because he has had Chamberlain's example to learn from."
• The Weekly Standard's Michael Goldfarb: "[M]issile defense would provide weak presidents like Obama an additional option in the case of a crisis with a nuclear-armed regime. Instead of being forced to take some kind of preemptive action, a Democratic president would be able to sit by and try diplomacy with at least some confidence that a nuclear attack could be disrupted. This isn't an offensive program that will provide some Bush-like warmonger with new methods for coercing rogue states, this is a defensive program that provides violence-averse community organizers with extra time to organize the international community before forcing a confrontation."

OBAMA II: Sanity Makes A Comeback

Liberal bloggers are praising Obama's decision to scrap Bush's plan:

• The Washington Post's Ezra Klein: "I'm glad to see the Obama administration abandoning the really dumb and provocative long-range missile defense system based in Poland and the Czech Republic and replacing it with a short-range missile defense system that's sea-based with sites in (probably) Romania, Israel and Turkey. I might like to see them abandon the idea altogether, but them's the breaks. This way, you do less to anger Russia and you save a bit of money. You just can't say you're saving any money."
• Oliver Willis: "It's totally horrible that President Obama scrapped a useless initiative in favor of a sane, realistic one. Seriously I don't see any evidence that these types of devices work in any real world capacity, nor do I see the point of spending a whole lot of cash on them to make certain hawks feel better about it. President Obama is in his job largely due to his stated policies of not being George W. Bush on foreign policy and national security. Thank God."
• Firedoglake's Blue Texan: "Quick question. If our European allies are so worried about Iranian missiles, why doesn't the EU build their own missile shield?"
• Think Progress' Yglesias: "This is a good call. Bush's idea was hugely expensive, and massively illogical. For one thing, Poland and the Czech Republic aren't in any sense between Iran and Europe. Nor is Iran actually threatening Europe with any missiles. Which is why nobody in Europe particularly wanted this thing built. The exception was the Poles and Czechs themselves who liked the idea as a token of America's commitment to defend them against Russia. Which is how we wound up situation an anti-Iranian missile shield in a place that doesn't make sense as an anti-Iranian measure, but does piss off Russia."

Yglesias goes on to slam Obama's conservative critics: "Conservatives, because they're stupid and immoral, have decided that antagonizing the Russians is a feature rather than a bug of the program. Thus, Senator Jim DeMint [R-SC] thinks it shows 'weakness' to stop wasting money on a useless but annoying-to-Russia program. Michael Goldfarb deems it 'appeasement'. This is another example of inane spite-based thinking in foreign policy. Basically the idea is that if the Russians don't want us to do something, we have to do it because otherwise we're appeasing them and next thing you know [PM] Vladimir Putin will be marching on Paris. Common sense indicates the exact reverse. [...] When you take a program with a huge financial cost and no real security benefit, and then add the 'Russia will be mad' factor into the mix the policy looks worse not better as a result."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Baucus's Legitimacy Problem

Ezra Klein:

"Baucus now has a legitimacy problem. A dealmaker needs credibility and respect on both sides, and Baucus has lost it. The Democrats on his committee don't trust his instincts or his core commitments or his legislative skill. Nor do the Democrats outside his committee. They feel he gave away too much in return for not just too little, but nothing at all. That means the Republicans on his committee have further reason to distrust his ability to make a deal, because restive Democrats are going to want to change his bill. Meanwhile, House Democrats are enraged that he left them to suffer through August, and have little interest in passing a bipartisan compromise that doesn't come with any Republican votes.

[...T]hat leaves Baucus with little evident power at this juncture. Even within his committee, it's not obvious he can secure the votes of the liberals, and if he does, he almost certainly sacrifices [GOP Sen. Olympia] Snowe. That means the White House and the Senate leadership are going to play the primary role in both offering concessions and guaranteeing their preservation in the process. The bill remains in Max Baucus's committee, but at this point, it's largely out of his hands."

LEST WE FORGET: DHS Sets Security Alert Level To Green For 8 Seconds

From The Onion:

"WASHINGTON -- For a brief eight-second period Tuesday, Homeland Security officials lowered the national terror alert system to green, indicating the first occasion since September 11, 2001, that the United States of America was at absolutely no risk of a terrorist attack. 'During this time there was no anti-U.S. chatter on the Internet, no al-Qaeda operatives planning to behead an American soldier or journalist, and no suspicious individuals boarding any foreign or domestic flights,' Homeland Security chief Janet Napolitano said during a White House press briefing. 'It was a pretty wonderful eight seconds.' The terror alert level was then immediately raised to red after terrorists drove a truckful of explosives into the Seattle Space Needle."

Posted by Ian Faerstein at 12:30 PM

September 17, 2009

9/17: Heckuva Job, Baucus

The liberal assault on Senate Finance Cmte Chairman Max Baucus (D-MT) continues today. Not only are lefty bloggers slamming his proposed health care bill, but they're questioning his entire legislative strategy and his motives. Markos Moulitsas unloads on the senator: "Seeing him announce his stupid plan today all by his lonesome self, without a single other member for support, just highlighted how out-of-touch Baucus is with the rest of the Senate. In fact, after today, I'm convinced that Baucus is the biggest idiot in the entire Senate." Other lefty bloggers are accusing Baucus of significantly weakening the prospects for meaningful health care reform by allowing the GOP to delay the process for months. Steve Benen complains: "Baucus not only isn't being rewarded for his attempts at bipartisan outreach, his efforts have led to a landscape that's fundamentally worse for reform."

The silver lining for liberals? Some are speculating that Baucus's failure to win a single GOP vote -- in spite of his many concessions -- could ironically result in a more progressive bill. As digby explains: "If there is zero GOP support and reconciliation really is the only way to get a bill (assuming the Democrats still want one) the conservadems may have to face the fact that only the government can ensure the savings that everyone has been insisting upon."

What else is happening in the blogosphere?

• RedState editor Erick Erickson is accusing Sen. Bob Bennett (R-UT) of trying to "screw America" by meeting with Pres. Obama to pitch the alternative health care proposal he is co-sponsoring with Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR).
• Conservative bloggers (Goldfarb, Malkin, Allahpundit, Reynolds) are furious that Obama "will scrap former President George W. Bush's planned missile defense system in Poland and the Czech Republic and instead deploy a reconfigured system aimed more at intercepting shorter-range Iranian missiles." Liberal bloggers (Farley, Cole, Attaturk, Black) are defending Obama's decision and are mocking conservatives for making a fuss about it.
• As conservatives continue to hammer away on the antipoverty group ACORN, some righty bloggers (Erickson, Lewis) are criticizing Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX) for not showing up when the Senate voted to cut off ACORN's federal housing grants. Meanwhile, liberal bloggers (Benen, Lewison) are mocking Sen. David Vitter (R-LA) for also not showing up to the ACORN vote, albeit for different reasons.
• Liberal bloggers (Cole, Kleiman, Aravosis, Benen) think GOPers are hypocrites for complaining about Obama's "czars," since "previous administrations, including George W. Bush's, also made heavy use of czars."

BAUCUS: Epic Fail.

Liberal bloggers are blasting Baucus:

• Oliver Willis: "Heck of a job on the waste of time and money, Max."
• Daily Kos' mcjoan: "The Baucus debacle: as bad as we thought it would be."
• Daily Kos' Moulitsas: "Baucus allowed the GOP to delay health care reform in a bullshit effort to find 'common ground'. Baucus was played, yet he ended up conceding much in exchange for zero. Seeing him announce his stupid plan today all by his lonesome self, without a single other member for support, just highlighted how out-of-touch Baucus is with the rest of the Senate. In fact, after today, I'm convinced that Baucus is the biggest idiot in the entire Senate. Stupider than even [OK Sen.] James Inhofe. Inhofe, at the very least, wouldn't let Democrats play him the way Baucus got played by the Republicans."
• Balloon Juice's John Cole: "Everyone hates the Baucus plan, which appears to be little more than an opportunity to revitalize the Republican party in the eyes of younger voters and the middle class. Basically, your options in American politics right now are evil and stupid (R) or spineless and stupid (D). You're doing a heckuva job, Brownie Baucus. On the upside, Humana, Wellpoint, and United Health group are getting a nice little boost in their stock price today. No one could have predicted..."
• The Washington Monthly's Benen: "[T]he level of support (or lack thereof) puts into doubt the utility of Baucus' entire strategy. The chairman expected his committee to approve a bill in June. Here we are in mid-September, and Baucus has very little to show for his efforts, except a framework he could have presented months ago. [...] What's more, Baucus accepted Republican delaying tactics, which led to the August recess, which gave the right the opportunity to trash the bill just as they'd planned. The plan, the president, and the party are all in a weaker position now. Baucus not only isn't being rewarded for his attempts at bipartisan outreach, his efforts have led to a landscape that's fundamentally worse for reform."
• Think Progress' Matthew Yglesias: "Heck of a job. [...] In addition to the substantive concessions Baucus made in order to get nothing, it's worth noting that Baucus made huge procedural concessions in order to get nothing. If he'd just stuck to the schedule, we would have been at this point in the process at a time when Barack Obama's approval rating was considerably higher."
• AMERICAblog's John Aravosis: "Considering the amount of money the insurance industry has given Baucus, it's rather obscene that he even has a role in this debate -- especially since President Obama promised us during the campaign that he was not going to let special interests and lobbyists craft his policies and legislation. Suddenly, a man bought off by the very industry we're trying to regulate has been appointed by the president as chief regulator."

Meanwhile, Andrew Sullivan makes a point that liberal bloggers have been making for months: "Is there not a good argument to be made now that Obama, having failed to win any serious Republican support, should give his party what it wants: a public option or, at the very least, more generous subsidies for the middle classes this bill is designed to help? The worst outcome would be a bill that is largely unsupported on the left, reviled by the Beck right and yet too cheap to help the people it is trying to help. If the GOP insists on total opposition -- and it is -- Obama could consider responding by adjusting the bill to please its actual supporters. There is more to come on this long and winding road."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Get Your Weight Up, Not Your Hate Up

The Atlantic's Ta-Nehisi Coates explains why isn't rushing to defend ACORN in light of the recent revelations about the organization:

"In one of the recent open threads, someone was noting the difficulty of getting good help for community activism, in defense of ACORN. I think if we can't request that our allies not employ people who would aid and abet a prostitution scheme, if that's too onerous, than we are in trouble. I think it's very hard to defend, not simply the criminality of the ACORN workers in Baltimore (le sigh) and Washington, but their rank stupidity.

Conservative activists have been after ACORN for over a year now. [ACORN CEO] Bertha Lewis notes that activists tried the same stunt several times before they got a bite. In some people's eyes this is exonerating. In my eyes it's more damning. Lewis admits ACORN was aware of the setup, and yet her people still got caught. Twice.

I am willing to be wrong on this one, but it's very hard to see how that sort of sloppiness aids poor people or progressives. It's equally hard for me to be mad at [conservative activist] James O'Keefe. Dude is doing his job. We must do ours. Pointing out the dastardly tactics employed by our adversaries doesn't alter that reality."

LEST WE FORGET: Because I Broke A Pencil And Doubled My Output

From Overheard in the Office:

Analyst: Look, you said you broke two bones in your e-mail, but you actually just broke your arm.
Boss: Yes, I broke my bone... now I have two bones!
Analyst: No! You have two pieces of one bone now. Bones are treated as a whole. You're trying to get extra sympathy. If I break a pen in half, how many pens do I have?
Boss: Two!
Analyst: How are you my boss?

Posted by Ian Faerstein at 12:57 PM

September 16, 2009

9/16: Thanks For Nothing, Baucus

Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D-MT) is getting hammered by the netroots even more than usual today. Liberal bloggers are exasperated that Baucus spent months negotiating a health care compromise with three GOP senators in private, only to finally introduce a bill that has no GOP support and which is also bleeding Dem support. "Well, that's six months we'll never get back," Attaturk quips. Liberal bloggers are now urging Dem senators to forget about Baucus's proposal and instead focus on passing a more progressive bill, even if that means using the reconciliation process.

What else is happening in the blogosphere?

• Most liberal bloggers (Lewison, Cole, Kleiman) support the House resolution rebuking Rep. Joe Wilson (R-SC) for shouting "You lie!" during Pres. Obama's speech to Congress, although some think it's unnecessary. Meanwhile, conservative bloggers (Malkin, Liebau, Hinderaker) are uniformly criticizing the resolution. RedState reacted to the resolution by urging readers to donate money to Wilson and his son, SC AG candidate Alan Wilson (R).
• Liberal bloggers (Singer, Kleiman, Aravosis) rarely have nice things to say about Senate Maj. Leader Harry Reid (D-NV), but they're pleased that Reid is threatening to cancel the October break in response to "GOP efforts to slow floor proceedings."

