October 30, 2009

BLOGGER SPOTLIGHT: Dan Riehl

Today the Blogometer talks to Dan Riehl, who blogs at Riehl World View.

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

Where did you grow up?
New Jersey, please remind Republicans that [Ronald] Reagan won it in 1980 and 1984. I know, I was there. A libertarian/conservative coalition can win it, again.

Where do you live now?
In Northern Virginia just off the Beltway on the "right" side of it -- the outside.

If you have an occupation other than blogging, what is it?
Occasional blog consulting of a political nature.

What's on your iPod right now?
I don't own one, most independent full-time Right-side political bloggers can't afford luxuries.

What book do you think every person should read?
Best to ask Katie Couric, I hear she's big on that, though I will suggest One Hundred Years of Solitude by Gabriel Garcia Marquez as the best book I've ever read.

Please finish this sentence: "When I'm not blogging, you'll probably find me..."
Asleep, watching a movie, reading primarily political news items on the Internet, or some combination of the above.

What has been your favorite blog post, or your favorite story to write about?
Natalie Holloway for purely technical reasons -- it ran for over a year and allowed for true investigative reporting with depth, often breaking stories ahead of the mainstream media that received national attention before blogs were taken more seriously for their journalistic capabilities.

Which blogger(s) do you consider indispensable, if any?
The fundamental concept behind blogging is that none should ever be indispensable. As a democratic media form, they have power and importance because of mass. If one becomes too important it has failed to support the ideal.

Who's your favorite non-conservative blogger?
Who has time to read blogs?

Who's your favorite active politician? Least favorite?
Fav = Sarah Palin for the energy, but the jury remains out. Least Fav = Barack Obama.

What would you realistically like to see Republicans accomplish before the 2010 midterms?
To genuinely stop being a party of DC and return to being a party of the people, again.

If you could give President Obama advice, what would it be?
I'd say work on your resume but as the experience section has always been so light, maybe the UN after 2012 is your only hope.

What keeps you up at night?
That the fundamental principles and ideals that made this country great have been betrayed by two political parties and their respective professional political classes that are too powerful and too far out of touch to save it now. If so, then Euro-socialism here we come.

Please feel free to ask and answer your own question.
Were you serious here, or are you just a crazy blogger?
Yes, and No.

Posted by Ian Faerstein at 02:30 PM

10/30: Hoffmania

Of the various elections taking place on 11/3, the one that means the most to conservative bloggers is the election in NY-23. Righty bloggers are buzzing about the new Daily Kos/Research 2000 poll showing Conservative Party candidate Doug Hoffman surging into a tie with Dem Bill Owens. The rightroots see this poll as evidence that the race has become a two-man battle between Hoffman and Owens, with GOPer Dede Scozzafava "turning into an afterthought". Meanwhile, as more and more GOP polls embrace Hoffman, conservative bloggers continue to apply pressure to the remaining holdouts. RedState editor Erick Erickson issues a warning to two potential WH '12 candidates who haven't endorsed Hoffman:

"Sitting on the sidelines in this race is not an option for [ex-MA Gov. Mitt] Romney or [ex-AR Gov. Mike] Huckabee. Neither is qualified as a leader of conservatives when they will not support Doug Hoffman. It is as simple as that. And we will remember in 2012."

What else is happening in the blogosphere?

• Conservative bloggers (Geraghty, Dayton, Hinderaker) are accusing NJ Dems of trying to commit absentee-ballot fraud in order to pad Gov. Jon Corzine's (D) vote totals.
• RedState's Erickson continues to accuse FL Gov. Charlie Crist (R) of creating an anonymous website attacking his SEN primary rival, ex-state House Speaker Marco Rubio (R).
• Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D) held a conference call with liberal bloggers (McCarter, Bowers, Aravosis, Amato) after introducing the House health care reform bill yesterday. Other lefty bloggers (Yglesias, Benen, Walker, Hamsher) are discussing the House bill and comparing it to the Senate bills. Meanwhile, liberal bloggers (digby, Cole, Benen, Willis) are still hammering Sen. Evan Bayh (D-IN) for his comments about health care reform.
• Liberal bloggers (Benen, Drum, BooMan, Kleiman) are praising Pres. Obama for succeeding in his effort to eliminate expensive weapons programs from the defense appropriations bill.

Finally, please check back later today for our interview with Riehl World View's Dan Riehl!

NY-23: Scozza-who?

Conservative bloggers see the Daily Kos/Research 2000 poll as evidence that it's now a two-man race between Hoffman and Owens:

• Erickson: "This is an Owens-Hoffman race now. [...] With a race this close and Hoffman's base profoundly fired up, he could realistically win this race."
• NRO's Jim Geraghty: "Of course, this [poll] doesn't mean Hoffman isn't winning; it just tells us that it's a close race, and that Scozzafava is, as mentioned earlier, turning into an afterthought."
• Hot Air's Allahpundit: "Remember...that the campaigns have been whispering for the past week that internal polls show a two-man race now with Scozzafava fading. Consider this confirmation."

Allahpundit continues: "R2000 did miss an opportunity, though, by failing to poll Scozzafava voters on who their second choice is. That would have finally given us a sense of how things are likely to break if her supporters decide she's a lost cause next week and force themselves to choose between Owens and Hoffman. Instead, they polled Hoffman's supporters on that question, which was stupid given that he's vaulted past her and thus is no longer the one playing spoiler. What's fascinating about this election is that not only has the nominee of one of the major parties been relegated to the traditional third-party role of bleeding votes from a more popular candidate, but because Scozzafava's essentially running in the center, between Owens and Hoffman, there's no telling who she's bleeding more votes from. Are supporters of the liberal Republican more inclined to break for a Republican or for a liberal?"

NY-23 II: The View From The Left

Liberal bloggers agree with their conservative counterparts that Hoffman appears to be surging:

• Daily Kos' Markos Moulitsas: "If Scozzafava's fade continues, Hoffman will win this thing. Democratic chances hinge on halting the Hoffman surge, which is why the DCCC has trained its guns on the conservative party candidate."
• MyDD's Jonathan Singer: "With support for Hoffman growing 9 points over the past week or so, he clearly has the momentum. That said, the race remains very close and still could go either way."
• TPM's Josh Marshall: "With the surge in support for Doug Hoffman in NY-23 and the news that outside groups have dumped $3 million into the race, could it now be that Republican nominee Dede Scozzafava is the spoiler and spoiling it for Dem Bill Owens?"

Moulitsas explains why he isn't rooting for any of the candidates: "It's clear now that Scozzafava, were she victorious next week, would have to turn hard-right to survive the inevitable primary challenge next year. In fact, it's hard to see how she doesn't lose a 2010 primary to Hoffman. She's pretty much toast -- if not next week, then next year. So the chances of being a [Susan] Collins/[Olympia] Snowe-type Republican are non-existent. Unlike what I wrote a month ago, there's no longer any upside to her winning. [...] So I'm no longer rooting for a Scozzafava victory. That gets us nothing. And I'm not rooting for a Hoffman victory, and I'm certainly not rooting for Owens because I'm over Lieberdems."

Although he isn't invested in the outcome of the race, Moulitsas is still critical of NARAL for spending money on Scozzafava's behalf: "Assuming they don't want conservative party teabagger Doug Hoffman to win, this is beyond stupid. First of all, Scozzafava is dead-woman walking. Her numbers are tanking and she's been effectively marginalized out of the race. Her role now is that of spoiler -- can she take enough votes away from Hoffman to give the Democrat, Bill Owens, a plurality victory? This NARAL effort is indistinguishable from the conservative dirty tricksters. When your messaging and tactics are indistinguishable from the right-wing dirty tricksters, you know you've screwed up. Nice waste of donor money."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: NY-23 Across America

The Next Right's Patrick Ruffini:

"The key fact that sticks out in my mind about Doug Hoffman's incredible momentum in NY-23 is that his election would not have been possible had he been the Republican nominee. The fact that we may be about to elect a non-squish from New York has everything to do with the fact that he is running as a third-party independent, and not a Republican (even if the Conservative Party is an auxiliary of the Republicans in most elections).

Hoffman as a Republican would have been too obvious a target and the subject of a relentless barrage of negative TV, websites, mail, and phones branding him as outside the mainstream, anti-choice, anti-worker, etc. But politically, Hoffman has managed to avoid all that until five days out, when it's now clear he's the frontrunner. And as Chris Cillizza points out this morning, Hoffman's success in the polls is built on the back among strong support among independents and (primarily) not Republican regulars disgusted at Scozzafava.

This got me thinking: How many points is an Independent party label worth, assuming you're able to vie for Republican votes in a general election? 5? 10? We know that in races with a plausible third party, that candidate automatically tends to earn more independent and moderate support even if they are ideologically indistinguishable from a Republican (Hoffman) or a Democrat (Chris Daggett in New Jersey). [...] In a handful of races, perhaps in places where we can't win with the Republican label alone, it might be more useful for the general election to be a strong Independent versus a Democrat rather than a Republican versus a Democrat."

LEST WE FORGET: Lieberman Announces Formation Of A**hole Party

The Huffington Post's Andy Borowitz:

"WASHINGTON (The Borowitz Report) -- Connecticut Senator Joseph Lieberman has switched parties again, announcing today that he is forming a new political party called the Asshole Party.

'Across this great land of hours, there are many, many assholes who have been ignored by the two major parties,' Sen. Lieberman told reporters. 'The Asshole Party will speak for them.'

Sen. Lieberman added that 'for years, assholes in America have had no voice, and I want to be that whiny, nasal voice.'"

Posted by Ian Faerstein at 12:30 PM

October 29, 2009

10/29: Those Rascally Dem Senators...

After spending most of 10/27 hammering Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT) for threatening to join a GOP filibuster of the Dem health care reform bill, the netroots spent 10/28 criticizing Lieberman's home-state colleague, Sen. Chris Dodd (D), after he dismissed the possibility of Dems reprimanding Lieberman for his actions. Markos Moulitsas warns that standing up for Lieberman will damage Dodd's own reelection prospects: "[Dodd's] path to victory requires strong Democratic turnout. And I can guarantee that there's no better way to dampen support for any Democrat than to get Joe Lieberman's back -- especially when Lieberman is in the middle of one of his patented hissy fits." Lefty bloggers are also criticizing Sen. Evan Bayh (D-IN) for echoing the GOP argument that voting for cloture on a health care reform bill is tantamount to supporting the bill. Steve Benen complains: "Got that? Evan Bayh is undermining this once-in-a-generation chance at health care reform and helping advance the Republican message at the same time."