BAUCUS: Well, That's Six Months We'll Never Get Back

Liberal bloggers are blasting Baucus for his unsuccessful effort to negotiate a bipartisan compromise on health care reform:

• Firedoglake's Attaturk: "Who could have anticipated Max Baucus' amazing strategy of negotiating against himself, cleverly produced a plan that still failed to gain a single Republican supporter. [...] So, can we at least go back to the plan you used to have Max, you sly dog? The one that had a public option."
• Balloon Juice's Tim F.: "Do you live in Montana? Call your Senator to thank him for giving Republicans a critical bonus month to whip up lies and hate over health care. Make sure to mention how you appreciate his crippled compromise bill that netted the same zero Republican votes that single payer would have done."
• Obsidian Wings' publius: "Baucus dragged out this process for months. In doing so, he exposed reform to all types of attacks. Yes, the attacks were inevitable, but the lack of a single bill limited supporters' ability to push back effectively. As of today, he has literally nothing to show for it."
• Open Left's Chris Bowers: "The only justification ever given for the Baucus bill, and all of its problems, is that it could reach 60 votes. Well, that justification no longer exists. [...] Not only is the Baucus bill a highly questionable piece of legislation, it simply is not able to pass into law. Given how frequently conservative Democrats justify abandoning progressive policy by claiming that said policy cannot pass through Congress, it gives me great pleasure to point out in order for health care reform to pass, it actually requires a more robust public option in both the House and Senate."
• AMERICAblog's John Aravosis: "So, to review, for some reason no one can explain, we've (they've) put all of our (their) faith in Max Baucus, who has chucked President Obama's promises to have a single payer plan, and then the fallback, a public option, and instead included lots of Republican proposals in order to woo Republican votes, but now there are no Republican votes. So why isn't Baucus' plan now moot, since it was only intended to woo Republicans? If Democrats are going to go it alone, then why not go with a Democratic plan? And here's a crazy idea, why not go with the plan the President promised when he was running for President?"

FiveThirtyEight's Nate Silver: "[L]et's be clear -- some of this is Baucus's chickens coming home to roost. When you make a unilateral decision to negotiate with only five other people from a 23-person committee and 100-person Senate, and two of those five people have clear electoral disincentives against supporting any plan that you might come up with, the negotiations are liable to end in failure far more often than not. The flurry of on-the-record statements against Baucus's reform plans -- not 'leaks', not trial balloons -- points toward a defective process."

HEALTH CARE REFORM: What Happens Now?

Several liberal bloggers are discussing how Dems will pass health care reform now that Baucus's approach appears to have failed:

• The Washington Monthly's Steve Benen: "A few things to keep an eye on: how many (and what kind of) changes Baucus is willing to make to keep Dems on board; whether the leadership tells [WV Sen. Jay] Rockefeller to pass Baucus' plan now and they'll fix it when it's being reconciled with the HELP bill; whether Rockefeller gets Democratic allies to force Baucus' hand (and how many); whether [ME Sen. Olympia] Snowe gets on board with Baucus' plan; and whether Harry Reid considers just circumventing the Finance Committee altogether, moving the HELP bill to the floor with a bunch of amendments."
• Open Left's Mike Lux: "Here's why the Senate Finance markup that will come out next week is nowhere close to what will be in the final legislation: [...] Harry Reid still needs to marry the Finance bill and the HELP committee bill. [IA Sen.] Tom Harkin, who took over the chairmanship of the HELP Committee after Ted Kennedy passed away, is from what I hear bound and determined to make a major push to have the language of the HELP bill be a major part of the package that goes to the floor, including on the big issues like the public option and affordability for the middle class."
• Daily Kos' Jed Lewison: "Harry Reid better get used to the idea that there won't be any significant Republican support for health care reform. Letting Max Baucus continue chasing Olympia Snowe around the block will only serve to drag the process out, and, perhaps, to eventually drag it down. [...] To get a decent bill through the Senate, it's going to be reconciliation or bust. It's astonishing that Reid & Co. haven't yet come to that conclusion."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Cultural Plasticity

Jonah Lehrer:

"Clearly, what the world needs is another blogger weighing in on the Kanye West/Taylor Swift controversy. But I have no interest in castigating Kanye -- I don't pick my music based on the politesse of the artists. Instead, what struck me about this peculiar celebrity moment was the fact that I really enjoy both Kanye and Taylor and their immaculate pop confections. In the last few months, my brain has been infected by the melodic memes of 'Fifteen' and 'Heartless', 'Tim McGraw' and 'The Glory'.

So far, so obvious -- I enjoy (with a touch of snobbish guilt) Top 40 radio. But here's the interesting thing -- Taylor and Kanye create completely different kinds of music. One is a talented teeny-bopper with a touch of country-western twang, while the other is a hip-hop star with a weakness for Auto-Tune. Although it's easy to take this cultural diversity for granted, it's worth taking a moment to appreciate just how modern it is. Ninety-seven years ago, people rioted because Stravinsky wrote the 'The Rite of Spring' -- now we dance to the dissonance of Girl Talk. Fifty years ago, Top 40 radio consisted of Elvis, The Everly Brothers and doo-wop. (Dylan, Motown and the Beatles were still several years away from taking over the airwaves.) The point is that, until recently, we listened to (and enjoyed) a far narrow range of sounds. The rest of the sonic universe had yet to be discovered.

This isn't the place for a discussion of the corticofugal network, or the peculiar ways in which our brain cells learn how to listen to new songs and melodies. I'm simply pointing out the obvious -- that the twentieth century was a powerful demonstration of human plasticity, cultural proof that that we can learn to tolerate (and even enjoy) an astonishing range of music. Kanye might have started a riot in 1913 Paris, just as Stravinsky did, but we now sing along to his choruses, and can steal some emotion from his sample driven tunes. What began with the atonality of Schoenberg, et. al. has led, somewhat inevitably, to that strange moment at the MTV Music Video Awards, where a hip-hop star interrupted a country-western dynamo, and two musical forms that didn't even exist 75 years ago reminded us that they're here to stay."

LEST WE FORGET: Book Titles, If They Were Written Today

Scott Simpson (h/t Andrew Sullivan):

Then: The Wealth of Nations
Now: Invisible Hands: The Mysterious Market Forces That Control Our Lives and How to Profit from Them

Then: Walden
Now: Camping with Myself: Two Years in American Tuscany

Then: The Theory of the Leisure Class
Now: Buying Out Loud: The Unbelievable Truth About What We Consume and What It Says About Us

Then: The Gospel of Matthew
Now: 40 Days and a Mule: How One Man Quit His Job and Became the Boss

Then: The Prince
Now: The Prince (Foreword by Oprah Winfrey)

Posted by Ian Faerstein at 12:52 PM

September 15, 2009

9/15: This Ain't Gonna Fly, Max

In what is perhaps a sign of their recognition that the prospects for a public option are fading, some liberal bloggers are now focusing their efforts on another aspect of health care reform: subsidies. These bloggers are complaining that the bill proposed by Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D-MT) provides unacceptably low subsidies for low-income Americans. The netroots warn that passing the bill as it currently stands would be "a political disaster of epic proportions" for Dems, since (in their view) it wouldn't provide enough financial help for uninsured families and would consequently backfire. Publius explains: "Don't get me wrong -- the public option is important, but I see it as a longer-term protection. If the Dems pass a bill that mandates coverage but provides skimpy subsidies and anemic coverage, it could be a full-blown policy disaster immediately."

Not every liberal blogger is focused on making the Baucus bill more generous, however. Some are arguing that "real reform is going to require reconciliation" -- not a compromise bill forged by the Finance Committee.

What else is happening in the blogosphere?

• Liberal bloggers (Klein, Dworkin, Cole, Scarecrow, Benen) are promoting a new poll which found that a large majority of doctors support a public health insurance option. Other lefty bloggers (McCarter, Sudbay, Hamsher) are promoting a new Daily Kos/Research 2000 poll which found that a majority of AR citizens support a public option, even though AR's Dem congressmen oppose it.
• Conservative bloggers (Erickson, Bandes) are urging House GOPers to vote against the "resolution of disapproval" that Dems are introducing to rebuke Rep. Joe Wilson (R-SC) for shouting "You lie!" during Pres. Obama's speech to Congress.
• Conservative bloggers (Malkin, Lane, Vadum, Lowry, Morrissey) are delighted that the Senate voted to block federal housing grants for the antipoverty group ACORN. One righty blogger is urging Rep. Wilson to sponsor a similar amendment in the House.

BAUCUS: More Generous Subsidies, Please!

Liberal bloggers are complaining that Baucus's health care proposal doesn't provide adequate subsidies for uninsured families:

• The Washington Monthly Benen: "The problem, at this point, is with the proposal itself. Putting aside the public option for a moment -- Baucus' plan doesn't have one -- most reform advocates agree that the subsidy cap for uninsured families should be set at 400% of the federal poverty level. Last week, Baucus signaled his intention to support a 300% cap, and there was some scuttlebutt about a 350% compromise. [...] I realize that it's not exactly a catchy rallying slogan to chant, 'A subsidy cap at 300% of the federal poverty level is unacceptable!' but the truth is, it's a provision that really needs to be changed."
• Think Progress' Matthew Yglesias: "A public option would help, in other words, but ultimately when it comes to affordability in the short-term there's just no substitute for spending more money. By shaving the price tag of the bill from $1.3 trillion over ten years to $900 billion over ten years now down to something more like $800 billion over ten years, Baucus and [ME Sen.] Olympia Snowe are guaranteeing that the program won't really have the resources to deliver on its promises. The bill would still give a lot of help to some people, and some help to a lot of people, and this (more so than the public option) seems like the kind of thing that further congresses are certain to tweak one way or the other. But it's still a major instance of Centrists Behaving Badly and the President's decision to endorse the $900 billion price tag in his joint address strikes me as a bit of a blunder since it set the stage for Snowe taking a further ax to things."
• The Washington Post's Ezra Klein: "I don't want to underplay the fact that this plan really does make life better for people up to 300 percent of poverty, and even a bit better for people up to 400 percent of poverty. Being socked with a bill for $11,600 is better than facing one for $45,000, or $100,000. But it's worth comparing this with a national system like that in Canada or Britain or France, or even the national system that our own seniors enjoy: In those cases, an awful illness stands no chance of bankrupting a family or consuming 30 percent of its income. The reforms under consideration make our system somewhat better. Maybe even a lot better. But they don't make it good enough."
• Obsidian Wings' publius: "Don't get me wrong -- the public option is important, but I see it as a longer-term protection. If the Dems pass a bill that mandates coverage but provides skimpy subsidies and anemic coverage, it could be a full-blown policy disaster immediately. Fortunately, the Baucus bill doesn't start out at a terrible level, but it's still unacceptably low. If subsidy levels could become as politicized as the public option, I think it liberal activism could really bear some fruit. It would not only help middle-class families, it would ensure that health coverage reform doesn't become a serious political liability."

Atrios warns that there will be political consequences if Dems pass an unpopular bill: "I recognize that Max Baucus and his Republican BFFs aren't going to write a bill that will please me very much, although he outlined one which did just that a year ago, but my big concern is that he's being suckered into creating a bill which, if it became law, would be a political disaster of epic proportions. This thing doesn't just have to be good, it has to be popular."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Has Obama Been Neutralized For Now?

Power Line's Paul Mirengoff:

"I think the biggest reason why Obama failed to change many minds [during his health care speech] last week is that he's not particularly popular right now. No matter how grand the oratory and how clever the rhetorical devices, a speech will be effective only to the extent the speaker is trusted and believed. As Obama's popularity has declined, he has become less trusted and believable.

In short, with only about half of the country now well-disposed towards Obama, it's not terribly surprising that he was unable to boost support for an unpopular program past the break-even point. (I should add, however, that I still feared Obama could pull it off).

This doesn't mean that Obama is a spent force on the stump or the bully pulpit. If (and I would say when) the economy is perceived as having markedly improved, Obama's popularity could easily soar. At that point he would likely regain the ability to move public opinion his way on specific issues. But until then, it may well be that Obama is just not that formidable."

LEST WE FORGET: Joe Wilson, Serena Williams and Kanye West Kick Off National Outburst Week

The Huffington Post's Andy Borowitz:

"Rep. Joe Wilson (R-SC), tennis legend Serena Williams and recording artist Kanye West held a press conference in Washington, DC today to kick off the first annual National Outburst Week.

'We're here to celebrate every American's right to unleash a sudden, unprovoked verbal outburst,' Ms. Williams said. 'And if you don't like it, you can shove this tennis ball down your fucking -- '

'Hold up, Serena,' said Mr. West, seizing the microphone. 'I just want to say that Beyonce's video is one of the greatest videos of all --'

'You lie!' shouted Rep. Wilson."

Posted by Ian Faerstein at 01:01 PM

September 14, 2009

9/14: Here We Go Again...

The massive conservative protests on 9/12 generated a lot of commentary in the blogosphere, and much of it had a familiar ring. Just as they did after the Tax Day demonstrations, righty bloggers portrayed the 9/12 protests as the latest manifestation of a large (and growing) grassroots movement that will permanently reshape U.S. politics. Michelle Malkin gushed: "The success of the Tea Party movement and its allies/successors shows that there's no monopoly on 'community organizing.' You are the change we've been praying for." Meanwhile, Mark Hemingway praised the protesters as "an undeniably sober and informed crowd, especially in comparison to your standard left-liberal protest march. These people have jobs, are infuential in their communities, and you can be darn sure they plan on voting next November."

Liberal bloggers, on the other hand, downplayed the political significance of the demonstrations and portrayed the protesters as a small, angry minority. Duncan Black quipped: "Maybe next time the 700 million teabaggers should try voting." Many lefty bloggers asked why these activists hadn't taken to the streets when George W. Bush took steps to expand government and increase the deficit. Finally, numerous lefty bloggers (Lewison, ThinkProgress, Posner, Benen, Yglesias, Layne, Willis) published photos of offensive signs that conservative activists were holding -- just as they did after the Tax Day protests earlier this year.

What else is happening in the blogosphere?

• CA Assemb. Chuck DeVore (R) has designed an online fundraising widget for himself and three other conservative SEN candidates: ex-FL House Speaker Marco Rubio (R), ex-PA Rep. Pat Toomey (R), and TX RR Commis. Michael Williams (R). RedState is promoting this widget in an effort to raise $250K for these four candidates in the next 20 days. Meanwhile, another RedState blogger is attacking DeVore's primary rival, ex-HP CEO Carly Fiorina (R).
• FL Sen. George LeMieux (R) -- whom Gov. Charlie Crist (R) appointed to fill the seat vacated by retired Sen. Mel Martinez (R) -- is already drawing fire from conservative bloggers (Erickson, Krikorian).
• Liberal bloggers aren't taking sides (yet) in the MA SEN Dem primary, but Daily Kos' Laura Clawson thinks that AG Martha Coakley needs to release "a well-defined set of position statements," since Coakley lacks the established legislative record that some of her competitors have.
• Liberal bloggers (Serwer, Benen, Kleiman) are criticizing ex-Memphis mayor Willie Herenton (D) for making explicitly race-based appeals in his primary campaign against Rep. Steve Cohen (D-TN).

CONSERVATIVE PROTEST: "You Are The Change We've Been Praying For"

Conservative bloggers are very excited about the size and energy of the 9/12 protests:

• Malkin: "Activists were derided as amateurs who couldn't turn out a crowd. Then they were smeared as corporate shills. They were criticized for not having a coherent message. Then they were mocked for ideological single-mindedness. They are resented by professional strategists who accuse them of organizing empty protests that won't translate into electoral gains. But the movement has given birth to a new generation of movers and shakers who have rejected establishment partisan politics for nimble, Internet-facilitated, issues-based advocacy. The success of the Tea Party movement and its allies/successors shows that there's no monopoly on 'community organizing.' You are the change we've been praying for. March on!"
• NRO's Hemingway: "As a journalist who wears his cynicism like a badge of honor, to say that today's tea party protest wildly exceeded my expectations would be an understatement. I've yet to see a reliable estimate of the crowd size and the cops seemed bound and determined to keep any photographers away from any high vantage points, but I'd be shocked if it wasn't well into six figures. [...O]verall it was an undeniably sober and informed crowd, especially in comparison to your standard left-liberal protest march. These people have jobs, are infuential in their communities, and you can be darn sure they plan on voting next November."
• Glenn Reynolds: "I've said this before, but those in the GOP who think that the Tea Party movement is for their benefit need to think again. Roger Stone spoke, and while nobody had anything against him in particular, several people told me that they thought the GOP was trying to co-opt the Tea Party Movement, and they weren't happy about that. My advice to the GOP -- and, for that matter, to those Democrats who care -- is to try to find a way to address the Tea Party crowd's interests, bearing in mind that if you don't they're just as happy to throw Republicans out of office as Democrats."
• Reason's Nick Gillespie: "[T]he three takeaways I had from the event comport with [Matt] Welch's from yesterday's post: First, the crowd was truly huge. Second, the crowd was from all over the place (both geographically and ideologically). And third, the crowd, well-behaved and stunningly normal in the main, was genuinely pissed off at out of control spending and government policies. 'Stop spending,' was the basic answer to any questions about what Congress and the president should do come tomorrow. Throw the bums of either party out come next fall was the second most-common answer.

CONSERVATIVE PROTEST II: Hey, Tea Baggers -- Didn't We Just Hold An Election?

Many liberal bloggers are accusing the conservative activists of holding Pres. Obama and Bush to different standards:

• Balloon Juice's John Cole: "The protests, for some reason, were a little bit bigger than the massive wave of protests from these 'fiscal conservatives' when the Republicans and George Bush passed on trillions of unfunded liabilities with the Prescription Drug Act. I just can't figure out why. It is almost like this is just partisan nonsense whipped up by Koch foundation funded outlets."
• The Washington Monthly's Steve Benen: "We learned today that right-wing activists don't like government spending (except when Bush and Republican lawmakers spent freely), don't like the size of government (except when Bush and Republican lawmakers increased the size of government), don't like deficits and debt (except when Bush and Republican lawmakers added trillions to the nation's tab), and don't like czars (except when Bush used dozens of them to implement his agenda). [...] In other words, the point of today's rally was to let the country know there are a lot of right-wing activists with right-wing beliefs. We knew that before today, but I guess they wanted to remind us."
• Think Progress' Matthew Yglesias: "Probably the weirdest thing about the Glenn Beck / Tea Party nexus to me is that it tends to rely so heavily on libertarian rhetoric and fear of incipient authoritarianism. These kind of sentiments would be a lot easier to take seriously if not for the fact that we didn't see these people marching out in the streets when George W. Bush used the threat of terrorism to justify secret, illegal warrantless surveillance, detention without trial, torture, etc. Indeed, the very same people who spend Monday, Wednesday, and Friday complaining that Barack Obama's 'czars' are a threat to liberty not only weren't worried about czars in the Bush years, they spend Tuesday and Thursday worrying that Obama's not doing enough to ensure that intelligence operatives can break the law with impunity."

Liberal bloggers are also arguing that these conservative activists are hardly representative of the country at large:

• Yglesias: "As we know, back in November most people voted for Barack Obama. Most people voted for a Democratic House candidate. And most people voted for a Democratic Senate candidate. Today, most people prefer Obama's approach to the approach of congressional Republicans. But this is a very large country. And a large minority of the population is out of step with the views of the minority. You've got your anti-abortion guys, your tenthers, your birthers, your Medicare-hating congressmen, etc. Something called the Ayn Rand Center for Individual Rights is among the sponsors of the rally. And so, fine, there are a lot of people with far-right political opinions. But the idea that this is actually some kind of response to specific things Barack Obama has done is pretty off-base. It's just the usual suspects getting fired up."
• Atrios: "Maybe next time the 700 million teabaggers should try voting."

Liberal bloggers also paid considerable attention to how the media was covering the event. Many lefty bloggers (Silver, Aravosis, Kleiman, Blue Texan) criticized FreedomWorks president Matt Kibbe for giving a grossly inflated estimate of the size of the crowd in D.C. Other liberal bloggers (Black, Benen, digby) complained that the Washington Post displayed a "glaring double standard" by placing an article about the 9/12 protests on its front page, since the newspaper had relegated its coverage of the '02 anti-war protests to the Metro section.

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Norman Borlaug, Forgotten Benefactor Of Humanity

The following is an excerpt from Gregg Easterbrook's '97 Atlantic profile of Norman Borlaug, the Nobel Prize-winning agronomist who died Saturday at the age of 95:

"Borlaug is an eighty-two-year-old plant breeder who for most of the past five decades has lived in developing nations, teaching the techniques of high-yield agriculture. He received the Nobel in 1970, primarily for his work in reversing the food shortages that haunted India and Pakistan in the 1960s. Perhaps more than anyone else, Borlaug is responsible for the fact that throughout the postwar era, except in sub-Saharan Africa, global food production has expanded faster than the human population, averting the mass starvations that were widely predicted -- for example, in the 1967 best seller Famine -- 1975! The form of agriculture that Borlaug preaches may have prevented a billion deaths.

Yet although he has led one of the century's most accomplished lives, and done so in a meritorious cause, Borlaug has never received much public recognition in the United States, where it is often said that the young lack heroes to look up to. One reason is that Borlaug's deeds are done in nations remote from the media spotlight: the Western press covers tragedy and strife in poor countries, but has little to say about progress there. Another reason is that Borlaug's mission -- to cause the environment to produce significantly more food -- has come to be seen, at least by some securely affluent commentators, as perhaps better left undone. More food sustains human population growth, which they see as antithetical to the natural world."

LEST WE FORGET: University Of Illinois Researchers Find Link Between Attending University Of Illinois, Receiving Solid Education At Great Price

From The Onion:

"URBANA, IL -- According to a new study conducted by researchers at the University of Illinois, there is a strong correlation between enrolling at the local four-year college and receiving a well-rounded, but moderately priced education. 'Our research indicates that the likelihood of getting a solid bang for your academic buck increases dramatically when attending the U of I, located in Urbana-Champaign, just minutes away from beautiful downtown,' said chief author Dr. Joseph Mahler, who works extensively in his field and brings years of experience to the classroom. 'In all cases, test subjects reported that the price of matriculating at the University of Illinois was nearly as unbeatable as the vaunted Fighting Illini Men's Basketball Squad. Go Illini!' Researchers are currently conducting a new study linking the contribution of alumni funds to the university with a sense of general happiness and well-being."

Posted by Ian Faerstein at 01:00 PM

September 11, 2009

9/11: Joe Wilson's War

In a mere 36 hours, a relatively obscure GOP congressman from South Carolina has become the most discussed figure in the blogosphere. When Rep. Joe Wilson (R-SC) shouted "You lie!" in response to Pres. Obama's claim that the Dem health care plans wouldn't cover illegal immigrants, he instantly became a hero to conservatives and a villain to liberals. Lefty bloggers are urging their readers to donate money to Wilson's Dem challenger, Rob Miller (who has already raised over $700K online). They're also digging up past instances of Wilson saying controversial things and taking controversial positions.

Liberals aren't the only ones on offense, however. Wilson held interviews with sympathetic bloggers and recorded a fundraising video urging supporters to "contribute to my effort to defeat the proponents of government-run health care." And conservative bloggers are urging their readers to donate money to Wilson and "prove that conservatives are not pathetic activists."

WILSON: No, Congressmen, You're The Liar

Liberal bloggers are arguing that Wilson, not Obama, has his facts wrong on the illegal immigration issue (the fact-checkers at PolitiFact call Wilson's claim "false," although they're a bit more nuanced in their analysis of the GOP argument as a whole):

• Daily Kos' Jed Lewison: "Congressman Wilson, take note: President Obama was correct. You were wrong, as the actual legislative language of HR 3200 makes clear. [...] Wilson has already apologized for his childish outburst, but what he really should have apologized for is lying. [...U]nless we fight back against the kinds of lies that Joe Wilson and his Republican colleagues are spreading, we'll never get meaningful health care reform. And that's what really matters."
• dday: "The plans on the table would provide more security for those with insurance, and provide exchanges for those without coverage. The undocumented can access those exchanges, because it would require them to pay for coverage with their own money. The bill would also provide subsidies to people who cannot afford coverage. The undocumented would not be eligible for those subsidies. It says that in every single bill draft. Rush Limbaugh, being a little more honest than usual today, says 'It will cover undocumented aliens. Now it may not specifically say so in the bill... ' He's talking about enforcement and verification statutes, which is a red herring, because some form of ID is typically required at point of service if you have an insurance card. It's also a total lie, because there is a provision to implement enforcement in the bill."
• Think Progress' Matthew Yglesias: "[T]hough the bills would prevent undocumented immigrants from receiving any taxpayer assistance in purchasing health insurance, the proposals on the table don't do anything special to prevent an undocumented immigrant from buying health insurance with his own money. To characterize this as 'insur[ing] illegal immigrants' strikes me as about on a par with claiming that Obama's health care plans give ibuprofen to illegal immigrants. After all, nothing in the bill stops illegal immigrants from buying ibuprofen in a store! And the very same FDA regulations that assure citizens and legal residents and tourists of the safety of ibuprofen will also benefit illegal immigrants."

Not surprisingly, conservative bloggers are arguing that Wilson was correct:

• Erick Erickson: "The Democrats have blocked specific Republican attempts to require citizenship verification to get on the government plan. Why? The State Medicaid agencies are given the ability to set eligibility standards for the low income subsidies that will be used for the plan. And they have no incentive not to enroll illegal aliens, particularly since it's a 100% federal match. So doctors are not required to verify citizenship because they and the states will get greater allotments the faster the rolls grow. H.R. 3200 claims to block illegal aliens from the plan, but provides incentives to ignore citizenship. It is like telling a kid that it is against the law to drink, but then specifically not enforcing the law, nor providing any money or manpower to enforce the law."
• Hot Air's Allahpundit: "Wilson's biggest advantage: He was right. The One does lie, and never more so than when he's talking about health care. Even the GOP House leadership, while scolding Wilson for shouting, is using it as an opportunity to tout the Congressional Research Service report on ObamaCare's impact on illegals."

WILSON II: So Joe Gets His Way, After All

Liberal bloggers were upset when Sens. Max Baucus (D-MT) and Kent Conrad (D-ND) reacted to Wilson's outburst by pledging to insert a "proof of citizenship requirement" in their bill:

• AMERICAblog's John Aravosis: "First off, congratulations for once again caving to the teabaggers and telling them that all they need to do is go crazy and Democrats will run scared and cave. Second, why would anyone think that Wilson, or any of the extremists he represents, will support Baucus and Conrad's plan, regardless of the changes? Have we learned no lessons from the stimulus debate, where the Obama administration and Democrats gave the Republicans 40% of the bill as tax cuts, and almost every single Republican in the Congress (save three) voted against it?"
• Firedoglake's Jane Hamsher: "As John says, if Wilson's outburst turns out to be successful, it'll keep happening over and over again. And it will work every time."
• Yglesias: "The policy rationale for declining to provide subsidies to people who are in the country illegally is fairly clear. But the new Wilson-Baucus line is really nuts. They're saying that people should be required to provide proof of citizenship before they buy health insurance on the individual market with their own money. This will have a direct cost to taxpayers since some verification mechanism will need to be put into place. It will also have an indirect cost to you and me and everyone we know -- the vast majority of people, after all, aren't undocumented immigrants but we're all going to need to go through a citizenship check hassle before we buy health insurance. It will probably also make average premiums higher, since the exchanges will be left with a smaller risk pool and there's no real reason to believe that the subset of undocumented immigrants who are capable of affording an unsubsidized insurance policy are below-average health risks. Last, of course, this will make the undocumented immigrant population sicker with negative public health consequences for their coworkers, friends, family, and the customers of the businesses they walk at. That's a mighty high price to ask U.S. citizens and legal residents to pay all for what amounts to spite."