What else is happening in the blogosphere?

• RedState editor Erick Erickson is accusing FL Gov. Charlie Crist (R) of creating an anonymous website attacking his SEN primary rival, ex-state House Speaker Marco Rubio (R). Erickson thinks the website "potentially violate[s] federal law." Other conservative bloggers (Geraghty, Hillyer) are also piling on Crist.
• Conservative bloggers (Erickson, Goldberg, Brookhiser) continue to rally behind Doug Hoffman, the Conservative Party candidate in the NY-23 race. Other righty bloggers (McCain, Malkin, Erickson) are buzzing about Dan Riehl's allegation that the NRCC had a hand in selecting Dede Scozzafava as the GOP nominee. Meanwhile, at least one righty blogger is disappointed that Hoffman skipped last night's debate.
• Several liberal bloggers (Bink, Willis, LeGendre) are praising Pres. Obama for signing a bill that "expands the definition of violent federal hate crimes to those committed because of a victim's sexual orientation." However, Andrew Sullivan is blasting the bill and criticizing Obama's record on gay rights -- prompting liberal blogger John Cole to declare that Sullivan has "lost his damned mind." Meanwhile, conservative blogger Greg Hengler complains that the bill "champions the leftist value of partisan tolerance."

DODD: There's A Limit To Loyalty

Liberal bloggers are criticizing Dodd for calling the idea of punishing Lieberman "ridiculous":

• Daily Kos' Moulitsas: "We also know 2010 will be a base election. If Connecticut Democrats decide they don't want to turn out, then Dodd is toast. His path to victory requires strong Democratic turnout. And I can guarantee that there's no better way to dampen support for any Democrat than to get Joe Lieberman's back -- especially when Lieberman is in the middle of one of his patented hissy fits. Dodd has been doing well on substantive matters (like his strong support for the public option), so it's a bit annoying seeing him take an unnecessary hit in order to defend that ungrateful ass. Because, as we all know, it's only a matter of time before Lieberman hits the campaign trail for [GOP candidate] Rob Simmons."
• Firedoglake's Jane Hamsher: "As tparty says over at MLN, Dodd is demonstrating a 'forgiving attitude towards his junior colleague' that I understand. But it's one thing to say 'Joe's being Joe.' It's another to assert his authority within the caucus as a powerful committee chair to say Lieberman will face no penalty for abandoning the caucus on a critical procedural vote. He went too far. [...] Now Dodd's opponent Rob Simmons is applauding Lieberman's bold move to derail health care. Before this gets out of hand, Dodd needs to man up and say Joe -- and every Democrat in the Senate -- should insist on caucus unity on an 'Upper-Down Vote.' Because even [PA Sen.] Arlen Specter is calling for that. [...] If Chris Dodd has more loyalty to an 'old boy's club' notion of the Senate than he does to an issue he was tasked to lead on by both the President and [ex-MA Sen.] Ted Kennedy, I think he firmly moves into 'part of the problem' territory."
• Think Progress' Matthew Yglesias: "Of course there's nothing 'ridiculous' about [reprimanding Lieberman]. It's quite standard in legislative bodies for members who defy the party position to face various kinds of reprimands. A political party, after all, isn't supposed to be a mutual aid society for incumbent legislators. At their best, parties are vehicles for advancing a somewhat coherent vision of national policy. It is true, however, that it would be an unusual step for the Senate Democratic caucus to engage in discipline-enforcing behavior. That, however, is because Senate Democrats are outliers in their behavior, not because the idea of enforcing discipline is somehow nutty. Now it should be said that in the particular case of Dodd it's probably not in his interests to pick a fight with a home state colleague in the midst of a re-election campaign. Consequently, he probably shouldn't be the go-to guy to ask about this issue."
• The Washington Monthly's Benen: "I think [Dodd's position is] backwards. Political parties that expect loyalty from caucus members tend to be more effective and have more success advancing their agenda. And as a rule, party loyalty isn't the result of polite pleas and gracious appeals -- politicians tend to be more loyal to their party when they know their party has the means and the will to punish them. If those who are disloyal face no consequences -- indeed, if they're rewarded despite their recalcitrance -- it encourages less fidelity. [...] Is it really so 'ridiculous' to think Lieberman might face some consequences from his party in response to his conduct?"

Meanwhile, liberal bloggers (McCarter, Marshall, Scarecrow) continue to criticize Lieberman's comments about health care reform. Moulitsas thinks Lieberman's posturing is damaging his reelection prospects:

"There are two possible options looking ahead to 2012: 1) [Lieberman] will retire, and if so, we have zero leverage with the guy. He will either vote for cloture after getting the proper feting (or behind closed-door threats) from [Senate Maj. Leader Harry] Reid and Obama (hence the tame and diplomatic reaction to Lieberman's intransigence), or he'll deliver for his insurance industry pals in Connecticut by making common cause with Republicans. But if he 2) plans on running for reelection (the likelier choice), then his leverage is reduced dramatically. [...] Given that Lieberman already trailed badly in hypothetical matchups against Attorney General Dick Blumenthal [D] and Gov. Jodi Rell [R] while suffering from a negative approval rating (47-50 favorability before these latest antics), Lieberman can't afford to oppose his constituents on an issue of this magnitude and expect to have any hope of surviving reelection."

BAYH: Doing What He Does Best

Liberal bloggers are also criticizing Bayh for echoing the GOP argument that voting for cloture on health care reform is tantamount to supporting the bill:

• Benen: "Got that? Evan Bayh is undermining this once-in-a-generation chance at health care reform and helping advance the Republican message at the same time. [...] Remember, this is total nonsense. Senators voting to end debate on a bill, only to ultimately vote against the same bill, happens all the time. Joe Lieberman has done it repeatedly. Of course there's a difference between procedural and policy votes. Bayh is helping Republicans for no reason. It couldn't be simpler -- if legislation Bayh doesn't like comes to the floor, he can vote against it. Before that, he can offer amendments, give speeches, and encourage others to agree with him. Just let the Senate vote."
• AMERICAblog's John Aravosis: "SEIU compiled some compelling examples of how Democratic Senator Evan Bayh (D-OH) has voted for cloture (i.e., against a filibuster) numerous times, even though in the end he voted against the Democratic legislation itself. [...] And this makes sense. It's one thing to vote against a bill, especially if the Dems already have the votes to pass it without you. It's an entirely other thing to vote to sustain a filibuster killing the bill."
• Atrios: "Wanker of the Day: Evan Bayh."

Other liberal bloggers are discussing whether Senate Dems should take Bayh up on his dare to use the reconciliation process if they're "adamant" about passing a public option:

• TalkLeft's Big Tent Democrat: "Bayh opposes all forms of a public option. So when he says that, he is laughing in the face of President Obama, Speaker [Nancy] Pelosi and Senate Leader Reid. When Evan Bayh is calling you a wimp, you know that you are weak."
• BooMan: "I find it unconscionable that [Bayh], or any other member of the caucus, would hold reform hostage. If he wants to dare Obama to use reconciliation, there isn't much I can do about it, but I think it is a pure dick move on Bayh's part. Since Reid and [IL Sen. Dick] Durbin are openly calling Bayh's bluff, I hope they are willing to play some serious hardball. I know Bayh wants to strip out the tax on medical device manufacturers, and [LA Sen. Mary] Landrieu wants more Katrina-aid, and [AR Sen. Blanche] Lincoln and Lieberman want to keep their committee chairs. Maybe they can get what they want in return for their cloture votes, and lose it if this has to go to reconciliation."
• Firedoglake's Jon Walker: "The option of using reconciliation does provide Congressional progressives with some leverage. If they determine that the most conservative Democratic senators are demanding too much, they can always bypass them and still get a bill passed. The question may come down to whether a bill that would be watered down by the strange Byrd rule would still end up a better bill than one watered down to fulfill the whims of Joe Lieberman, Blanche Lincoln, or [NE Sen.] Ben Nelson."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: I Don't Need Your Civil War

NRO's Rich Lowry:

"There's been a lot of focus on NY-23, for understandable reasons -- it's a great fight in a year with only a few races to pay attention to. But there's a lot of wild over-interpretation going on. Among more excitable folks on both the left and the right, there's a tendency to think this heralds some broader GOP civil war. Not likely. The circumstances of the race are entirely unique. In most districts of the country, the Republican nominee is going to be acceptable to conservatives (most Republican primary voters are conservative, after all), and certainly almost never as noxious as Dede Scozzafava. What is happening in NY-23 is a product of how bad Scozzafava is coupled with the fact that New York has a long-standing conservative third party. I think Newt [Gingrich] has made the wrong call in this race -- Hoffman is not only much better on the issues, he can win -- but his broader point shouldn't be lost in the uproar over his misbegotten Scozzafava endorsement: Congressional candidates have to be tailored to their districts, and conservatives have to reconcile themselves to 75 percent candidates in some of them. So, let's hope that Hoffman pulls it out, which looks increasingly plausible, but no one should make apocalyptic extrapolations based on this one race.

Meanwhile, the campaign that potentially has the most applicability nationally for Republicans is Virginia's gubernatorial race. There, you have a candidate who has united and energized his base and his party, is winning on just about every issue, and may well lead a stinging defeat of Democrats up and down the ballot in a purplish state that is increasingly suburban and diverse. It's Bob McDonnell that Republicans around the country will look to for lessons on how to make their comeback happen when the electoral rubber hits the road."

LEST WE FORGET: U.S. Continues Quagmire-Building Effort In Afghanistan

From The Onion:

"KABUL, AFGHANISTAN -- According to sources at the Pentagon, American quagmire-building efforts continued apace in Afghanistan this week, as the geographically rugged, politically unstable region remained ungovernable, death tolls continued to rise, and the grim military campaign persisted as hopelessly as ever. In fact, many government officials now believe that the United States and its allies could be as little as six months away from their ultimate goal: the total quagmirification of Afghanistan.

'We've spent a lot of time and money fostering the turmoil and despair necessary to make this a sustaining quagmire, and we're not going to stop now,' President Barack Obama said in a national address Monday night. 'It won't be easy, but with enough tactical errors on the ground, shortsighted political strategies, and continued ignorance of our vast cultural differences, we could have a horrific, full-fledged quagmire by 2012.'