WILSON III: Don't Apologize, Joe!

Most conservative bloggers are defending Wilson:

• The Weekly Standard's Michael Goldfarb: "Joe Wilson offered the most succinct and effective Republican response to Obamacare since Sarah Palin attacked Obama's 'death panels' -- and, like Sarah, he did it in just two words: 'You lie.' It is also incontrovertibly true that Obama was lying. Illegal immigrants will get health care for free under the Obama system just as they get health care for free now. Except under Obama's system the American taxpayer will foot the bill instead of the hospitals and insurance companies. Liberals have reacted as one might have predicted based on the Democratic response to town hall protesters this summer -- by questioning Joe Wilson's patriotism and honor and civility. Let them question all those things, and let them send all that money to Wilson's challenger in 2010. It won't make a bit of difference. That district is as safe as [Speaker] Nancy Pelosi's, and Joe Wilson's constituents were probably more bothered by his apology than anything else."
• Townhall's Meredith Jessup: "I was pretty disappointed this morning when I found out South Carolina Congressman Joe Wilson had apologized for his outburst last night during the president's address before the joint session of Congress."
• Townhall's Jonathan Garthwaite: "It may be arguable that Wilson's outburst will help the Democrats unite and thus was ill-advised, but this is a political battle against government control of 1/7th of the nation's economy. The Democrats' vision is very different than the Republicans'. Who wins this battle will have major consequences on our country's health care system. It won't always be a cotillion ball. So pardon me if I don't join in the condemnation of Congressman Wilson."

Conservative bloggers are also arguing that Wilson's verbal outburst will ultimately help the GOP:

• Right Wing News' John Hawkins: "Wilson's 'You lie' outburst is a political plus, not a minus because the discussion over it, even from people criticizing or disagreeing with him, will focus an inordinate amount of attention on the fact that Obama is lying and that illegal aliens will be able to get coverage under the bill."
• Power Line's John Hinderaker: "The main consequence of the Democrats and their allies focusing so much attention on Wilson is that it detracts attention from Obama's speech. It is hard to understand how this can be a good strategy. Moreover, it is hardly good publicity for Obama to repeat endlessly the fact that a Congressman called him a liar, and that the subject was whether the Democrats' health care bill will confer benefits on illegal immigrants. It surely will, as the Congressional Budget Office, for one, has pointed out -- a fact that Obama tries hard to keep quiet."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Immigrants And Health Care

Yglesias:

"[C]ontrary to Rep Wilson, the bills under consideration really won't give health insurance to undocumented immigrants. But like Alexandra Gutierrez this seems regrettable to me -- undocumented immigrants are people, too!

Obviously, it's politically impossible for elected officials to take any other stand on this immigrant issue, but it's a really unfortunate and inhumane posture they've adopted. Hopefully someday soon we'll get an immigration reform measure that directly deals with the multi-faceted problem of the presence of a mass community of undocumented people in the United States. Until then, I'm still waiting for the moment when conservatives realize that 'illegal immigrants might use it!' actually works as an argument against basically all public sector endeavors. Illegal immigrants benefit from the cops catching murderers! They ride the bus! They drive on highways! Better just eliminate all services to make sure no one from Mexico takes advantages of any of them."

LEST WE FORGET: Who You Callin' A Leper?

From Overheard in the Office:

Female worker #1: As a smoker these days I really feel like a social leprechaun.
Female worker #2: You mean "leper"?
Female worker #1: What?

Posted by Ian Faerstein at 12:44 PM

September 10, 2009

9/10: A House Divided

Most liberal bloggers were impressed by Pres. Obama's health care address, calling it "a great speech" that made "a strong case for reform". That said, several lefty bloggers criticized Obama for not pushing more strongly for a public option. Righty bloggers, on the other hand, universally panned Obama's speech, accusing him of employing "tired rhetoric" and "lying through his teeth".

Bloggers are also buzzing about Rep. Joe Wilson's (R-SC) verbal outburst, in which he shouted "You lie!" after Obama claimed that the Dem health plans wouldn't cover illegal immigrants. Liberal bloggers are accusing Wilson of having "brought the town hall freak show into the House chamber itself" and are urging readers to donate money to Wilson's Dem opponent. The netroots are also portraying the incident as evidence of "just how crazy the remaining Republicans, especially in the House, have become." Conservative bloggers, in contrast, are mostly defending Wilson, calling him a "great American hero" who "had the courage to stand up and draw attention to what was going on".

What else is happening in the blogosphere?

• Liberal bloggers (Lewison, Bowers) are frustrated by Sen. Olympia Snowe's (R-ME) strong statements against a public health insurance option.
• LGBT bloggers (Sudbay, Sullivan) are accusing VA GOV candidate Bob McDonnell (R) of being anti-gay. Conservative bloggers (Geraghty, Mirengoff) are complaining that the Washington Post is trying to damage McDonnell's candidacy.
• Conservative bloggers (Lane, Ace, Morrissey, Reynolds) are portraying Obama's science advisor, John Holdren, as a radical.

OBAMA: Rising To The Occasion

Some liberal bloggers were very impressed by Obama's speech:

• Oliver Willis: "I swear man. Every time. Like, every single time. They pile on, they write him off and then he does his thing and gives a great speech that hits the points just about right. They said he was throwing the public option overboard, then he put 7 paragraphs of it in the speech. They said he was going to give his liberal base the cold shoulder, then he smacked the GOP around. They said he wasn't emotional enough, then talked about Ted Kennedy, average Americans and the moral urgency of health care reform."
• Open Left's Mike Lux: "As one who has been unhappy about a fair amount of Obama's communications strategy on health care up until now, I came away from tonight's speech a very happy man. He took a very big gamble, but I think he will get a great a pay-off from it."
• The Washington Monthly's Steve Benen: "I feared, going into tonight, that the president might be more cautious and understated in his pitch. He wasn't. Obama went big, sold the plan, and actually explained how this would work. It was as strong as I've seen him on health care -- which means he came through with the right speech at the right time (Biggest Speech Of His Career, Part VII)."
• Obsidian Wings' publius: "Tonight's speech was one of Obama's very best -- and he's delivered some good ones. [...] There have been many blows to liberal morale over the past few months that have been dragging down his health care numbers. Hopefully, this speech will turn that around."
• FiveThirtyEight's Nate Silver: "As Marc Ambinder outlined this afternoon, this was a difficult speech because it was going for a bit of a two-fer. On the one hand, Obama needed to appeal to liberals -- both the 60 or so members of the House who have threatened to vote against a watered-down bill, and the much broader, activist community who has grown wary of what they perceive as a Clintonian president who is too willing to compromise. On the other hand, he needed to appeal to independent voters and their brethren, among whom Obama's approval ratings and sentiment toward his health care package have fallen significantly. [...] I think Obama accomplished both of those things -- with some margin to spare."

Other liberal bloggers were more measured in their praise:

• digby: "Obama's speech was effective, I think. I don't know if it will change public opinion and there is no doubt the Republicans are going to dig in their heels even more, but all the Democrats should feel at least somewhat relieved that Obama was able to make a strong case for reform."
• Mother Jones' Kevin Drum: "I'd say the speech probably helped. It won't affect Republican votes much, but it will probably move public opinion a few notches and make it easier for centrist Dems to stick together and overcome a GOP filibuster. Basically, I'd say the odds of healthcare passing this year have gone up from 65% to about 75%."
• TPM's Josh Marshall: "I thought President Obama did a solid job laying out the essential elements of his reform, rebuking the liars and laying out some beginnings of an elevating vision of just what this whole effort is about."

OBAMA II: R.I.P. Public Option?

Some liberal bloggers were angry that Obama didn't demand that the health care bill include a public option:

• Firedoglake's Scarecrow: "President Obama kept the public option alive tonight, but probably only enough to pretend it has some negotiating value with those who oppose it. He said nothing he hasn't said before, and the fact that he still won't nail this down will only feed the impression by progressives that they're being played."
• Open Left's David Sirota: "The wavering on the public option would be hilarious if it wasn't so serious. Really -- his insistence that he supports it but might also support removing it reminded me of a Saturday Night Live skit parodying wavering and waffling Democrats. [...] I felt like I was listening to a parsed screed by President Rahm Emanuel, not a call to arms from the Barack Obama who actually ran for president. There was lots of passionate talk about the problem, and little courage to demand a serious solution."
• TalkLeft's Big Tent Democrat: "This simply stinks. I have no words for how bad the public option section of the speech is. I SHOULD pretend that he is strongly defending it. He is not. He is letting you know he could not give a sh*t about it. It is all on the Progressive Block now."
• Daily Kos' mcjoan: "Not so good: weak defense of public option. [Obama] did a good job of defining it as the center by calling single payer the 'left,' but by arguing that it wouldn't really do that much, 'Let me be clear, only an option for those who do not have insurance, less than 5% of Americans will sign up,' isn't much of a strong defense of the public option."
• The Huffington Post's Cenk Uygur: "Great rhetorical flourishes, but did anyone hear him say that he was definitely going to fight for the public option? No. [...] If you think it's enough for Obama to say he wants the public option, you're not right. He has to go to battle for it -- and in the end, there is no way around it -- he has to insist it's in the bill when the Republicans, the lobbyists and health care industry fight him tooth and nail on it."

digby had a different take: "[D]espite the fact that he hedged, his long discussion of the necessity of the public plan is good news for progressives. It's still alive anyway and I can't honestly say that would be the case if the progressives hadn't decided to make a stand. (Of course we're still talking triggers or co-ops, but that's nothing new)"

Open Left's Chris Bowers makes a similar point: "President Obama specifically mentioned the bloc of House Progressives threatening to oppose health care reform without a public option as the major group that needs to be negotiated with. [...] For a group that was last in line to meet with President Obama about anything this year, that is quite a step up in visibility and power for the Progressive Caucus. Negotiating power over the President's agenda has no longer been ceded entirely to Blue Dogs and Senate Gangs of Conservadems and Maine Republicans. Not only is that a clear victory for our efforts to increase Progressive power in Congress, but it is also a big victory for President Obama's agenda. By validating the power of the CPC in sucha major forum, President Obama has now given himself some space to work on the left."

OBAMA III: Pants On Fire

Not surprisingly, conservative bloggers were very critical of Obama's speech:

• Hot Air's Ed Morrissey: "If Obama just intended to fire up his left wing, then this speech was a success. If he intended on selling ObamaCare to the majority of Americans who oppose it, Obama's speech was an unmitigated disaster."
• NRO's Jim Geraghty: "The more I think about it, the more I think President Obama offered a terrible speech. Time and again, Obama's response to criticism is to say 'this is a lie.' And he pretty much leaves his assertion at that, and hopes that the audience trusts him more than the opposition."
• Right Wing News' John Hawkins: "Much of [the speech] was laughable. We're going to pay for the plan by cutting waste. Do it for Ted, blah, blah. Obama needed a game changer here. Although his delivery was good, it was tired rhetoric. Grade: D-"
• RedState's Erick Erickson: "We were treated to a vainglorious, pompous ass playing politics with healthcare while accuses everyone else of playing politics. And he spent the whole hour lying through his teeth. [...] Whatever the President did not accomplish tonight, he waved around the cadaver named Ted Kennedy as a distraction. It is a good thing Ted Kennedy drank as much as he did, because his corpse held up well as Obama dragged it through the aisles of the House of Representatives like Achilles dragging Hector across the plains of Troy."
• AmSpec Blog's Philip Klein: "More or less, the same arguments he made tonight he's been making for months. He said that we have to act now, that his plan will help everybody get covered, that it will curb insurance industry absuses, that it won't add to the deficit, that it isn't a government takeover, that his Medicare cuts won't mean reduced benefits, and that he won't increase taxes. The American people have been hearing this for months, and they haven't been buying it, so I don't see why that will change with one speech."
• NRO's Yuval Levin: "[I]t is striking how partisan this speech was -- both in its offense and its defense. There's nothing necessarily wrong with that, of course. But it's telling. It suggests the White House and the Democratic leaders have decided that the Democrats must go it alone, and therefore needed a pep talk to give them the courage to push against public unease and Republican opposition. This speech may well serve them on that front. But it is hard to imagine that it will persuade independent voters who are worried about the plan, and that kind of persuasion is what moderate Democrats needed."
• The Atlantic's Megan McArdle: "In the end, I think this speech satisfied no one. There's a little information for the wonks, but not nearly enough. There's a little stirring rhetoric for the non-wonks, but again, not nearly enough. Journalists seem to have liked it. But if journalists were any reliable key to the sentiment of the American people, we'd already have national healthcare, and national second homes in Maine."

WILSON: Bringing Teabag Tactics Into The House?