Added Obama, 'Together, we can make Afghanistan into a nightmarish hell-scape Americans will regret for generations to come.'"

Posted by Ian Faerstein at 12:31 PM

October 28, 2009

10/28: Holy Joe

It feels like the summer of '06 again in the blogosphere. The netroots are blasting Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT) following his announcement that he would join a GOP filibuster of Senate Maj. Leader Harry Reid's health care bill. Several lefty bloggers are urging Pres. Obama to pressure Lieberman to vote for cloture, since "it was Obama who intervened to save Lieberman's position in the Democratic caucus last December." Others are urging Reid to give up on trying to get 60 votes and instead use the reconciliation procedure to pass a strong public option. The netroots are also urging Senate Dems to punish Lieberman by stripping him of his chairmanship of the Homeland Security Committee. Jane Hamsher explains: "[S]ince he's not going to vote with the Democrats on procedure anyway (and why should he -- they've coddled him all along, given him everything he wants, and gotten nothing for it) having him in the caucus is meaningless."

What else is happening in the blogosphere?

• Conservative bloggers (Malkin, Klein) continue to criticize ex-Speaker Newt Gingrich (R) for defending his endorsement of GOP candidate Dede Scozzafava in the NY-23 race. Other righty bloggers (Erickson, Morrissey) are promoting ex-Sen. Fred Thompson's (R-TN) new ad for Conservative Party candidate Doug Hoffman. Meanwhile, Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC) became the latest conservative GOPer to give an exclusive statement to RedState announcing his endorsement of Hoffman.
• Several conservative bloggers (Stevens, Riehl) are criticizing CA SEN candidate Carly Fiorina (R) after the Chuck DeVore camp released a video of Fiorina discussing regulation of the web at a recent conference. However, Townhall.com is defending Fiorina. In other SEN news, liberal bloggers (Bowers, Black) are accusing Sen. Arlen Specter (D-PA) of flip-flopping shamelessly on the Defense of Marriage Act.
• Conservative bloggers (Malkin, Lane, Jessup, Allahpundit) are criticizing Obama for praising Rep. Alan Grayson (D-FL) at a recent fundraiser.

LIEBERMAN: We Warned You, Dems

Liberal bloggers have never trusted Lieberman, but they're still disgusted by his behavior:

• digby: "I kept hearing in private conversations that everyone was sure that good old Lieb wouldn't join the filibuster. No way, no how. After all 'he's with us on everything but the war.' But it always seemed absurd to me to trust good old Lieb since he's become a bitter, angry, resentful, creepy, arch conservative, vengeful old fuck (which isn't all that different than he always was, but he used to be a little bit constricted by his religious image.)"
• Hamsher: "Joe Lieberman said he 'feared' the 60 vote Democratic majority shortly after the election. Well, sure is a good thing we gave him oversight over Homeland Security, allowed him to use it as a power base and let him have his gavel without any agreement whatsoever to support the caucus on procedural votes. [...] Nice going, Senate Majority Leader Reid. Well, you trusted him, you fought for him -- now you own him."
• Atrios: "He's With Us On Everything But The War. Reid said that to me personally. We tried to warn them..."
• Open Left's Chris Bowers: "One of the main criticisms progressives had of Lieberman leading up to the 2006 primary was that he often joined with Republicans on prominent issues ([Bill] Clinton impeachment, Iraq war) in order to garner huge media attention for himself. Again, that pattern holds."

The Washington Monthly's Steve Benen: "[I]t's worth appreciating how extreme Lieberman's position really is. For some reform advocates, the starting point was single-payer. Then there was a compromise to a robust public option. Then there was another compromise to a negotiated public option. Then there was yet another compromise to a negotiated public option with a state opt-out. Lieberman is saying these compromises aren't enough -- his opposition to competition and giving consumers a choice is so intense, he'd rather kill health care reform then let senators even vote on the bill. It will be a vote decades in the making, giving policymakers a once-in-a-generation opportunity. And as of today, Lieberman would rather let reform die than give some Americans in some states a choice between a public and a private insurance plan."

Daily Kos' Markos Moulitsas: "I live in mortal fear that Lieberman will retire before we get a chance to crush him in 2012."

LIEBERMAN II: Stop Making Sense

Many liberal bloggers are complaining that Lieberman's stated reasons for opposing the public option make no sense:

• The New Republic's Jonathan Chait: "[Lieberman's position] literally makes no sense whatsoever. A public plan does not provide a new entitlement. It just doesn't. It's a different form of providing an entitlement. Nor is it more expensive. In fact, the stronger versions of the public plan would cost less money. Lieberman is just babbling nonsense here."
• Think Progress' Matthew Yglesias: "It's...worth emphasizing that while only the House-style public option will save a lot of money, even the relatively weak public option from the Reid draft would save money relative to doing what Lieberman wants. He's talking about filibustering a deficit-reducing bill in order to try to remove a cost-reducing provision, and doing so on grounds of fiscal probity. It's ludicrous, and the political reporters covering him need to point this out."
• TAPPED's Tim Fernholz: "A public insurance option will make health-care reform cheaper. It is less expensive. It's not even a proper entitlement! The only people who stand to lose money on the proposition are insurance companies, who would lose their monopoly status and be forced into actual competition. That Lieberman would stand up and claim to be acting in a fiscally responsible manner is simply intellectually dishonest. Lieberman represents many insurance companies in Connecticut, who have funded him very well in the past. Hey, maybe he's not just schilling for the insurance industry, but the fact that he can't come up with a coherent reason for his opposition doesn't help him make the case that he has any principles whatsoever."
• MyDD's Charles Lemos: "Joe, you ignorant war-monger, you. Don't lie to us pretending that you care about the deficit when you support a war in Afghanistan that as of August was running a cool $4 billion a year and that's before we consider sending more troops."

The Washington Post's Ezra Klein doesn't take Lieberman's filibuster threat too seriously because "[his] argument against the public option is simply false" and "Lieberman won't be able to hang onto this argument for very long, and then what?" In contrast, FiveThirtyEight's Nate Silver takes Lieberman's threat very seriously "because the usual things that serve to motivate a Congressman don't seem to motivate Joe Lieberman."

LIEBERMAN III: Your Move, Obama

Several liberal bloggers are calling on Obama to pressure Lieberman:

• Hamsher: "Obama called [WV Sen.] Jay Rockefeller and twisted his arm to vote for the Finance Committee bill. So, a call to Lieberman really isn't too much to ask. And if the President lets Senate Democrats know he wants Lieberman's gavel to get yanked, they probably will go along at this point -- especially if the Majority Leader is calling for the same thing. I doubt many in the Senate will be happy about having him undermine the caucus like this. All of Lieberman's power in the Senate comes from his chairmanship of the Homeland Security Committee. Without it, he's nothing. And since he's not going to vote with the Democrats on procedure anyway (and why should he -- they've coddled him all along, given him everything he wants, and gotten nothing for it) having him in the caucus is meaningless. [...] If Obama truly does support the public option, he'll be twisting Joe's arm. Likewise, Harry Reid. If they don't, if Reid and Obama protect his chairmanship -- or water down the bill to get his 'support' -- we'll know it was all just a nice bit of theater."
• AMERICAblog's John Aravosis: "Two things here: (1.) Lieberman needs to be told that he's out of the caucus and loses his committee chair if he does this. (3.) President Obama can switch Lieberman's vote. It was Obama, after all, who campaigned for Lieberman when everyone else deserted him, and it was Obama who intervened to save Lieberman's position in the Democratic caucus last December. Lieberman owes Obama. Currently, Lieberman is making a mockery of Obama by letting Obama save him, and then knifing the president every step of the way. It's time for the President to call in his chits with Lieberman, or destroy Lieberman - Obama has the power to do both. And after all, the White House endorsed Reid's plan yesterday, and we take them at their word that they're on board. So this is a perfect opportunity for them to show how on board they are."

Other lefty bloggers are calling on Senate Dems to use reconciliation to pass a public option:

• Daily Kos' mcjoan: "Let's use reconciliation for the good parts of the bill, like a robust public option that [NY Sen. Chuck] Schumer says would be most effective, and use the regular legislative process for the insurance company refroms, etc. And, while the Senate is at it, they should be stripping Lieberman's chairmanship and removing him from the caucus."
• TalkLeft's Big Tent Democrat: "In a way, this is good news. [...] Since Lieberman is there, then [AR Sen. Blanche] Lincoln, [LA Sen. Mary] Landreiu and [NE Sen.] Ben Nelson will go there too. No health care reform through normal procedure. Notice especially Lieberman says he will filibuster even Snowe's Trigger (so much for Rahmbo's grand deal with the Princess from Maine.) Reconciliation it is. Oh by the way, that means we go back to the ROBUST public option with NO opt out. That's the good news."

Meanwhile, several liberal bloggers (BooMan, Cole, Bellows) are blasting Reid for his handling of the politics of health care reform.

LIEBERMAN IV: The GOP Loves Joe

Conservative bloggers were thrilled by Lieberman's announcement:

• Townhall's Meredith Jessup: "Go Joe!"
• NRO's Tevi Troy: "Go Joe! Kudos to Joe Lieberman for his announcement that he will oppose a Democratic health bill if it includes a public option."
• The Weekly Standard's Michael Goldfarb: "Joementum 2012? Is he the greatest senator ever? He fought for victory in Iraq, he's fighting for victory in Afghanistan, and he's fighting to save us all from Obamacare. Who needs Olympia Snowe when you've got Joementum?"

Several righty bloggers are suggesting that Dems can only blame themselves for Lieberman's behavior:

• RedState's Erick Erickson: "Thank you lefty bloggers so very much for primarying Joe Lieberman and helping him be bold enough to shaft you."
• NRO's Rich Lowry: "Maybe Democrats can try to purge Lieberman in a hateful campaign of vituperation. Oh yeah -- they already tried that."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Shifting CW On Afghanistan?

Mother Jones' Kevin Drum:

"Mainstream hawkish pundits rarely have a change of heart that leads them fully into the withdrawal camp. They'll often get to the point where they hem and haw a bit, explaining all the downsides of continued engagement and the longs odds against success, but then they'll conclude with either a reluctant insistence that we have to keep on fighting anyway, or else a murky affirmation that there's no good choice to be had, just a least bad one.

But Afghanistan is changing that. Tom Friedman has now joined George Will in flatly recommending that we leave. 'China, Russia and Al Qaeda all love the idea of America doing a long, slow bleed in Afghanistan,' he says today. 'I don't.' The conventional wisdom is slowly but surely shifting before our eyes. So who will be the next bigfoot pundit to jump ship?"

LEST WE FORGET: YouTube Comment Or e. e. cummings?

McSweeney's contributor Francois Vincent:

1. loog a his lirow nose
2. there is some shit I will not eat
3. LISN bud LISN
4. this i bad sorry to saY
5. leave her alone
she's not your gal
6. She is Lucifierian !
7. THuNdeRB
loSSo!M iN
8. aThe):l
9. stunned. i. am. stunned. every question speaks to us
10. What is nothing?

YouTube comment: 1, 4, 6, 9, 10

e. e. cummings: 2, 3, 5, 7, 8

Posted by Ian Faerstein at 12:30 PM

October 27, 2009

10/27: Inching Toward Victory?

It was less than three weeks ago that we first reported that liberal bloggers were buzzing about a public option compromise proposal that they actually found acceptable -- a public option with a state opt-out clause. Well, it appears that lefty bloggers have gotten their wish. The netroots were surprised and pleased when Senate Maj. Leader Harry Reid announced yesterday that he'll include an "opt-out" public option in the merged Senate health care bill. Liberal bloggers have never trusted Reid, so they were impressed by his decision, calling it "probably the boldest thing Reid has done as Majority Leader." That said, they're not sure whether Reid will actually be able to convince all 60 Dems to vote for cloture. While some lefty bloggers believe that Reid wouldn't bring this bill to the floor if he weren't confident in his ability to get 60 votes, others have little confidence in Reid's vote-counting abilities.

What else is happening in the blogosphere?

• Conservative bloggers (Erickson, Morrissey, Hinderaker) are buzzing about the new Club for Growth poll showing Conservative Party candidate Doug Hoffman leading both Bill Owens (D) and Dede Scozzafava (R) in the NY-23 race. That said, liberal blogger Nate Silver is skeptical of the poll.
• Last week we noted that RedState editor Erick Erickson criticized MN Gov. Tim Pawlenty (R) for declining to endorse Hoffman. Well, it appears that Pawlenty got the message, as he emailed Erickson yesterday to announce that he was endorsing Hoffman. Now Erickson is urging two other potential WH '12 candidates -- ex-MA Gov. Mitt Romney (R) and ex-AR Gov. Mike Huckabee (R) -- to "man up and stand with the base of the GOP" by endorsing Hoffman.
• Conservative bloggers (Morrissey, Bandes) are criticizing Scozzafava for receiving the 2008 Margaret Sanger Award from the Family Planning Advocates of New York State.

REID: So He Has A Spine After All!

Liberal bloggers were surprised and pleased when Reid announced his plans to include a public option with a state opt-out clause in the merged Senate health care bill:

• MyDD's Nathan Empsall: "This is probably the boldest thing Reid has done as Majority Leader."
• TalkLeft's Big Tent Democrat: "All the right moves and all the right noises. Still a fight ahead, but good on the Dems today."
• BooMan: "Congratulations to everyone who has been working tirelessly to see that a public option is included in the Senate bill. Harry Reid listened to you. Apparently, the Democratic members of Congress listened to you, too, because they seem to be willing to vote for cloture to start debate on a bill with a public option. And, despite some skepticism, the White House is now convinced that they can get a public option through the Senate on the first pass. This is better than anything that was realistically imaginable in the spring."
• digby: "I think Reid deserve some credit here. He's been under tremendous pressure to essentially bring the Finance Committee bill to the floor and have a flurry of various failing kabuki amendments on the public option so the Villagers could say 'I told you so.' But he's been under a lot of pressure from his left as well, and not just from the netroots, but from his own caucus, which is a hopeful sign. [WV Sen.] Jay Rockefeller, for instance, has been surprisingly tough. Reid went the right way today and took reform another step in the right direction. Having said that, it's premature to get too excited. There are many shoals ahead."
• Open Left's Mike Lux: "Okay, folks, we progressives got what we wanted. A comprehensive health care reform bill with a reasonably strong public option will be going to the floor as part of leadership bills in both the House and the Senate. We don't yet know whether we will get the best version of the public option in the House bill, and the Senate version is not as strong as progressives have been pushing for. But strengthening the form of the public option can be negotiated over in conference committee, once we get there."

Atrios offers a characteristically sarcastic take: "I'm all for there being a decent public option, but am still disturbed at the apparent coup which has removed President [Olympia] Snowe from office."

REID II: But Does He Have The Votes?

Several lefty bloggers believe that Reid must be confident in his ability to get all 60 Dems to vote for cloture, or he wouldn't bring this bill to the floor:

• Open Left's Chris Bowers: "Given this news, it certainly seems as though Reid has managed to acquire 60 votes for cloture on a health care bill with the opt-out public option. [...] This certainly seems like a very, very big victory."
• MyDD's Josh Orton: "[W]hile people have said many bad things about Harry Reid, I'm pretty sure no one's ever accused him of being a legislative show horse. Or dramatic. He's just not going to announce a base bill that he doesn't reasonably expect will win 60 cloture votes. Can you imagine what a huge defeat that would look like? Reid can too."

Balloon Juice's DougJ isn't so sure: "TPM has a great interview with [NY Sen.] Chuck Schumer about the discussion between Harry Reid and the White House on the opt out public option versus the triggered public option. It certainly sounds like the White House doesn't trust Reid to count votes. And I don't either."

PUBLIC OPTION: Pat Yourselves On The Back, Netroots

Several lefty bloggers are arguing that the netroots played a big role in ensuring the public option's survival up to this point:

• Bowers: "Quite a few Democrats did not like it that Congressional Progressives were threatening to defeat a health care bill without a public option. However, without that threat, there is simply no way that the public option would still be alive, much less near victory. Making that sort of threat on a piece of must-pass legislation was necessary both in order to make the legislation better, and also to finally make Congressional Progressives as relevant to the legislative process as Blue Dogs and Conservadems."
• The Huffington Post's Peter Daou: "Although it's far from clear what the final health care bill will look like, especially the public option (opt-out, trigger, etc.), there's absolutely no doubt that it is alive primarily because of the vigorous efforts of online progressive activists and bloggers on Huffington Post, Firedoglake, Daily Kos, TPM, Think Progress, Media Matters, Salon, AmericaBlog, Crooks and Liars, and hundreds of smaller sites (not to mention MoveOn)."
• FiveThirtyEight's Silver: "[N]one of this would have been possible without the yeoman effort of a relatively small number of bloggers and activists -- they know who they are -- who were tired of taking 'no' for an answer. They wanted this fight because of the paradigm-shifting implications it could have for how business gets done in the Democratic Party. And, somewhat to my surprise, they're having it."
• Firedoglake's Jane Hamsher: "Pressure on Reid from progressives when his poll numbers are flagging made him defy the White House. More importantly, he ratted them out to the press. [WH CoS] Rahm [Emanuel] thought he could continue to push for triggers in the background and satisfy the base by mouthing gibberish about 'the President supports a public option' until it was too late. It didn't work out so well."

PUBLIC OPTION II: More Information, Please

Some liberal bloggers want more information about the state opt-out clause that Senate Dems are attaching to the public option:

• Think Progress' Matthew Yglesias: "One point I'm not clear on with regard to the idea of an 'opt-out' public option is who does the opting? If the way it works is that you need concurrent affirmative action by both houses of the state legislature and the governor, then it strikes me as very likely that the public option that emerges from an opt-out process will be very strong. If governors can do it unilaterally, then you'll get something with more of a swiss cheese quality to it. Similarly, if a state has opted out and decides four years later that it wants in, who gets to decide?"
• Bowers: "Some claim that virtually no state will opt-out, because the public option is so popular. Others claim that many red states, plus Florida, will opt-out pretty quickly. Figuring out how states will be able to opt-out will be key to knowing whether it is worth pushing for a better opt-out, or a weaker national public option."

Several lefty bloggers are expressing skepticism about the opt-out clause:

• Hamsher: "Having a state opt-out that will make corporatist Democrats happy is quite likely not to be 'available nationwide from day one,' and thus does not meet the the definition of a 'robust public option' by anyone's terms. Depending on how an opt-out was written, it could potentially disenfranchise large parts of the population. [...] Providing health care for the nation is a moral issue, it's not about getting a 'political win.'"
• Daily Kos' David Waldman: "Only Harry Reid knows for sure, but it's still unclear to me just whose votes were put in play with the inclusion of the opt-out. I've heard it said that Olympia Snowe (R-ME) says that the so-called 'trigger' is her tipping point. But has anyone ever heard anyone say the name of a Senator known to be a 'no' vote on a straight-up public option, but a 'yes' vote if you include the opt-out?"

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: The Presidency And The Rise Of The New Partisan Press

Yale Law prof. Jack Balkin:

"The irony of the Administration's response to Fox News is its declaration that Fox is not a 'legitimate' news organization. It is not a legitimate mid-twentieth century news organization. But it is a legitimate nineteenth century news organization and it could well be what twenty-first century news organizations increasingly look like. The concept of 'legitimacy' in news gathering and reporting is not timeless and forever fixed; the point is that it is now very much up for grabs. What the Obama Administration is trading on in its attacks is the notion that 'legitimate' journalism is 'objective' twentieth century journalism, and since Fox is not that, it is not legitimate journalism. Fox, for its part, actually plays into this framing because it insists that it is fair and balanced and objective, when it is anything but. Fox has been trying to have it both ways since it began; the Obama Administration is now calling its bluff, and attempting to redefine it as not legitimate according to a previous (but increasingly challenged) conception of legitimate journalism.

In the long run, it will probably be better for the Administration and future Administrations not to say that Fox and its successors are not 'legitimate' journalists, but that they are not actually objective journalists; instead they are members of a new party or partisan press. That model of the press may be legitimate in the twenty-first century, but politicians have no obligation to treat it as they treated an earlier model of journalism."

LEST WE FORGET: Travel Channel Blows Its 'Bed And Breakfasts Of New England' Wad

From The Onion:

"GARRETT, MD -- After airing four consecutive days of programming devoted to mulled cider, antique weather vanes, and changing foliage, the Travel Channel effectively blew its New- England-bed-and-breakfast wad Monday with 8 weeks of autumn still to go. 'I guess we just got a little too worked up over these charming rustic retreats, and ended shooting our whole damn load,' said Travel Channel president Patrick Younge, admitting that for the rest of the season the network will rely primarily on warmed-over Bermuda and Bourdain. 'The whole thing's pretty embarrassing. I was sure we'd last a lot longer this year.' According to media analysts, no one has shit the bed this bad since the Weather Channel went balls out with its hurricane-season coverage in 2006."