Liberal bloggers are blasting Wilson for his verbal outburst:

• Marshall: "[This] was in a way an inevitable moment -- when they brought the town hall freak show into the House chamber itself."
• AMERICAblog's Joe Sudbay: "So, we had the President acting like a statesman and continuing to offer to work with Republicans (even as he did call out some of their lies.) And, we had a Republican member of Congress screaming like an idiot."
• Oliver Willis: "Congressman Joe Wilson, by yelling 'Liar' at the President Of The United States during a joint session of congress, should be censured by the House of Representatives. The GOP brought teabag tactics into our House."
• Balloon Juice's DougJ: "I've never seen anything like this -- or like the death panel outburst -- before at a presidential address. [...] There is no question, at this point, that the defining feature of today's politics is the complete craziness of the Republican party. I think it's time to start finding ways around the filibuster. Forty nuts from a party of lunatics should not be allowed to obstruct what is, whether one agrees with it or not, a serious Democratic agenda.
• Daily Kos' Jed Lewison: "It's long past time for [Republicans] to get a grip. After nine months of their teabagging antics, it's time for them to grow up and show some decency and civility."

Yglesias: "Personally, I sort of liked Rep Joe Wilson's idea of introducing British-style heckling to the halls of congress; totally disrespectful and out of step with American tradition, true, but their tradition is better. Unfortunately, Wilson was also lying about the point at issue and will thereby set back the cause of heckling by decades."

The Atlantic's Andrew Sullivan: "[T]here was something clarifying about a Southern good ol' boy yelling 'Liar' at the president over illegal immigration. That's what the GOP now is: the worst aspects of the old Democratic party combined with a nihilism that is only eclipsed by its catastrophic governance for the past eight years. Defeating these morons and actually creating a discourse for reform is what we elected Obama to do. But they still insist on doing it to themselves, don't they? That's the silver lining."

Many liberal bloggers are arguing that congressional GOPers made themselves look bad with their behavior:

• Sudbay: "While there's a lot of talk about bipartisanship among the D.C. political punditry, there's not much acknowledgement of just how crazy the remaining Republicans, especially in the House, have become. Last night, the whole world saw it."
• Daily Kos' Jake McIntyre: "Today is the day that even the most apolitical Americans realized that the Democrats, despite their faults, are the only adult party."
• BooMan: "The Republicans brought their townhall antics to the well of the House of Representatives, which won't win them any sympathy from swing voters."

WILSON II: Great American Hero?

Most conservative bloggers are defending Wilson's outburst:

• Erickson: "Joe Wilson: Great American Hero! [...] Joe Wilson has been identified as the Republican who yelled out that Barack Obama was a liar. He gets a drink on me!"
• Hawkins: "I applaud Joe Wilson for yelling 'you liar' at Barack Obama. Yes, it was rude, but Obama was lying through his teeth and he has been doing it for over a month. If that's what it takes to draw attention to the fact when so much of the mainstream media simply refuses to report it, so be it. The Democrats, as a block, pulled those kind of shenanigans when Bush was President; so why should we get upset because one Republican told the God's honest truth? I'm glad Joe Wilson had the courage to stand up and draw attention to what was going on."
• Michelle Malkin: "Sure, members of Congress should leave the heckling to town hall protesters. But it was Obama who said himself in the speech: 'If you misrepresent what's in the plan, we will call you out.' That's what Joe Wilson was doing, wasn't it?"
• Geraghty: "Rep. Joe Wilson is very rude. He is also, according to the Congressional Research Service, very correct."
• Glenn Reynolds: "I'm finding it hard to get excited about this. It was a breach of decorum and civility. But someone who says 'get in their face' and 'punch back twice as hard' has little standing to bring that up. If you want to benefit from traditions of civility, you should respect them, and that has hardly been a hallmark of this administration, which has gone out of its way to try to demonize and shout down opponents."

Other conservative bloggers were a bit harder on Wilson:

• Townhall's Carol Platt Liebau: "[I]t's plain wrong for people to heckle the President -- whoever it is -- when he is addressing a Joint Session of Congress. There's plenty of time and opportunity for the GOP to make its points without resorting to tactics that are beneath the dignity of the setting."
• Klein: "Whatever the case, two wrongs don't make a right. By shouting as he did, Wilson made the undecided viewier more likely to side with Obama, it portrayed Republicans as being childish, and distracted from legitimate criticism of the speech."
• NRO's Kathryn Jean Lopez: "[A] a congressman shouldn't shout at the president during a joint session speech. We're not the House of Commons, sorry."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Not The First, And Certainly Not The Last

Yglesias:

"I thought this line from last night's speech was great speechwriting, but not terribly accurate: 'I am not the first President to take up this cause, but I am determined to be the last.'

The problem is that at other points during the speech the president was at pains to reassure people that, actually, under his plans very little would change. That's nice and it's politically smart. Most people mostly don't want their health insurance to change very much. But the flipside of that is that while what Obama proposed would ameliorate many problems with the current system and solve a few of them, it would fundamentally leave a lot of the dysfunction of the current system in place. The nature of your health insurance would still be very closely tied to your job, the system would still pay doctors for just doing stuff rather than for curing things, Medicare will still be on a path toward bankruptcy, Medicaid quality would still be extraordinarily hit-or-miss, etc., etc., etc. This means that whether reform passes or fails, we're almost certainly going to need to revisit this issue again in 5-10 years in a pretty big way."

LEST WE FORGET: It Could Always Be Worse...

From FMyLife.com:

• Today, I was going to propose to my girlfriend on my boat at the lake. As we were looking at the mountains all around us, she playfully pushed me off the side into the water. As I got back on the boat, I realized that not only was my cellphone dead, but the ring had fallen into the deep water. FML.
• Today, I was pulled over for speeding. After a few minutes of conversing, he told me he didn't need to give me a ticket. He then asked for a date. I politely declined. After staring at me for a very long moment, he said "I think I'm going to have to give you that ticket after all." FML.
• Today, I was puked on for the third time in three years at our annual choir concert. What makes it so significant? The fact that the same guy pukes on me every year from stage fright. We're arranged alphabetically, and he's always in the row RIGHT above me. FML.
• Today, my girlfriend called me from her parents' house where she is visiting. They were BBQing outside when out of the blue her childhood friend Adam showed up at the door for the BBQ. She asked her parents why he was there, and her dad replied that he "wants her to know that she has options." FML.
• Today, I found out I have an option on my phone to postpone the sending of my text messages. I thought it would be cute to send my boyfriend texts saying, " I love you and sweet dreams" every night at midnight for a month. He broke up with me and I can't figure out how to stop the texts. FML.

Posted by Ian Faerstein at 01:00 PM

September 09, 2009

9/9: Just Say No To Triggers

In anticipation of Pres. Obama's address to Congress tonight, liberal bloggers are stepping up their demands that members of the House progressive caucus vote against any health care bill that doesn't include a public option. As they've said many times before, the netroots don't consider a "trigger" mechanism to be an acceptable compromise. Consequently, they're urging House progressives to hold their ground, especially now that Blue Dog Dems are holding theirs. In fact, some lefty bloggers are advocating primary challenges for House progressives who say that they're open to triggers.

What else is happening in the blogosphere?

• Liberal bloggers (Benen, Cole, Sudbay, Gardner, Marshall) are slamming Sen. Saxby Chambliss (R-GA) for saying that Obama needs to "express some humility" during tonight's address to Congress.
• Liberal bloggers (Willis, DougJ) are buzzing about a video of Rep. Jean Schmidt (R-OH) whispering "I agree with you" to a woman who told her that Obama isn't a citizen and is therefore ineligible to be President.
• Liberal bloggers (Bink, Transplanted Texan) are pleased that Sen. Chris Dodd (D-CT) decided to remain Chairman of the Banking Committee, thereby preventing Sen. Tim Johnson (D-SD) from ascending to the chairmanship.
• RedState editor Erick Erickson is furious that NRSC Chair John Cornyn released a memo praising CA SEN candidate Carly Fiorina (R), whom Erickson describes as "a vetting nightmare" who "will be destroyed by [Sen. Barbara] Boxer." Erickson goes on to tell his readers that "[GOP SEN candidate Chuck] Devore is one of us. Fiorina is not."
• Although some conservative bloggers are urging senators to block the confirmation of "down-right kooky" Obama nominee Cass Sunstein, others contend that Sunstein is a "mainstream liberal" who ought to be confirmed.

HEALTH CARE REFORM: Hold Your Ground, Progressives!

Liberal bloggers continue to demand that members of the House progressive caucus vote against any health care bill that doesn't include a public option:

• Firedoglake's Jane Hamsher: "Tuesday was 'trigger' day. Progressive members of Congress who promised to hold the line on a public option were suddenly floating 'trigger' trial balloons this morning, paving the way for [Speaker] Nancy Pelosi and [Senate Maj. Leader] Harry Reid to revisit them in the afternoon. [...] I'm happy that [AZ Rep.] Raul Grijalva is cracking the whip on the 60 members who signed the letter saying they would vote against any bill that does not have a public plan. I think it's great that he says that 'triggers' mean 'surrender.' But we need to hear that from everyone else who signed the letter. Saying nothing is not fair. The people whose lives are deeply affected by what happens here, their constituents and their supporters, deserve better than these half-assed trial balloons and ambiguous statements. They need to state once and for all, every one of them, that they understand 'triggers' are a sell-out. Anything short of that is unacceptable."
• AMERICAblog's Joe Sudbay: "Based on past performance, the DC-based political elite (a.k.a. The Villagers) don't expect the progressives to stand strong on this issue. If the House progressives do, they change the political dynamic in Congress. Already, it's big news that one of the leaders of the Blue Dogs, [AR Rep.] Mike Ross, won't vote for a public option. The DC pundits all think the Blue Dogs rule the world. But, this is a chance for the progressive caucus to show its power. Grijalva is leading the way for them. This is about more than just the health care bill. This is about progressives having a real voice in policy -- and real power."

Meanwhile, Hamsher is pleased to report that Dem Reps. Betty Sutton, John Conyers, and Yvette Clarke have all pledged to vote against any bill that doesn't include a public option. Hamsher also advocates primary challenges for progressive Dems such as CA Rep. Sam Farr and MA Rep. Michael Capuano, who say they're open to the "trigger" compromise.

On the other hand, Digby doubts that House progressive will really vote against a compromise bill: "I'm afraid that as much as we like to think we can 'hold the progressives' feet to the fire' on health care reform, it's always been highly unlikely that at the end of the day progressive Democrats would vote against their new president on his signature piece of domestic legislation (which also happens to have been the Liberal Holy Grail for the past 60 years) no matter how much we might scream and yell and issue threats. Health care is not going to be the issue on which the left defies Barack Obama and bands together with Republicans to defeat him. If Obama wants to pass a Health Care reform bill that opens up Medicaid to more poor people, ostensibly regulates the insurance industry and provides some modest subsidies to the uninsured middle class, even if its a rube Goldberg set-up that is unlikely to be sustained, progressives are not going to be the ones to stop it. I'm sorry, they just aren't. Obama himself must be persuaded that the public option is in his own and the country's best interest for it to pass. And even then it might fail at the hands of the 'centrist' corporate shills for whom this paltry effort goes too far."

Conservative blogger Jim Geraghty agrees with Digby: "[W]hy should the president take their 'veto threat' seriously? If their choices are a health-care reform bill without the public option or no health-care reform bill, will they really choose the latter option? They know that a failure to get something passed would be a body blow to Obama's teetering approval rating, right? They know that it would launch a thousand premature political obituaries. They know that it would probably start serious talk about a Democratic primary challenge in 2012. And they know that there's a risk that many grassroots Democrats would look at their party's inability to pass legislation with 59 senators, 256 House members, and control of the White House and decide that political activism is a waste of time."

While some liberal bloggers (namely, Ezra Klein) think the left is placing too much emphasis on the public option, most liberal bloggers (Krugman, Moulitsas, Llorens) disagree.

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Paranoia, Paranoia, Everybody's Comin' To Get Me

TAPPED's Adam Serwer:

"In an ideal world, the folks who spent the last two weeks screeching about how President Obama would 'indoctrinate' America's children by urging them to work hard and stay in school would suffer a loss in influence and stature once those charges turned out to be completely and utterly unfounded. While these kinds of speeches have always been subject to partisan criticisms, the qualitative difference between accusing the President of 'indoctrination' and of campaigning on the job is massive.

The 'indoctrination' accusation also has to be viewed in the context of the larger far right narrative -- which is that the elected leader of this country is in fact, some kind of traitor, an outsider who is subverting the nation to his own villainous ends. This is the core feeling animating everything from birtherism to the cries of 'socialism' from Republicans who demand government keep its hands off their medicare. Even when it isn't tied to the obvious hysteria of birtherism, the subtext of conservative criticisms of the President's legitimacy are fairly similar, which is that, for one reason or another, Obama isn't a legitimate President."

LEST WE FORGET: Of A Sort

From Overheard in New York:

American tourist #1: Wow, your English is really good!
Scottish tourist: Um, thank you.
American tourist #2: Yes, it's really very good. You sound like a native speaker. What language do you normally speak in Scotland, anyway?
Scottish tourist: English.

Posted by Ian Faerstein at 12:48 PM

September 08, 2009

9/8: This Will Not Fly

To say that liberal bloggers are disappointed by Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus's (D-MT) health care plan would be an understatement. While Baucus's proposed bill "would impose new fees on some sectors of the health care industry," the netroots are upset that the bill doesn't include a public option or a similar mechanism for holding down the cost of health insurance premiums. Jane Hamsher derides Baucus's bill as "a giant transfer of wealth to the insurance industry," while Duncan Black calls it "a crap sandwich which people won't like, Republicans won't support it, voters will hate it, and even insurance companies will squeal even though it preserves their role as skimmers of trillions of dollars for no discernible benefit." Meanwhile, Josh Marshall wonders: "Am I the only one who thinks that if the Dems pass a bill with mandates and subsidies for poor and moderate income people to purchase it but no public option or competition with the insurers, that it will be pretty much a catastrophe for the Democrats in political terms?" Needless to say, the netroots are going to be pretty angry if Pres. Obama signals support for Baucus's bill...

What else is happening in the blogosphere?

• While some conservative bloggers (Malkin, Lewis, Smith) are still complaining about Obama's special address to public school students, others (Hinderaker, Mirengoff, Geraghty) are saying that they don't find the content of the speech objectionable. Meanwhile, liberal bloggers (Cole, Attaturk, Hunter, Smith) are mocking their conservative counterparts for making a fuss about the speech.
• Righty bloggers (Malkin, Hinderaker, Johnson, Liebau, Erickson) are pleased that WH green jobs adviser Van Jones resigned after he came under fire from conservatives for controversial comments he made in the past. Conservative bloggers (Geraghty, Mirengoff, Johnson, McCarthy, bs, Hanson) are arguing that Obama's decision to hire Jones indicates that the President is a closet radical. Meanwhile, several righty bloggers (Malkin, Reynolds) are targeting a new Obama appointee -- Ron Bloom.
• Many liberal bloggers (Sirota, Siun, Armstrong, Blue Texan) are angry that the WH did not defend Jones more vigorously. However, other liberal bloggers (Cole, Kleiman, publius) think that Jones' resignation was unfortunate but inevitable.

BAUCUS: We Waited Six Months For This?

Liberal bloggers are slamming Baucus's health care plan:

• Firedoglake's Hamsher: "November 2008: Max Baucus circulates a white paper -- the 'generic Democratic health care plan' -- which includes a public plan, and an emphasis on affordability and availability. September 2009: Max Baucus circulates a health care bill forcing low- to middle-income to buy 'junk' insurance they can't afford to use to earn Republican support, which amounts to a giant transfer of wealth to the insurance industry."
• Daily Kos' David Waldman: "No public option. Not even a public option with a 'trigger,' which was a ridiculous idea tacked on to a position that was already a compromise. And the central tenet of the financing: a giant new 'fee' that insurers are already saying they'll simply pass on to their customers. [...] So what I'm saying here is that it's very disappointing, to put it as mildly as possible, that it took Baucus more than a year to formulate a plan that amounts to capitulating to every Republican demand, and then adding a heaping pile of political suicide on top of it. Thanks, Max! Great plan. Glad we waited. Now STFU."
• TPM's Marshall: "Am I the only one who thinks that if the Dems pass a bill with mandates and subsidies for poor and moderate income people to purchase it but no public option or competition with the insurers, that it will be pretty much a catastrophe for the Democrats in political terms?"
• The Washington Monthly's Steve Benen: "So, let me get this straight. Max Baucus has worked for months on a watered-down plan intended to curry favor with conservatives. He's finally circulating his proposal, which he could have unveiled a long time ago, and which Republicans still won't like. If the Senate minority isn't going to support Baucus' plan anyway, then maybe Baucus ought to push a better bill."
• digby: "Since this is going to piss off the insurance companies and make the Republicans more obstinate than ever, it's hard to see why he felt the need to eliminate the public plan, but there you have it. So we have a shitty plan that the CBO will say saves money but that Democrats will have as hard a time passing as one with a public plan. Awesome strategy."
• Atrios: "[The] Baucus Plan [is] not nothing but it is a crap sandwich which people won't like, Republicans won't support it, voters will hate it, and even insurance companies will squeal even though it preserves their role as skimmers of trillions of dollars for no discernible benefit."

Several liberal bloggers are urging House Dems to vote against Baucus's bill if it becomes the de facto health care bill:

• Open Left's Chris Bowers: "If this is an improvement over the status quo, right now I don't see how. This moves the ball into the Progressive Block's court, not into President Obama's. This draft proposal from Baucus is nowhere close to the type of health care bill they have said they can support. Off hand, it seems perfectly justified to send this bill down to defeat. However, as activists, we only have power to defeat or change this bill if the Progressive Block decides to hold the line. They are going to be asked to fold and compromise, so it is their time to demonstrate leadership. Let's see what happens."
• TalkLeft's Jeralyn Merritt: "If this is the compromise bill Obama says he supports, I hope it gets rejected in the House. There's plenty of time between now and 2014 to get it right. As with all legislation, a bad bill is worse than no bill at all."

Balloon Juice's DougJ is very discouraged: "This is the first time during this whole process I've been scared. For the past few months, I've believed that Democrats would create a decent (if not spectacular) bill that would make it easier for Americans to get health insurance and possibly do something about controlling costs, and that the bill would prove to be a major political success in the medium and long terms. Now, I'm not so sure."

BAUCUS II: C'mon, Guys, Look On The Bright Side

While most liberal bloggers are blasting Baucus's plan, a few are offering a (qualified) defense of his proposal:

• Think Progress' Matthew Yglesias: "I think a lot of the blog response to this proposal is overblown. There's just no reason to think that the system envisioned by Baucus would be either a political or a substantive disaster. Instead, it would create something comparable to the situation that currently prevails in Switzerland or Massachusetts. Is that great? No, it's not. Health care in Massachusetts is substantial worse than health care in any number of foreign countries. That said, the Massachusetts health care system is better than the health care system that exists in any other American state. Similarly, if it were up to me Switzerland is about the last country I would choose to emulate. In terms of excessive costs -- spending that lines the pockets of medical providers with little real medical benefit -- it's worse that everyone except...the United States of America. And there's the rub. The status quo in the United States is really bad. Baucus' plan would make it better."
• The Washington Post's Ezra Klein: "$900 billion is still less money than you really want for this plan. Something around $1.2 trillion is a better bet for doing this right. [...] But the fact that we're talking about $900 billion as opposed to $700 billion means we're in a much better place than we could have been."

The Atlantic's Andrew Sullivan makes a similar point: "It seems to me that a healthcare plan that expands access, removes obvious cruelties and inefficiencies, allows more people into the system and can be plausibly described as universal coverage would be the biggest Democratic policy victory in decades. And I think rejecting this because it doesn't have an immediate public option would be the only truly disastrous move -- you get called a socialist and a failure."

Lefty blogger John Aravosis pushes back against these arguments: "With all due respect to the president, since Joe [Sudbay] and I did support him in the primaries and raised nearly $50,000 for the man, a strategy of 'I'll always settle for one step better than total crap' is not the kind of presidential thinking we should reward. If we agree that the Baucus plan is good because there's no chance for anything better (because Congress and the President chose not to do their jobs), then we reinforce the notion that it is acceptable for the administration, and Congress, to take a four year siesta on legislating -- on leading the nation. We agree to four more years of Republican-lite."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Don't Blame The Grassroots; Blame The Elites

The American Scene's Conor Friedersdorf:

"One problem on the right is that loyalty to the grassroots is defined by how shamelessly one panders to them. Thus a talk radio host who crafts an inaccurate news narrative that plays to the prejudices of his audience is deemed a loyal player advancing the movement's ends, whereas a blogger who points out how his words mislead listeners about reality is considered an obstacle to the cause who is overly concerned about playing fair.

Unlike some in the media, I don't regard the grassroots on the right as uniquely insane. I've done enough reporting at that level to know that most Americans on the right and left are reasonable people acting in good faith. The right's fringe problem at this moment in time is one that elites have created as much as any crazy fringe righty. Outfits like Fox News, people like Glenn Beck, talk radio hosts like Rush Limbaugh -- these outfits deliberately play on the worst impulses of the conservative base, stoking their paranoia and misleading them about reality, all for the sake of bigger audiences and greater revenues. That ought to outrage anyone who actually respects the grassroots, and has their best interests at heart."

LEST WE FORGET: Teacher Wishes She Could Inspire One Of The More Popular Students

From The Onion:

"GRESHAM, OR -- After spending half an hour Monday instilling much-needed confidence in one of her most timid freshmen, Sam Barlow High School English teacher Karen Norgren, 48, expressed her desire to one day inspire one of the school's more popular students. 'It would be nice, just once, to make a real, lasting impression on a confident, athletic student with tons of friends,' said Norgren, who has reportedly grown tired of encouraging 'dowdy old Phil Van' every day after fourth period. 'Someone like Jason Feightner, for instance. He's got that cool, devil-may-care attitude. Guys want to be him, and girls want to be with him. Why can't I push him to reach his full potential?' Norgren then reportedly waited around in the senior parking lot in case Whitney Olsen or some of her friends wanted to chat about Things Fall Apart."

Posted by Ian Faerstein at 12:37 PM

September 04, 2009

9/4: Drawing A Line In The Sand

Liberal bloggers are excited that the leaders of the House Progressive Caucus wrote a letter to Pres. Obama warning him that they're prepared to vote against a health care bill that doesn't include a public option. Lefty bloggers believe that progressive Dems must flex their muscles if they wish to be taken seriously in future legislative fights. As Joan McCarter explains: "If Democrats, and particularly Obama, get rolled on this one, there's little hope for any key policy initiative by this White House making it through unscathed." However, other liberal bloggers believe that progressives would be making a mistake if they killed health care reform in order to make a point. Ezra Klein warns: "[I]t's hard to imagine that liberals will ever beat the Blue Dogs at their own game. The likelier outcome is that everybody loses."

What else is happening in the blogosphere?

• Conservative bloggers (Malkin, Hoft, Allahpundit, Morrissey, Jessup, Erickson, Johnson, Hawkins, Goldberg) are joining FOX News pundit Glenn Beck in criticizing WH green jobs adviser Van Jones for expressing controversial opinions in the past -- such as signing a petition suggesting that the George W. Bush admin. "may have deliberately allowed the September 11th attacks to occur." Liberal bloggers are not defending Jones, and most righty bloggers expect him to resign within the next few days. Meanwhile, some righty bloggers are criticizing CA GOV candidate Meg Whitman (R) for praising Jones at a recent event, and others are urging Whitman to distance herself from Jones.
• Conservative bloggers continue to complain about Obama's upcoming special address to public school students, as they believe that Obama is trying to "indoctrinate the young". Many righty bloggers (Malkin, McCain, Howe) are urging conservative parents to keep their kids home from school on 9/8 so that they'll avoid watching Obama's speech. Liberal bloggers (Cole, Benen, Willis, BooMan) think that conservatives have gone crazy.
• Several liberal bloggers (Wheeler, Yglesias, Benen, Black) are pointing out that Senate Finance Cmte Chairman Max Baucus (D-MT) initially advocated for a public option, even though he recently argued that a public option isn't politically feasible. Meanwhile, David Sirota complains that Baucus's prediction that the Senate won't pass a bill with a public option is "a self-fulfilling prophecy."
• Conservative bloggers (Johnson, Hillyer, Lopez) are criticizing the Obama admin. for cutting all non-humanitarian aid to Honduras in response to the ouster of Pres. Manuel Zelaya.

HEALTH CARE REFORM: Progressives Fight Back

Liberal bloggers are excited that leaders of the House Progressive Caucus wrote a letter to Obama warning him that they're prepared to vote against a health care bill that doesn't include a public option:

• Daily Kos' mcjoan: "The Progressive Block has staked a lot on this fight, and there's a great deal at stake for all progressives in this. If Democrats, and particularly Obama, get rolled on this one, there's little hope for any key policy initiative by this White House making it through unscathed. How Obama responds to the Progressive Block, and how the Progressive Block reacts, could determine the fate of every other major effort this administration attempts."
• BooMan: "The media seems incapable of reporting on it, but the Progressives have grown a spine and are now a force that must be reckoned with."

Open Left's Chris Bowers thinks the letter needs to gain more signatories before it will have an impact: "It appears the Progressive Block has raised the stakes (maybe). [...] The reason I am not saying this definitely raises the stakes is because the letter was, at first, only signed by Representatives [Lynn] Woolsey and [Raul] Grijalva. Since that time, Representatives John Conyers, Hank Johnson, Barbara Lee, and Eric Massa have also signed. I will update as more signatures come in, but unless it is signed by at least 40 members, then it is not an effective threat to block health care legislation if their demands are not met."

Meanwhile, the netroots are pleased that progressive Dems such as Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) and Rep. Jerry Nadler (D-NY) have made strong statements about the importance of a public option. Lefty bloggers are also criticizing the proposed "trigger" compromise favored by Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-ME), which would establish a public option "only after the private market fails".

HEALTH CARE REFORM II: I Won't Back Down

Some liberal bloggers contend that it would be self-defeating for progressive Dems to kill a health care bill that didn't include a public option:

• The Washington Post' Klein: "Can you beat the Blue Dogs at their own game of final-stage obstruction? The reason they've chosen that game, after all, is because their incentives are well aligned to win it. Liberals need another game. Maybe it's primary challenges. That strategy has certainly worked against [PA Sen.] Arlen Specter, [NY Sen.] Kirsten Gillibrand and [IA Sen.] Chuck Grassley. Liberal groups certainly have the money to mount five or six high-profile challenges a season. Maybe it's procedural changes meant to weaken the power of centrists. Maybe it's something else. Maybe it's all of these things. But it's hard to imagine that liberals will ever beat the Blue Dogs at their own game. The likelier outcome is that everybody loses."
• FiveThirtyEight's Nate Silver: "About two-thirds of Blue Dog Democrats voted against the health care packages as they were making their way out of the House tri-committee. They are not bluffing. Blue Dogs are not going to be persuaded by threats which imply that progressives would be willing to cause health care reform to fail -- that might have worked two months ago, when the health care bill had better numbers, but it has now become unpopular enough that they are probably largely indifferent to this possibility. Instead, they're going to be persuaded by evidence that the public option will make health care reform more popular in their districts: either directly (as with these polls showing that the public option itself is popular) or indirectly (by promoting cost-control). But to take an issue where public opinion is in your favor and to turn it into an ideological litmus test when you're facing an increasingly stiff headwind is almost certainly a mistake."