Posted by Ian Faerstein at 12:41 PM

October 26, 2009

10/26: Stop Sending Mixed Signals, Barack!

Senate Maj. Leader Harry Reid's apparent inclination to include a public option with a state opt-out clause in the merged Senate health care bill generated a lot of commentary in the liberal blogosphere this weekend. Although lefty bloggers were cheered by Reid's efforts, they were upset about reports that Pres. Obama was "actively discouraging" Reid from pursuing this strategy, due to his preference for the public option "trigger" mechanism favored by Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-ME). publius complained: "Despite its new momentum, the public option has a powerful new opponent -- the White House. It's incredibly frustrating."

Although the WH quickly issued a statement denying the report that it opposed Reid's strategy on the public option, the netroots were not satisfied. Adam Green sums up the views of many in the lefty blogosphere when he writes: "Here's what the White House needs to understand: Expressing a preference for the public option is not the same as fighting for the public option."

What else is happening in the blogosphere?

• Conservative bloggers (Erickson, Bandes, Lopez) continue to unload on NY-23 candidate Dede Scozzafava (R). Righty bloggers (Erickson, Geraghty, Jessup) are also criticizing the NRCC for refusing to abandon Scozzafava and throw its support behind Conservative Party candidate Doug Hoffman.
• Various WH '12 GOP hopefuls are taking their lumps from conservative bloggers for not endorsing Hoffman. Several righty bloggers (Malkin, Morrissey) are criticizing ex-Speaker Newt Gingrich (R) for standing by his endorsement of Scozzafava. Meanwhile, RedState editor Erick Erickson is disappointed that ex-AR Gov. Mike Huckabee (R) hasn't endorsed Hoffman.

HEALTH CARE REFORM: Is Obama Selling Out The Public Option?

Liberal bloggers reacted with exasperation when The Huffington Post's Sam Stein and Ryan Grim reported that Obama "is actively discouraging Senate Democrats in their effort to include a public insurance option with a state opt-out clause as part of health care reform":

• AMERICAblog's John Aravosis: "It's time to be pissed."
• TalkLeft's Big Tent Democrat: "It is quite remarkable it seems to me that whether Obama will support a public option is an open question. It's one thing to be a bystander, quite another to wade in in favor of Snowe's trigger. And yet, it appears that privately that is what the President is doing. Harry Reid is going to bring a public option to a vote. Will Obama lobby against it [publicly]? I think he might. Amazing."
• Obsidian Wings' publius: "Despite its new momentum, the public option has a powerful new opponent -- the White House. It's incredibly frustrating. Although Reid is close to getting 60 votes on cloture, Obama and Rahm (who, for all his bluster, is politically timid) are pushing for the 'trigger,' which is the same as nothing. [...] I'm wondering if the White House's shorter-term political calculations (for themselves) are making them more timid than they should be on this issue. I'd like to have Snowe's support too, but I don't think it's worth sacrificing an opt-out policy that seems to have wide Democratic support (and would have more if Obama showed some spine)."
• digby: "It seems that the administration believes that it's better to deliver a bill that will not work than to take a chance on losing some seats. Since it's nonsensical to think that that Republicans would take those seats because of the public option but not health care reform over all, they must believe that they must deliver a devastating blow to the majority of their own party in order to prove their bipartisan bona fides and give Rahm's Blue Dogs a tea bag to take home with them. (Certainly, nothing would make the villagers happier...)"
• Daily Kos' mcjoan: "The Snowe Trigger is not a substitute for a public option. Harry Reid needs to hear that, [Speaker] Nancy Pelosi needs to hear that (though I don't think we really need to convince her), and everyone in the White House needs to hear that."

While most liberal bloggers have been very critical of the WH, it should be noted that some (Silver, BooMan) share the Obama admin.'s apparent concerns about getting 60 Dem senators to vote for cloture on a bill with a public option.

HEALTH CARE REFORM II: Damage Control

Liberal bloggers were not satisfied when the WH issued a statement denying that "the White House and Senator Reid are pursuing different strategies on the public option":

• Aravosis: "The White House has issued yet another general statement saying how much it likes the public option. That's nice. So what exactly has the President done to lobby individual Senators to get Harry Reid the remaining 1, 2, or 3 votes he needs to include the public option in the bill?"
• Green: "Here's what the White House needs to understand: Expressing a preference for the public option is not the same as fighting for the public option. Telling Harry Reid 'good luck with that' is not the same as the president saying, 'I am there helping Reid fight for those final votes.'"
• Big Tent Democrat: "Certainly this [statement] makes it tougher for Obama to [publicly] support triggers. That's a good thing. His earlier dithering has done plenty of damage to the public option cause, not just in the Senate, as Jon Cohn reports, but in the House, as Roll Call reports. Hopefully this will stop the bleeding. At least until Obama and his team try to gut the public option again."

The Washington Post's Ezra Klein: "I'm...hearing a lot of irritation from congressional Democrats at the mixed signals being sent by the White House. If the White House wants to advocate for the trigger, fine. If the White House wants to advocate for the public option, fine. But for the White House to host one meeting where they signal that they're uncomfortable with Reid's decision to push the envelope on the public option and then make a big effort to walk that meeting back after the left gets angry is confusing everybody. No one wants to be left in the cold here. If the public option is going to pass, plenty of people want to be seen as its champions. If it's going to fail, others want to be out ahead of that failure. Politicians need to know whether to begin managing the disappointment of their base or amping up their expectations. But since the administration is considered the most important actor here, no one knows quite how to structure their strategy so long as the White House refuses to fully show its cards."

Meanwhile, several liberal bloggers (BTD, Dayen) are buzzing about Sen. Russ Feingold's (D-WI) criticism of Snowe's trigger compromise.

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: "Democratic" Versus "Liberal"

NRO's Jonah Goldberg comments on the recent Gallup poll which found that "conservatives continue to outnumber moderates and liberals in the American populace":

"...I do think one plausible theory as to why the Democratic party is having some of its problems these days is that they misread their pre-election unity. I think this is understandable. Lots of polls suggested that America was becoming more liberal under [George W.] Bush (at least on a bunch of issues). The differences between centrist and leftwing Democrats seemed trivial. Barack Obama won handily without ever tacking back to the center in the general election. In short, those eager to find evidence that the country was poised to lurch leftward had lots to go on.

But perhaps that had more to do with the fact that country was (again understandably) fed up with the Republican Party. The Democratic Party's leaders are a lot more liberal than their voters (the dynamic is even more true when it comes to committee chairs who are to the left of the average Democratic congressmen). The Democrats came into power in 2008 thinking they had a huge mandate for liberalism, when they really had a huge mandate for competence (for want of a better word). Obama and his coterie misunderstood this. They used a lot of 'pragmatic' rhetoric, but they governed from the left, starting with the calamitous stimulus bill. Obama's personal popularity is still sustaining him, but it seems to me that the Democratic Party missed an enormous opportunity. I don't think they're doomed or anything like that. But, they've managed to rebrand themselves as a very liberal party again, and that's a problem when 80% of Americans don't describe themselves as liberals."

LEST WE FORGET: Iran Trying to Install Microsoft Windows 7

The Huffington Post's Andy Borowitz:

"TEHRAN (The Borowitz Report) -- Tensions between the United States and the Iranian government have risen over the weekend amid intelligence reports that Iran is trying to install Microsoft Windows 7.

Spy-satellite photos reveal a shipment of Windows 7 software, as well as a dozen IT professionals from Redmond, Washington, arriving early Saturday morning in Tehran.

While intelligence analysts warn that Iran's acquiring Windows 7 is a matter of grave concern, a Defense Department spokesman, Tracy Klugian, was careful not to overstate the danger: 'Even under optimal conditions, Windows 7 will probably take at least two to five years to successfully install.'

Mr. Klugian underscored his remark by reminding reporters that Iran attempted to install Microsoft Vista over three years ago: 'They still haven't gotten that to work.'"

Posted by Ian Faerstein at 12:37 PM

October 23, 2009

10/23: Some Things Aren't Optional

Liberal bloggers are diving into the legislative weeds today as they discuss the various public option compromises being floated in Congress. The first choice of most liberal bloggers is the so-called "robust" public option favored by Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-WV), which ties reimbursement rates to Medicare and adds 5%. The netroots are pushing House Dems to pass a bill with this type of public option, since they believe that "having the strongest possible House bill going in to conference with the Senate is critical."

The second choice of most liberal bloggers is the so-called "opt-out" compromise favored by Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY), which creates a national public option that states can opt out of if they wish. Most (but not all) liberal bloggers consider this compromise acceptable, if not ideal. What virtually no liberal blogger supports is the "trigger" compromise favored by Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-ME), which would call for the creation of a public option in states where private insurers fail to provide enough affordable insurance options. Now that Snowe is threatening to filibuster a health care bill that includes an "opt-out" public option, some lefty bloggers are urging Senate Maj. Leader Harry Reid to "dust off the reconciliation procedures book."

What else is happening in the blogosphere?

• Conservative bloggers (Lewis, Jessup, Malkin, Allahpundit) are buzzing about ex-AK Gov. Sarah Palin's (R) endorsement of Doug Hoffman, the Conservative Party candidate in the NY-23 race. After praising Palin, RedState editor Erick Erickson slams MN Gov. Tim Pawlenty (R) for declining to endorse Hoffman, arguing that his decision "further bolsters the Pawlenty stereotype as milquetoast establishment." Meanwhile, Michelle Malkin is the latest righty blogger to call on GOP candidate Dede Scozzafava to withdraw from the race.
• Conservative bloggers (Geraghty, Lane, Reynolds) are buzzing about the news that a former Dem official who received donations from NJ Gov. Jon Corzine (D) was found guilty of corruption.
• Liberal bloggers (Yglesias, Benen, Sudbay) are blasting Sen. Mary Landrieu's (D-LA) criticism of the public option.

HEALTH CARE REFORM: Snowed In

Now that Snowe is threatening to filibuster a health care bill that includes any form of public option other than her trigger proposal, some liberal bloggers are urging Senate Dems to use the reconciliation procedure pass health care reform:

• Daily Kos' mcjoan: "AHIP is working Republicans, backing up any effort they might make to obstruct healthcare reform, and particularly the public option. It's looking like they got to Olympia Snowe. [...] All these months [MT Sen. Max] Baucus and the administration have been courting her for this, she's waving her own veto pen. Presumably, it will be her trigger or nothing, but with momentum gaining behind a much stronger opt-out option, she's threatening to take her marbles and go home. It's time for Harry Reid to dust off the reconciliation procedures book. If Snowe is going to side with AHIP and the rest of the Republicans, they're going to have to do this without her.
• TalkLeft's Big Tent Democrat: "If I was playing the Dem hand, I would start talking about reconciliation in response to this. To wit 'if Republicans do not want to grab a mop on health care reform, then we will do what we have to do to fix it ourselves.'"

The Washington Monthly's Steve Benen doesn't understand Snowe's behavior: "This just isn't rational. Snowe has demonstrated a genuine interest in health care reform, and that's admirable. But she's willing to defeat a bill she would otherwise consider based on a single provision that most Americans wouldn't be eligible for anyway? Is the popular policy idea really so offensive that it's worth killing the entire initiative, decades in the making, and letting this once-in-a-generation opportunity pass?"

TAPPED's Dylan Matthews tries to look on the bright side: "[O]ne major caveat is that it would be more politically and historically difficult for Snowe to filibuster a complete health-care bill with a public option than to merely threaten to do so. Plus, it would be more than possible for the Senate leadership and the White House to pass a Senate bill without a public option and then add the House's during conference committee. The bill presented before the Senate then would have an even greater finality to it, making it even more difficult for Snowe to give a no vote."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: The Wrong Line Of Attack

The Washington Independent's David Weigel (h/t Andrew Sullivan):

"The Democrats are in worse political shape than they were a year ago because unemployment is at 9.8 percent, the war in Afghanistan has grown less popular, and the bailouts of struggling banks are seen as wastes of money that haven't worked. Republicans benefit when they talk about this stuff. But [Glenn] Beck and the others don't let them talk about this stuff. For the past few months, they have moved the discussion onto fantasy terrain, accusing the president of reaching for dictatorial powers and surrounding himself with 'radicals' who want to destroy capitalism. [...]

This isn't to say Republicans have been distracted or unsuccessful in Congress. They've certainly scored victories during this period. And by paying attention to these conservative witch hunts, they've definitely kept their base revved up. But in the current political context, it seems like they're missing the forest for some shrubs. It's as if Democrats tried to press their advantages in 2005 not by going after the Iraq War or the mishandling of Hurricane Katrina, but by spending weeks attacking mid-ranking members of his administration and claiming that President George W. Bush was driving the nation toward fascism. And remember, one of the huge political mistakes of 2005 was the Republican decision to do a full-court press on an issue that had come from conservative activists and pundits: the fate of Terri Schiavo."

LEST WE FORGET: "Lowest Priority H1N1 Vaccine Groups"

McSweeney's contributor Sarah Garb:

• Lighthouse keepers
• Christian Science reading room employees
• The Maytag repairman
• Philosophy post-docs
• Psychic Friends Network operators
• Donkey Kong world record seekers
• Detroit Lions food vendors
• North Korean tour guides
• Both residents of Twombly, Maine
• Dodge Caliber salesmen
• Writers

Posted by Ian Faerstein at 12:42 PM

October 22, 2009

10/22: Stopping The Health Care Train

Lately conservative bloggers have seemed a bit absent from the health care debate, as liberal bloggers have dominated the discussion by making so much noise about a strong public option. But now righty bloggers are celebrating a health care victory of their own. The rightroots are delighted that the Senate voted against "a 10-year freeze of scheduled cuts to doctors' Medicare payments" (which Michelle Malkin described as "a $247 billion payoff to doctors groups as an enticement to support Obamacare"). Conservative bloggers are portraying this vote as a major defeat for health care reform, since (in their view) it will increase the projected cost of the eventual legislation and therefore scare away wavering Dems. Erick Erickson explains: "This makes it much more difficult for Obamacare to pass and virtually impossible for it to pass without significant deficit blowing cost additions."

What else is happening in the blogosphere?

• Today at noon, in a coordinated effort, a host of conservative bloggers (RedState Directors, Geraghty, Hillyer, Faughnan, Huston, Dave in Texas) called on NY-23 candidate Dede Scozzafava (R) to withdraw from the race and throw her support to Conservative Party candidate Doug Hoffman. Meanwhile, other conservative bloggers (Malkin, Lane, Lawler, Allahpundit, Reynolds) are mocking Scozzafava after she held an event outside Hoffman's campaign office, only to find herself surrounded by Hoffman supporters holding signs.
• Liberal bloggers (Moulitsas, Bowers, Walker) are accusing VA GOV candidate Creigh Deeds (D) of alienating his base by distancing himself from the public option during the 10/20 debate.
• Liberal bloggers (Marshall, Benen, Heather) spent the past few days criticizing Sen. David Vitter (R-LA) for refusing to condemn the LA judge who denied a marriage license to an interracial couple. Although Vitter's spokesperson eventually released a statement addressing the issue, lefty bloggers (Benen, Aravosis, Morrill) are still not satisfied.
• Conservative bloggers (Johnson, Morrissey, Gaffney, Rubin) loved ex-VP Dick Cheney's attack on Obama's foreign policy.

SENATE: A Blow To Health Care Reform?

Conservative bloggers are celebrating the fact that the Senate blocked "a 10-year freeze of scheduled cuts to doctors' Medicare payments, legislation that was considered important to getting a broader healthcare bill through later this year":

• RedState's Erickson: "We, RedState readers, have defeated Harry Reid today and delivered a significant blow to the potential passage of Obamacare. We held every Republican Senator including [ME Sen.] Olympia Snowe and [NC Sen.] Richard Burr. Harry Reid just ran to the Senate floor and cried that he cannot get enough votes to pass the doctors' bribe to support Obamacare. He blamed the AMA for misleading him. He might actually want to look to RedState. Our readers have generated hundreds and hundreds of phone calls in 24 hours to pretty much every Republican Senator. Several who had considered voting for cloture backed down. And now the end run around Obamacare costs has been defeated. This makes it much more difficult for Obamacare to pass and virtually impossible for it to pass without significant deficit blowing cost additions. Well done activists!"
• Malkin: "It looked like the fix was in. The 'Doc Fix,' that is. As the Heritage Foundation has been reporting, the White House and Dem leaders scurried today to try and pass a $247 billion payoff to doctors groups as an enticement to support Obamacare. Surprise: The fix failed. The cloture voted on S. 1776 failed by 47-53."
• Hot Air's Ed Morrissey: "What's next? The [MI Sen. Debbie] Stabenow bill will have to get attached to the ObamaCare proposal -- which means the CBO will rescore it with the additional $250 billion cost. That will make the deficit hit overt and create what The Hill calls a 'poison pill' for the bill, and that's before the progressives try to jam a public option into it. Without it, Reid loses the AMA. It's a disaster for Reid and the Democrats."

In other health care news, liberal bloggers (McCarter, Black) are delighted that the CBO projected that a robust public option would reduce the cost of health care reform. The netroots (Bowers, Dayen) are praising Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D) for trying to bring a bill with a robust public option to the House floor.

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Good Trade/Bad Trade

Think Progress' Matthew Yglesias:

"In lieu of another boring post about health insurance excise taxes let's talk raw politics. At the moment, there are two big disagreements between the moderates and the liberals on health care. On the one hand, the moderates want to finance a large amount of the subsidies through an excise tax on expensive health insurance plans. Liberals don't like that idea. On the other hand, the liberals want a robust public option while moderates are looking for ways to kill or defang this.

There are two ways you can imagine these problems getting logrolled away. One is to 'level up' in which both sides get something that they think will be a transformative tool to change America for the better -- the excise tax and a robust public option. The other is to 'level down' in which both sides force the other to back now -- no excise tax, and weak or absent public option. Either would be a compromise, but leveling up would be a much better outcome than leveling down. Which happens will tell us a lot about the health of our political institutions."

LEST WE FORGET: Contrarianism Is Alive And Well

Yglesias:

"The Economist wondered the other day if the negative reaction to SuperFreakonomics represented the end of contrarianism as a popular journalistic trope. The answer, it seems, is no. Slate is doubling-down on contrarianism by offering the case for Creed. This is ridiculous. Creed is a good band like solar panels are black. Your memory is correct. Absolutely everything about this is terrible. I bet al-Qaeda plays this to recruits in order to whip them into an anti-Christian fervor."

Posted by Ian Faerstein at 01:00 PM

October 21, 2009

10/21: Is Dede Doomed?

Yesterday we noted that conservative bloggers were mocking NY-23 candidate Dede Scozzafava (R) for calling the police on Weekly Standard blogger John McCormack after he persistently questioned her during a campaign event. After a Scozzafava aide told Politico that McCormack had "repeatedly screamed questions" at Scozzafava, McCormack played an audiotape of the incident to the AP in order to prove that he hadn't raised his voice. The Scozzafava camp subsequently retracted its accusation, drawing further ridicule from righty bloggers (as well as from lefty blogger Markos Moulitsas). The Scozzafava camp's decision to leak its email exchange with McCormack to the liberal blog Talking Points Memo further disgusted conservatives, who called the move "telling for a campaign that is trying to establish its GOP bona fides."

Although the rightroots have been attacking Scozzafava for weeks, this incident has clearly emboldened them, and they're now going all out for Conservative Party candidate Doug Hoffman (who is rumored to have moved past Scozzafava in the latest polls). Many righty bloggers are explicitly urging the RNC and NRCC to abandon Scozzafava -- either by "concentrating their fire" on Dem candidate Bill Owens, or by going even further and "cut[ting] their ties" to Scozzafava.

NY-23: What An Embarrassment!