However, most liberal bloggers disagree:

• Bowers: "The reason I disagree with Klein is fairly simple: if no health care legislation passes, and Democrats lose seats as a result, Blue Dogs are the people who will lose the seats, not Progressives. Even if Klein is correct and Democrats lose a bunch of seats because Progressives blocked it, Blue Dogs are actually the ones who will bear the brunt of those losses. As such, Blue Dogs have more to lose if health care fails to pass than Progressives."
• dday: "A health care reform that forces people to buy private insurance will destroy the party that builds it. And because of the emphasis placed on the public option, which is really out of the control of Washington at this point, a failure to incorporate it into the final legislation will dispirit the base and lead to a slaughter in 2010. In addition to being smart politics, the progressive revolt is a self-preservation strategy for the Democratic Party."
• Firedoglake's Scarecrow: "The Progressive strategy is to stop being the patsy for a compromising White House, while genuine reform is given away yet again. [...] The Progressives' clear-eyed strategy says that a winning Presidency depends on demanding and fighting for real reforms. And if the White House can't see that, the progressives are telling this President that they won't be used again if the White House acts as if it only cares about itself."
• TalkLeft's Big Tent Democrat: "President Olympia Snowe's health care bill is not worth compromising for in this fight. The Progressive Block will gain political strength in this battle, whether they get concessions from President Snowe or not. No bill at all would be a political win for the Progressive Block IF they hold the line. A bill with a public option is a win for them as well, since it will have happened because they held the line. This is the right fight, the right line, at the right time, for the Progressive Block. At this point, capitulation by the Progressive Block would be the end of them. They really can not back down now."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Pro-Medicare, But Anti-Public Option?

The Atlantic's James Fallows:

"No one I have ever met who is eligible for Medicare would dream of turning down its coverage. And therefore the 'public option' would be so terrible because....??? Medicare is of course a 'public option' in spades. I remember the debates before its enactment in the 1960s, about how the coming of 'socialized medicine' would be the end of the American way.

Of course now we have a system that is taken for granted as a central part of the American way. Yes, yes, I am aware of the arguments (as laid out here, here, and elsewhere) about the distortions and cost pressures within Medicare. Still: as a matter of politics I have always thought that the route toward health-coverage reform in America would be steady expansion of the eligibility standards for Medicare. First down to age 60, then 55, then...

I know that 'logic' tells us only so much about health policy debates. But, seriously, how can people with a sound mind and a straight face take Medicare as part of the landscape but consider the 'public option' an abomination? Just curious -- but genuinely curious."

LEST WE FORGET: Walletless Biden Found Handcuffed To Bedpost

From The Onion:

"WASHINGTON -- According to an incident report filed by the Secret Service, special agents responded early Wednesday morning to a distress call from Number One Observatory Circle and arrived to discover Vice President Joe Biden chained to a bed, spread-eagle, with a pair of cutoff denim shorts around his ankles. Though White House officials have refused to comment, the report indicates that Biden told agents his wallet was missing and detailed its contents as a lucky two-dollar bill, a Sizzler gift card, and a Federal Bikini Inspector badge. After further questioning of the vice president, the Secret Service advised local law enforcement to be on the lookout for a stolen white 1981 Trans Am driven by 'this real feisty little firecracker.'"

Posted by Ian Faerstein at 12:30 PM

September 03, 2009

9/3: Leave Them Kids Alone!

Conservative bloggers are furious that Pres. Obama will deliver a special address to public school students in which he will "speak directly to the nation's children and youth about persisting and succeeding in school." While the themes of Obama's speech appear fairly innocuous, righty bloggers are convinced that Obama will use the speech to indoctrinate children with leftist ideas. Michelle Malkin warns that Obama will use the speech (along with the accompanying preparatory materials) to promote "Bill Ayers' pedagogical philosophy," which she describes as "downplaying academic achievement in favor of left-wing radical activism in the public schools." Meanwhile, several righty bloggers are urging parents to keep their children home from school on 9/8 so that they'll avoid watching Obama's speech. One RedState blogger sounds an ominous alarm:

"There is a puzzle being put together before us. The pieces just keep falling into place. Day of service. Compulsory volunteerism. Children being called to service for the good of the community. Can you see the picture it's making?"

What else is happening in the blogosphere?

• Liberal bloggers (Sirota, Yglesias, Moulitsas) are delighted that ex-state Speaker Andrew Romanoff (D) is preparing to challenge Sen. Michael Bennet (D-CO) -- not because the netroots necessarily prefer Romanoff to Bennet, but because the threat of a primary challenge seems to be pushing Bennet to the left.
• Ezra Klein has written three separate posts explaining how Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-ME) has considerable leverage over what the eventual health care bill will look like. Jane Hamsher is disgusted that Snowe wields so much power when Dems control both houses of Congress and the WH, and she blames WH CoS Rahm Emanuel for helping Snowe weaken the public option. Meanwhile, liberal bloggers (icebergslim, Aravosis, Uygur, digby, Willis) are growing increasingly disenchanted with the Obama admin. now that it appears to be giving up on a public option.
• Liberal bloggers (Porter, Serwer, Yglesias) are blasting conservative MSNBC pundit Pat Buchanan for writing an op-ed defending Adolf Hitler's actions in the run-up to WWII. Several lefty bloggers (Roth, Moulitsas, Black, Dayen, Benen, DougJ) are complaining that there is nothing Buchanan could say that would cause MSNBC to fire him.

OBAMA: Indoctrinating Your Children?

Conservative bloggers are very upset that Obama will deliver a webcast speech on "the importance of education" to public school students:

• NRO's Jonah Goldberg: "I've received a lot of e-mail from concerned parents and teachers who say that they've contacted their local schools and asked about Obama's speech."
• Townhall's Carol Platt Liebau: "Had George W. Bush's Department of Education ever sought to broadcast a presidential speech to the nation's schoolchildren -- and suggested they follow up by writing a letter to themselves about how they could help them -- the left would have gone absolutely beserk. What's a bit unsettling is the common theme -- let's all help Barack Obama. Not help the country or preserve our freedom or secure our nation -- but help Barack Obama. In the end, it's all about him, isn't it?"
• Malkin: "Downplaying academic achievement in favor of left-wing radical activism in the public schools is rooted in old neighborhood pal and Weather Underground terrorist Bill Ayers' pedagogical philosophy. It was the Chicago Annenberg Challenge way when the two served as board members of the educational foundation -- and it is the Washington Obama way now."
• The Cato Institute's Neal McCluskey: "It's one thing for a president to encourage kids to work hard and stay in school -- that's a reasonable use of the bully pulpit. It's another thing entirely, however, to have the U.S. Department of Education send detailed instructions to schools nationwide on how to glorify the president and presidency, and prod schools to drive social change."

Several righty bloggers are urging parents to keep their children home from school on 9/8 so that they'll avoid watching Obama's speech:

• RedState's Caleb Howe: "Keep 'em home. That should be the motto of every conservative with children in public school on the 8th of this month. That's the day the President will be invading every classroom that will have him with what is being billed as a general, innocuous 'stay in school, do your homework' message for public school students across the country. And if there's one thing we have all learned, it's that we can trust the Obama administration to say what they mean and mean what they say. Right? [...] There is a puzzle being put together before us. The pieces just keep falling into place. Day of service. Compulsory volunteerism. Children being called to service for the good of the community. Can you see the picture it's making?"
• Stephen Green: "Now my son is young enough that he won't be subjected to the President's smiling face, dulcet tones, and calls to action. He won't be pressured by his teachers or peers to go along or get with the program. Your kids might not be so lucky. In impossible times, the only way to be a responsible parent is to do the irresponsible thing. If my son were in a public school...I'd call him in sick next Tuesday. I'd keep him home. I suggest you do so. I urge you to do so. If pressed, be honest about your reasons -- but be reasonable about presenting them. Otherwise, don't offer an explanation. Make it a silent protest. And while your kids are home, think up some patriotic games to play. Rent the delightful (and true-in-spirit-if-not-in-fact) musical, 1776. Set off some fireworks. Make it a mini Fourth of July."

OBAMA II: The Latest Right-Wing Freakout?

Liberal bloggers are portraying the conservative complaints about Obama's speech as further evidence that the right has gone crazy:

• Think Progress' Matthew Yglesias: "The Obama administration has an extremely banal plan to have the President deliver a September 8 address to K-6 schoolchildren about the importance of personal responsibility and education. Naturally, the right-wing is staging a massive freakout. [...] Probably the biggest moral of the story is that the contemporary conservative movement is run by crazy people with no scruples, who'll turn anything into a pretext to level wild accusations."
• Oliver Willis: "President Obama plans to give a speech to America's kids about staying in school and doing well. This seems perfectly innocous and normal activity for an American president. Don't tell the mainstream conservatives. According to them it's a brainwashing session to turn kids into communists. This isn't some tinfoil hatter on the fringes of society pushing this message. This is mainstream conservatism."
• tristero: "Now we know the rightwing's fall strategy. If Obama so much as breathes, Republicans plan on screaming bloody murder. [...] These people are seriously crazy. And seriously dangerous."

Interestingly, one conservative blogger (Little Green Footballs' Charles Johnson) thinks this controversy is much ado about nothing:

"The right wing blogosphere is hyperventilating again, and again I just can't join the freak-out. This time it's over Barack Obama's plan to address the nation's schoolchildren, and indoctrinate them with evil communist principles like working hard, setting goals, and taking responsibility. Why, he's just like Karl Marx. Some are even urging parents to pull their children out of school that day, so they won't be exposed to this horror. [...] Get a freaking grip. Time after time, the right wing gets the vapors over their fantasies about what Obama is going to say in his next big speech. And time after time, they're proven wrong and embarrassed as Obama takes it straight down the middle and says nothing extreme. You'd think they would learn not to keep crying wolf."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: The Strange Resurgence Of The Bush-Free GOP

NRO's Jim Geraghty:

"Gallup finds that since January, a 17-percentage-point advantage for Democrats in party affiliation or leanings has narrowed to a 5-percentage-point margin. Many pollsters are finding the Republicans leading the generic congressional ballot. President Obama's approval rating has sunk from the 70s to the low 50s. In New Jersey and Virginia, polls that show the Democrat ahead are few and far between. By almost every measuring stick, Democrats and President Obama began the year on top of the world, and have steadily lost that public confidence and trust over the past eight months.

What happened? Well, the utopia of hope and change did not take hold immediately, and hopes for a moderate course have been dashed. But also worth noting is how dramatically the political landscape has changed since George W. Bush rode off into the sunset. Perhaps while he was front and center, and the dominant voice of the GOP, many Americans tired of Iraq, tired of his Texas twang, tired of everything they had seen and heard for the past eight years; they would hear nothing else from the GOP, and could overlook a multitude of flaws in the Democratic-party option.

The world looks different without that familiar -- and at times deserving -- scapegoat."

LEST WE FORGET: Carpe Diem

ESPN's Bill Simmons examines whether the protagonists in "Ferris Bueller's Day Off" could have possibly packed so many activities into a single day:

"Realistically, Ferris and Cameron didn't pick up Sloane until somewhere between 9:30 and 10:15. They lived at least 25-30 minutes from downtown Chicago and returned home at about 6. We know this because Sloane looked at her watch right near the end. So that means in the span of slightly less than eight hours ...

They drove to Chicago; dropped off the car; visited the top of the Sears Tower as well the Stock Market; went to the Museum of Art long enough for Cameron to have a life epiphany; cabbed it over to the French restaurant; ate lunch at Abe Froman's table; headed over to Wrigley Field; attended an afternoon Cubs game long enough for the pizza guy to tell Ed Rooney that it was the third inning (and for Ferris to catch a foul ball); headed back to downtown Chicago; took part in a parade in which Ferris sang 'Danke Schoen' on a giant float without having rehearsed it; picked up the car; drove home; hung out at Cameron's pool; spent at least 20-25 minutes trying to take the miles off Cameron's car and watched Cameron subsequently destroy his father's car and then tell them he'd take the heat for it (which always bothered me because no father would forgive something that creepy, and besides, unless his father was molesting him, how bad could he have been that you'd destroy a beautiful piece of machinery like that?); left Cameron's house so Ferris could walk Sloane home; then Ferris sprinted back to his house to make it in time for dinner.

Seems improbable, right? No way all of that stuff happens in less than 10 hours unless they basically made a two-inning cameo at the Cubs game and left. (Conceivable, by the way. How can you top catching a foul ball? And if Sloane hated baseball and pushed for them to leave after 2-3 innings, wouldn't the logical next stop for them -- if a girl who hated sports was running the show -- be that art museum?) But there's no way to know, which leads me to the following idea: Shouldn't three Chicago kids re-enact Ferris' entire day and see if they could pull it off in less than eight hours? Bring a couple of Flip cameras, tape everything, see if you can do it and stick the results on YouTube. John Hughes would be proud."

Posted by Ian Faerstein at 12:44 PM

September 02, 2009

9/2: Sistah Souljah Returns?

The big topic in the blogosphere today is Mike Allen and Jim VandeHei's Politico article describing Pres. Obama's "new strategy" for health care reform. Liberal bloggers are upset about Allen and VandeHei's claim that Obama "has no plans to insist on" a public option and that some of his aides "welcome a showdown with liberal lawmakers" over this issue. Adam Green complains: "[David] Axelrod -- do you know the surest way to ensure that Dems running in 2010 have a diminished base and lose independent voters? Force them to oppose the public option!" Meanwhile, John Aravosis warns: "If the President thinks trashing the very people who got him into office is going to save his presidency, it's going to be a very ugly next couple of months, and a rather ugly four years for the Democratic party." On the other side of the blogosphere, conservative blogger Moe Lane welcomes Obama's shift in strategy: "Letting the liberal Democratic leadership in Congress do it for the President was a serious error: it's about time that he puts his personal stamp on an actual, 'official' plan."

What else is happening in the blogosphere?

• Liberal bloggers (Singer, Benen) are calling Sen. Judd Gregg (R-NH) a hypocrite for complaining about Dem senators' plans to pass health care reform using budget reconciliation, since Gregg "supported using reconciliation in the [George W.] Bush years for ANWR and tax cuts." Meanwhile, other lefty bloggers (Waldman, Bowers, digby, BooMan) are excited about speculation that the procedural requirements of the reconciliation process could result in a more liberal bill.
• Liberal bloggers (Benen, Serwer, Cole, Linkins) are blasting the new RNC ad, "Seniors' Bill of Rights". Conservative blogger Allahpundit thinks the ad is effective, although he predicts that it "will sting a few years from now when we have to have a chat with granny about Medicare's insolvency."
• Liberal bloggers (Morrill, Blue Texan, Cole, Willis, Benen) are criticizing Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN) for telling conservative activists that the way to stop health care reform is to "make a covenant, to slit our wrists, be blood brothers on this thing."
• Conservative bloggers (Hewitt, Jessup, Geraghty, Ace of Spades) are upset that Obama will deliver a webcast speech on "the importance of education" to public school students.
• Conservative bloggers (Bandes, Lewis, Geraghty) continue to criticize righty pundit George Will for writing an op-ed arguing that the U.S. should withdraw most of its troops from Afghanistan. On the other hand, several liberal bloggers (Klein, publius) find Will's arguments compelling.
• Liberal bloggers (Sudbay, Drum) are still buzzing about VA GOV candidate Bob McDonnell's (R) controversial master's thesis, although conservative blogger Paul Mirengoff doubts that the thesis will end up hurting McDonnell's campaign.

OBAMA: Picking A Fight With His Base?

Liberal bloggers are angry that Obama reportedly "has no plans to insist on" a public option and that some of his aides "welcome a showdown with liberal lawmakers" over this issue:

• AMERICAblog's Aravosis: "Obama isn't going to push for the public option, top administration officials now tell Politico. So they're flip-flopping again. But worse yet, they're now saying they want to Sista Souljah Democratic lawmakers and the liberal base who are pushing Obama to keep his promises. [...] It's simply amazing that the strategy of trashing the base has now plunged Obama to 49% in the polls, reinvigorated a near-dead Republican party, split the once-unified Democratic party, and put the President's number one policy agenda in peril, and yet some in the White House think it's worked so well, they need to ramp it up some more [...] If the President thinks trashing the very people who got him into office is going to save his presidency, it's going to be a very ugly next couple of months, and a rather ugly four years for the Democratic party."
• Open Left's AdamGreen: "David Axelrod, whose political instincts I suppose I've respected from afar, may be on the verge of writing his own chapter in political history -- as a loser...the guy who helped lay the groundwork for massive Democratic defeats in 2010. [...] Axelrod -- do you know the surest way to ensure that Dems running in 2010 have a diminished base and lose independent voters? Force them to oppose the public option!"
• Firedoglake's Scarecrow: "The polls have been showing not simply an erosion in the President's approval numbers but a decline in support from the liberal base of his own party. Politico says 'some' in the White House are looking for an opportunity to make that worse. [...] Politico wants us to believe that there are 'some Administration officials,' all of them anonymous, who are actively seeking to destroy the President's credibility, turn off Democrats, weaken health reform, remove the one feature with extremely high public approval and do all this because...because John McCain taunted Obama last year that he can't stand up to his own Party? How about standing up to McCain, and [IA Sen. Chuck] Grassley, and Steele, and the rest of the crazies? [...] And does the President know that 'some' anonymous officials in his own White House are actively trying to undermine his agenda, his Party, and support for his Presidency? Because if that's really happening, 'some' people should be fired."

On the right side of the blogosphere, RedState's Moe Lane welcomes Obama's shift: "Letting the liberal Democratic leadership in Congress do it for the President was a serious error: it's about time that he puts his personal stamp on an actual, 'official' plan. In other words: it's nice that the administration is finally taking health care reform seriously, and we look forward to seeing its tentative plan. After we hack out all the bits of said plan that are just stupid, of course. And make sure that various concessions are made."

Interestingly, Hot Air's Allahpundit thinks Dems are making a political mistake by abandoning a public option: "Since the Democrats won't get any credit from the right or right-leaning independents for abandoning ObamaCare, they might as well slam through a public option and please their base. Assuming, that is, that they're willing to endure an endless series of procedural challenges in the Senate from Republicans if they try to use reconciliation. Which they may have no choice but to do, now that Teddy [Kennedy]'s gone."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: The Gettable Republican

Think Progress' Matthew Yglesias:

"If you're going to get any Republican votes for health care reform the logical place to start would seem to be not orthodox conservative Chuck Grassley or far-right Senator Mike Enzi, but rather Maine's Olympia Snowe, who has a record of sometimes voting for progressive bills. If you can get Snowe you have a shot at her somewhat-more-conservative colleague Susan Collins, and if you can't get Snowe then you can't get anyone. So where does Snowe stand on health reform? Suzy Khimm has a useful rundown that basically puts Snowe to the right of most Democrats -- and certainly to the right of me -- but not necessarily to the right of the more conservative Democrats in the Senate.

That said, there is one crucially important difference. Democrats hand out committee chairmanships by a blind seniority rule. Republicans do not. Chairman need to rotate out of their positions after fixed terms, which then gives the caucus as a whole input over who takes over next. Consequently, the Senate leadership has some meaningful leverage over Republican Senators -- even Senators from liberal states. If they're really determined to make Snowe (and Collins) vote 'no,' they have tools at their disposal to make that happen. By contrast, the Democratic leadership heads into tough fights basically disarmed with no real tools of discipline and leverage at their disposal beyond the vague risk of a primary challenge. One day perhaps the Democratic caucus will decide that it wants to be an effective legislative party and it will adopt some principles that equalize the playing field. But until then, it's going to be extremely difficult to overcome truly determined Republican opposition even with a large majority."

LEST WE FORGET: My Line Of Children's Slogan T-Shirts Just Isn't Selling

McSweeney's contributor Andrew Fleming:

• "Homework is Time-Consuming but Ultimately Beneficial"
• "I Get Along Well With My Siblings"
• "Boys and Girls Are Equally Valuable"
• "My Dad is My Credit Card, In That I Have to Pay Him Back When He Buys Me Things or Else Face a Penalty"
• "I Am Well-Behaved"

Posted by Ian Faerstein at 12:30 PM

September 01, 2009

9/1: The End's Not Near, It's Here

Has the end arrived for Senate Finance Committee Chair Max Baucus's (D-MT) "Gang of Six"? Liberal bloggers think (and hope) so. Tensions between the Obama admin. and two of the GOP senators in the group (WY Sen. Mike Enzi and IA Sen. Chuck Grassley) appear to be growing. First of all, WH Press Sec. Robert Gibbs asserted that Enzi had decided to "walk away" from the negotiating table following the latter's attack on the Dem health care proposals. Next, Ezra Klein reported that Grassley had bragged about his efforts to help defeat "Obama-care" in a fundraising letter. Lefty bloggers see Grassley's and Enzi's conduct as further evidence that Baucus was never going to win their support for health care reform.

What else is happening in the blogosphere?

• Liberal bloggers (Singiser, Moulitsas, Marshall, Sudbay, desmoinesdem) are criticizing VA GOV candidate Bob McDonnell (R) after The Washington Post reported that McDonnell criticized working women, feminists, and gays in his master's thesis. Conservative blogger Jim Geraghty complains that the Post is trying to damage McDonnell's campaign in order to justify its endorsement of Dem candidate Creigh Deeds.
• RedState editor Erick Erickson argues that TX Gov. Rick Perry (R) -- "if he is truly a conservative's conservative" -- should appoint RR Commis. chair Michael Williams (R) to the Senate seat being vacated by Kay Bailey Hutchison (R).
• Conservative bloggers (Kagan, Hewitt, Lowry, Wehner, Kristol) are criticizing righty pundit George Will for writing an op-ed arguing that the U.S. should withdraw most of its troops from Afghanistan. On the other hand, many liberal bloggers (Aravosis, Dayen, Orton) share Will's doubts about Obama's Afghanistan policy.

ENZI: Giving Up His Seat At The Table?

Lefty bloggers were pleased that Gibbs declared that Enzi had decided to "walk away" from the negotiating table following the latter's attack on the Dem health care proposals in the weekly GOP address:

• The Washington Monthly's Steve Benen: "[Enzi's] role in the process won't be missed. The idea of including Enzi in the talks in the first place never made any sense. [...] If that quest is over, and I sincerely hope it is, it's a very positive development. The less Enzi is involved in the process, the better the chances of a quality bill becoming law."
• Atrios: "I've never quite figured out the point of getting Mike Enzi to support a shitty bill. If instead they'd put their weight behind a good bill about which, whatever the precise details, could be summed up as 'You want health care? We'll give you all the fucking health care you want.' Support something which could be popular with, you know, people, instead of insurance company executives and really horrible Republican senators. So hopefully this farce is over..."

The Washington Post's Klein thinks the "gang of six" negotiations are effectively over: "Everyone I've spoken to in the Senate believes, strongly, that this process is about to break down, and the Democrats are going to move forward on a more partisan basis. Presumably, the Republicans in the Gang of Six process have heard the same and have no interest in looking like fools when that happens. And so they're beginning to use their positions in the negotiations not to further the cause of a final bill, but to enhance their stature as spokesmen for the opposition. Grassley, as noted earlier, is sending out fundraising e-mails attacking 'Obama-care.' Enzi is lacerating Democratic ideas under the banner of his party. As far as I can tell, the Gang of Six process is already dead. What's happening now is that the participants seem to be raiding its corpse."

GRASSLEY: All Right, Chuck, This Time You've Gone Too Far!

Liberal bloggers are angry that Grassley bragged about helping to defeat "Obama-care" in a recent fundraising letter. They see this letter as further evidence that Grassley isn't negotiating in good faith:

• Klein: "The question of whether Grassley wants to compromise on health care is increasingly being overtaken by the reality that Grassley is not leaving himself political room to compromise on health care. He is creating a campaign premised on his role in stopping Obama's health-care reform effort. It is not clear how he could pivot to save it, even if he wanted to do so. And given the unique role Grassley occupies as the senior partner in Max Baucus's bipartisan process, the bare-knuckled partisanship of Grassley's letter does not suggest that his political team is readying itself to sell a compromise."
• TAPPED's Tim Fernholz: "It it wasn't already, it should be clear at this point that Grassley isn't negotiating in good faith and is actually spreading bad information about the bill."

Daily Kos' mcjoan didn't buy Grassley's subsequent claim that his fundraising letter referred to his opposition to a public option, not health reform as a whole: "When questioned about this rather extreme position Grassley has taken on a bill that he is actually supposed to be finding some compromise on, a staffer told Greg Sargent that it's not really all of 'Obamacare' that Grassley objects to, just the public option as it exists in all of the bills so far produced. [...] Given that Grassley keeps reiterating that he won't even vote for the Baucus debacle bill if it doesn't get more than three or four Republican supporters, and there's no way three or four Republicans are going to support any healthcare reform bill (note that Grassley is not actually suggesting that he'll be one of them), I think we can be pretty certain that letter encompasses more than just the public option."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Why Is There So Much Horse-Race Coverage?

Ezra Klein:

"Paul Krugman wonders why the media is dominated by horse-race reporting rather than substantive inquiries into policy. His hypotheses, however, all assume agency on the part of the reporter: Maybe horse races are easier to research, he wonders, or simpler to write about. But I'd suggest that the problem lies more with the reader. The media likes having an audience. And the audience likes horse-race coverage. [...]

This is the market getting more efficient. This is the market learning how to deliver more of what people want (Sarah Palin) and less of what they don't want (the difficulties of adjusting Medicare payment rates). If policy stories begin swamping servers, people will hire more policy reporters. But there's not much evidence of that happening. That's not to say there's no room for substantive policy coverage. But the more eyeballs matter, the less substantive coverage there'll be, and I don't think it'll be the fault of reporters. A lot of the policy coverage that happens right now exists not because the audience wants it, but because the media decides they need it. As the market becomes competitive, that type of reportorial paternalism will become less and less viable."

LEST WE FORGET: Kids Say The Darndest Things

From Overhead in New York:

Little girl with brand new doll: Mommy, what should I name her? I think I'll name her "Pussy"!
Mother: Uh!
Little girl: Pussy! Like "pussycat"!
Mother: Okay... maybe we should think of a different name!
Hipster sitting next to them: I'm going to have to send a few texts about this.

Posted by Ian Faerstein at 12:31 PM

Copyright 2007 by National Journal Group Inc.
The Watergate · 600 New Hampshire Ave., NW
Washington, DC 20037
202-739-8400 · fax 202-833-8069
NationalJournal.com is an Atlantic Media publication.