Conservative bloggers are hammering Scozzafava for her camp's handling of the McCormack incident:

• Michelle Malkin: "As if there weren't enough reasons to oppose radical leftist Dede Scozzafava's GOP candidacy in the NY-23 special election, add one more to the list: She's a liar."
• Hot Air's Ed Morrissey: "What an embarrassment, especially for those national Republicans who went out of their way to endorse Scozzofava like [ex-Speaker] Newt Gingrich. Hopefully, Douglas Hoffman can take advantage of the situation."
• NRO's Mark Steyn: "Since the cop-calling and its aftermath, the candidate has demonstrated that there is no case for her whatsoever. At this stage in the nation's affairs, Washington doesn't need another incoherent buffoon insulated by a phalanx of thin-skinned twerps already guarding her like a 30-year incumbent for whom routine questions are an outrageous form of lèse-majesté. By any reasonable measure, this candidate is unworthy of a seat in the national legislature."
• AmSpec Blog's Quin Hillyer: "Just as a simple, objective observation having nothing to do with who should or should not win that special election, it's safe and fair to say that Ms. Scozzafava has had two extremely, amazingly, incontrovertibly awful days. For that matter, so have [NRCC Chair] Pete Sessions and the NRCC gang who can't shoot straight and who have wasted tens of thousands of dollars of ad money attacking the Conservative candidate, Doug Hoffman, rather than attacking the Democrat, whatshisname Owens, all on behalf of a candidate so far out of the Republican mainstream that she is to the left of Owens and whose dealings with respected conservative media are decidedly gauche."
• Right Wing News' John Hawkins: "How Beltway dumb does the RNC and NRCC have to be to set up a situation where everyone from the Weekly Standard to Michelle Malkin to Redstate are bombing not only Dede Scozzafava, but the RNC and NRCC?"

NY-23 II: Time To Abandon Ship, NRCC

Many righty bloggers are now urging the RNC and NRCC to abandon Scozzafava -- either by "concentrating their fire" on Owens, or by going even further and "cut[ting] their ties" to Scozzafava:

• RedState's Erick Erickson: "The GOP does deserve to wander in the wilderness for another few generations if Scozzafava wins. The NRCC and House Republican leadership needs to focus on crushing the Democrat now instead of building up Scozzafava. Sinking with the ship is not a viable option."
• NRO's Jim Geraghty: "Earlier this week, I was noting that it was unrealistic for conservatives to expect national Republican committees, like the RNC and National Republican Congressional Committee, to do anything but back the Republican in New York's special congressional election. But the situation has changed. It's not just the inanity of Dede Scozzafava's campaign calling the cops on a reporter; it's doubling down and calling McCormack a liar. With audiotape now exposing the Scozzafava campaign as the liar in their account of the candidate's interaction with John McCormack, it's a different ballgame. [...] It's time for the NRCC and RNC to cut their ties, and more. It's embarrassing enough when a candidate won't answer reasonable questions from reasonable press and her campaign attempts to smear them in order to cover up their mess. Forwarding McCormack's e-mails to Talking Points Memo just shows how upside-down the Scozzafava campaign is. The time has come for the RNC and NRCC to ask for their money back. This goes well beyond any reasonable difference on policy. There's room in the party for pro-choice Republicans and pro-gay-marriage Republicans and maybe even the odd pro-card-check Republican. But not this kind of arrogance, this kind of clumsy dishonesty, this kind of reckless hostility to a reporter and a publication that need not be an enemy."
• RedState's Moe Lane: "It's time for the national GOP to -- reluctantly, and I understand their reluctance! -- drop Dede Scozzafava and go with Doug Hoffman. This isn't a situation where the national party is overriding the will of local primary voters; it is a situation where a particular choice of candidate turned out to be the wrong one. Bad choices may be reversed. It's also time for Ms. Scozzafava to act in the best interests of first the voters of NY-23; and second, the Republican party; by dropping out of the race. As it stands she is helping the Democratic candidate, whose presence in Congress and support of the current ruling party would certainly hurt the former."

NY-23 III: Newt Dooms His White House Chances

Several conservative bloggers are criticizing Gingrich for defending his endorsement of Scozzafava:

• Steyn: "Newt really needs to re-think his support for Dede Scozzafava. This isn't RINO but DIABLO -- Democrat In All But Label Only. It's not one of those 'socially liberal, fiscally conservative' bi-swinger deals -- not when you're pro-'stimulus', pro-cash-for-clunkers. And the reductive argument that her sole redeeming value -- a willingness to vote for [Min. Leader] John Boehner as Speaker -- is reason enough to support her is silly in a special election. If he's ever Speaker, Boehner won't be till January 2011, and it's 12 months premature for Newt to be telling voters they need to suck it up and accept that a handful of Jim-Jeffords-in-embryo-form are necessary for the Republican tide."
• Malkin: "So, Newt Gingrich is invoking Reagan to defend his endorsement of radical leftist Dede Scozzafava in the NY-23 special congressional election? Triple-gag. Perhaps it is time to go your own way, with [Rev.] Al Sharpton and [Speaker] Nancy Pelosi."
• Hot Air's Allahpundit: "[Gingrich is] treating this race as a litmus test to prove how big-tent the GOP can be. But...why? There's no good reason to make this district, which should be a safe Republican seat, into a bellwether. Get a conservative elected and then find some socially liberal libertarians in purple districts to champion next year. Like Ace says, Scozzafava is so questionable that it's not clear whether she'd be better than the Democrat, and since this is a special election, she's probably looking at another challenge from Doug Hoffman a year from now anyway. I don't get why Gingrich is digging in here: If he runs for president, this'll be used against him by [ex-MA Gov. Mitt] Romney et al., and if he doesn't run for president, it'll hurt his standing among conservatives as a senior statesman/spokesman for the party. Mystifying."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Perceptual Problems For Dems

Public Opinion Strategies' Glen Bolger sees bad signs for Dems in a recent Democracy Corps poll:

"These data put a dent in the conventional wisdom that individual Republican incumbents are not getting some bounce off the Democratic Party's problems. This is NOT a pox on both your houses of incumbents -- instead, there are very real concerns with the Democratic party. For their 40 key swing seats to be having perceptual problems on being too liberal, too likely to raise taxes and spend too much money, and putting their party in DC ahead of the local folks is a real opportunity for Republican challengers.

There is currently a debate on whether the GOP is well-positioned enough to take advantage of the Dem problems. It's a lot easier for the GOP to fix our fading problems than it is for the Dems to fix their growing problems. Elections aren't about the past, they are about the right now. And, right now, it is going to be difficult for Dems to beat many GOP incumbents. The key question regarding GOP pick-ups is -- what will 'right now' look like in a year? If it looks like this -- or better, the Dems will find that it isn't their birthright to win congressional elections."

LEST WE FORGET: Karzai Declared Winner Of Next Month's Runoff

The Huffington Post's Andy Borowitz:

"KABUL (The Borowitz Report) -- In a stunning victory, Afghan president Hamid Karzai today was declared the winner of the runoff election scheduled to take place November 7.

Mr. Karzai's victory was particularly impressive since the runoff election is still three weeks away, aides to Mr. Karzai observed.

A jubilant Mr. Karzai thanked his supporters, saying, 'By voting for me so convincingly in an election that has yet to happen, the Afghan people have cast a vote for the future.'"

Posted by Ian Faerstein at 12:31 PM

October 20, 2009

10/20: Can Reid Ignore Burris?

Sen. Roland Burris (D-IL) hasn't been in the news much lately, but he got the attention of liberal bloggers yesterday when he told the AP that he "would not support a [health care] bill that does not have a public option." On the one hand, lefty bloggers were clearly intrigued by the possibility of Burris pressuring Senate Maj. Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) to include a public option in the merged bill. On the other hand, lefty bloggers don't expect Reid to take Burris's threat seriously until the IL senator actually comes out and threatens to vote against cloture for a bill that doesn't include a public option. As Joan McCarter explains: "If Burris really wants to be relevant to this debate, he needs to take a page from his progressive colleagues in the House, who've drawn their bright line -- no public option, no vote."

What else is happening in the blogosphere?

• Liberal bloggers (Sudbay, Wheeler) are buzzing about today's New York Times article alleging that one of ex-U.S. atty Chris Christie's (R) former aides used her U.S. atty's office to assist his campaign. Other lefty bloggers (Singiser, Singer) are promoting an '07 video of Christie discussing his support of George W. Bush. Conservative bloggers still argue that Christie is likely to defeat NJ Gov. Jon Corzine (D).
• Conservative bloggers (Malkin, Erickson, Johnson, Reynolds, Macomber, Geraghty) are mocking NY-23 candidate Dede Scozzafava (R) for calling the police on Weekly Standard blogger John McCormack after he pressed her to answer several questions following a campaign event. Meanwhile, righty bloggers (Erickson, Ruffini) continue to rally behind Conservative Party candidate Doug Hoffman.
• Liberal bloggers (Greenwald, Drum, Cole, Dayen, Black) are praising the Obama admin.'s new legal guidelines regarding medical marijuana. Several conservative bloggers (Reynolds, Adler, Morrissey) are also offering qualified praise for the new guidelines, although others (Lawler, Smith) are more critical.
• Conservative bloggers (Johnson, Hanson, Vadum) continue to criticize WH comm. dir. Anita Dunn for citing ex-Chinese leader Mao Zedong as one of her "favorite political philosophers."

HEALTH CARE REFORM: It's All About Cloture

Liberal bloggers weren't too impressed by Burris's threat to vote against a health care bill that doesn't include a public option:

• Daily Kos' mcjoan: "If Burris really wants to be relevant to this debate, he needs to take a page from his progressive colleagues in the House, who've drawn their bright line -- no public option, no vote. He needs to recruit a dozen of his 30 colleagues who've demanded a public option in the final bill to stand with him."
• Firedoglake's Jon Walker: "The important question is what does Burris mean by his support? Harry Reid does not need Burris's vote to pass a bill without a public option as long as Burris still votes for cloture. Reid would need Burris's vote for cloture unless he can convince [ME Sen. Olympia] Snowe to vote with the other 59 members of the Democratic caucus to end a filibuster. If Burris is willing hold firm to a refusal to vote for cloture unless the bill contains a public option, he could really affect the final outcome. If he is only going to withhold his vote for final passage, but not for cloture, Burris is just talking tough and blowing smoke. So far, Burris has not yet made his exact position clear."
• Open Left's Chris Bowers: "[O]ne Democratic Senator opposing any health care reform bill without a public option is not enough to defeat any such bill, even in the 60-vote culture of the Senate. Given that President Snowe is still dangling the prospect of her support before the Democratic leadership, it would take two Senators (and, given [ME Sen.] Susan Collins, arguably three) for this to be an effective block. So, Roland Burris isn't enough, but if he were joined by another (hopefully more credible) Senator, then maybe we would really have something."

Meanwhile, liberal bloggers (McCarter, Klein, Sudbay, Benen, Walker, publius) are buzzing about the new Washington Post-ABC News poll showing that "support for a government-run health-care plan to compete with private insurers...wins clear majority support from the public." Most conservative bloggers are ignoring the poll, although some are complaining about the way that the pollsters phrased the public option question.

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Promoting Electability At The Expense Of Ideology

The Next Right's Patrick Ruffini criticizes the recent endorsements by the NRSC and NRCC:

"...Naturally, the national party is going to go for the 'W' wherever it can in order to bolster its number of seats. And if this were the only thing that mattered, electability alone would be king. The problem, as we are finding out in the health care debate, is that it's not enough to have 60 Democrats to break a filibuster, or 41 Republicans to sustain one. How your members vote in that process matters to the outcome. In deciding which candidates to support, the national party committees -- not just activists -- should be looking at whether the candidates are likely to support leadership on key floor votes. If [ex-FL House Speaker Marco] Rubio is just 10 or 15 percent better than [FL Gov. Charlie] Crist on key votes, Crist's electability advantage is nullified from the perspective of Leader [Mitch] McConnell and the Senate Republican Conference. [...]

The same would go in California. [Ex-HP CEO] Carly Fiorina does not have a particularly strong electability advantage over [Assemb.] Chuck DeVore, and her celebrity CEO past renders her vulnerable to rookie mistakes and greater scrutiny of her private sector activities. It would be one thing for the NRSC to support Fiorina if she were polling 10 to 15 points better than DeVore against [Sen. Barbara] Boxer, but she's not.

In deciding whether to support conservatives like [NY-23 candidate Doug] Hoffman, Rubio, and DeVore, there is a reasonable middle ground between craven winnerism and a kamikaze strategy that ignores electability. The committees should factor in adherence to core Republican principles (in addition to electability) because the job of a political party is not just to win elections, but to win votes on the floor. And though the impact of an errant member is much less in the House than it is in the Senate, Scozzafava's not-so-veiled threats to switch parties if she isn't treated nicely should render her completely unacceptable to [RNC Chair] Michael Steele and [NRCC Chair] Pete Sessions, who should make it clear that they won't be blackmailed."

LEST WE FORGET: Mayan Calendar Warns Of Cataclysmic Roland Emmerich Film On Nov. 13

From The Onion:

"CHICHÉN ITZÁ, MEXICO -- Scholars of the Mesoamerican Long Count calendar warned Monday that, according to ancient Mayan calculations, a devastating film by German director Roland Emmerich is set to occur on Nov. 13, 2009. 'On this date, near the end of the 13th baktun cycle, when the sun will converge with the centerline of the Milky Way, we will see the release of an overblown ensemble epic by the man responsible for Godzilla and 10,000 BC that could very well end John Cusack's career as we know it,' said Thomas Haney, an independent researcher specializing in pre-Columbian cosmology. 'At this point, all we can do is hope and pray that the high priests were wrong and the running time is less than 143 minutes.' Hastening fears of an unstoppable late-fall disaster has been the discovery of a tablet depicting Mayan king Pacal storming out of a Loews cinema in disgust."

Posted by Ian Faerstein at 12:30 PM

October 16, 2009

10/16: The Next Van Jones?

Conservative bloggers are buzzing about yesterday's episode of The Glenn Beck Program, during which Beck played a video of WH comm. dir. Anita Dunn citing ex-Chinese leader Mao Zedong as one of her "favorite political philosophers." Dunn later said that she was joking, but most righty bloggers don't believe her. Although Media Matters is defending Dunn, most liberal bloggers aren't commenting on the controversy. The dynamic reminds us of the first week in September, when conservative bloggers joined Beck in going after another WH official, Van Jones, while liberal bloggers generally stayed on the sidelines. Will the right succeed in forcing Dunn from her job, like they did with Jones? Thus far most major newspapers haven't reported on the controversy, but stay tuned...

What else is happening in the blogosphere?

• Liberal bloggers (digby, Benen, Orton) are mocking Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT) for threatening to "kick [MoveOn.org] in the teeth" if the organization continues to criticize his donations from the insurance industry.
• Conservative bloggers (Erickson, Malkin) are blasting ex-Speaker Newt Gingrich (R) for endorsing GOP candidate Dede Scozzafava over Conservative Party candidate Doug Hoffman in the NY-23 race.
• Liberal bloggers (Greenwald, Fernholz, Morrill, Ackerman) are blasting the four House GOPers who are accusing the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) of trying to plant "spies" within certain House committees.
• Liberal bloggers (Benen, Attaturk) are criticizing Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA) for suggesting that the Dem health care reform legislation might be unconstitutional. Some lefty bloggers are arguing that Grassley could be vulnerable to a challenge from ex-IA First Lady Christie Vilsack (D).
• Liberal bloggers (Dayen, digby) are buzzing about Sen. Mark Pryor's (D-AR) prediction that no Dems would join a GOP-led filibuster of the merged health care bill.
• Liberal bloggers (Yglesias, Drum, Klein) are offering tentative support for Pres. Obama's proposal to give seniors and disabled Americans a one-time payment of $250 to help them get through the recession.
• Conservative bloggers (Lopez, McCarthy, Hinderaker, Liebau, Erickson) remain upset that right-wing talk show host Rush Limbaugh was dropped from a group trying to buy the St. Louis Rams.

Note: Blogometer will be taking the day off on Monday, October 19th. We will return on Tuesday, October 20th.

DUNN: Maoists In The White House?

Conservative bloggers are buzzing about Dunn's comments about Mao:

• RedState's Erick Erickson: "[T]hanks to our friend Glenn Beck, we have Anita Dunn on tape declaring her favorite philosopher is Mao -- the Chinese Hitler. Mao led the communist revolution in China and became China's dictatorial and insanely paranoid leader. Hitler sought to exterminate a whole race of citizen. Mao decided to exterminate all of his citizens, or at least significant classes of citizenry, driving many to suicide to avoid ritualistic violence at the hands of Mao's red brigade. [...] How in God's name is it acceptable for the woman in charge of the White House's communications shop to declare Hitler her favorite philosopher? The answer is that it is not. Why then is Mao acceptable?"
• Power Line's Scott Johnson: "In the video below, Dunn cites mass murdering Communist Chairman Mao as one of her two favorite philosophers (the other being Mother Teresa). Delivering this talk in which she cites Mao, Dunn conveys all the charm and personal appeal of Krupskaya. According to Michelle Malkin, Dunn says she was joking (courtesy of Lee Atwater). A great sense of humor: as one can see from the video, that's one more thing Dunn has in common with Krupskaya. What is it with these people?"
• Townhall's Greg Hengler: "At what point does America correlate Obama's friends and associates with him? Why is it that we can discern fakes, phonies and degenerates when choosing our friends but fail to use those principles when choosing the leader of the free world?"
• NRO's Jim Geraghty: "You know, when you cite a mass murderer as one of two favorite political philosophers, I think we can tune out your media criticism."

Hot Air's Allahpundit predicts that Dunn will soon lose her WH job: "Don't bother pounding the table about firing her, though: She's already on her way out, which is precisely why the White House's gutless brain trust tasked her with being the attack dog against Fox."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Compromise Is A Two-Way Street

Think Progress' Matthew Yglesias:

"Al From has one of these op-eds where you urge liberals to drop hopes for a public option in the interests of being pragmatic and passing health reform. I sort of agree with this -- reform is worth doing even without a public option. But what these exhortations to practicality always miss is that this is a two-way street. If you think the public option isn't that big a deal and it's not worth spiking health reform over it, then you ought to think that it's not worth spiking health reform in order to kill it either. But here's [CT Sen.] Joe Lieberman not only expressing opposition to a public option, but saying he might filibuster any health reform package that includes a public option.

So far there's been basically no pressure in the media on members who take this position to justify their extreme level of opposition. I get, for example, that [ND Sen.] Kent Conrad supports the Finance Committee version of health care and opposes adding a public option to it. But suppose a public option does get added. Does that suddenly take a vast package of reforms that he played a key role in crafting and turn it into a terrible bill? Why would that be? Surely Conrad is as aware as anyone else in congress that in order to pass a large, complicated health reform bill many senators are going to have to vote 'yes' on a bill that contains some provisions they oppose. After all, the health reform bill contains hundreds of provisions! Are moderate members really so fanatically devoted to the interests of private health insurance companies that they would take a package they otherwise support and kill it purely in order to do the industry's bidding on one point?"

LEST WE FORGET: Millions of Americans Waste Entire F*cking Afternoon

The Huffington Post's Andy Borowitz:

"COLORADO (The Borowitz Report) -- Moments after a little boy who was believed to be in his parents' homemade helium balloon was found safe and sound, millions of Americans came to the realization that they had flushed the entire fucking afternoon down the fucking toilet.

'I watched the entire drama unfold and then it turned out that no drama had unfolded,' said Carol Foyler, 32, of Missoula, Montana. 'I can't tell you how pissed I am at that fucking kid.'

At their Colorado home, the parents of six-year-old Falcon Heene said that they were relieved that their son was all right and that they were pushing forward with their plans to build a giant child-operated flame-throwing robot."

Posted by Ian Faerstein at 12:05 PM

October 15, 2009

10/15: Obama's Got His Finger On The Trigger

Liberal bloggers are growing increasingly critical of Pres. Obama's and Senate Maj. Leader Harry Reid's (D-NV) approach to getting a health care bill out of the Senate. Now that all of the relevant Senate commmittees have passed their health care bills, the netroots believe that it's up to Reid and Obama to determine whether or not the merged bill includes a public option. However, lefty bloggers are growing increasingly frustrated with Reid's "inability to keep his caucus together" and ensure that all 60 Dems vote for cloture on a bill containing a public option. Furthermore, now that anonymous WH officials are telling The New York Times that the WH favors Sen. Olympia Snowe's (R-ME) trigger compromise, liberal bloggers are starting to doubt that the Obama admin. will push Reid to include a public option in the merged bill. Like many on the left, John Aravosis feels betrayed:

"The last few weeks we finally had momentum on our side. The 'opt-out' proposal took everyone by surprise, and even critics of the public option said they were intrigued. But, rather than use that momentum to get the kind of bill the President promised us during the campaign -- to get something better -- President Obama settled for a Republican proposal that was being discussed weeks ago, long before we had the momentum on our side. The White House never intended to try to get a better bill, regardless of whether we provided them with the political landscape to do just that."

What else is happening in the blogosphere?

• Conservative bloggers (Malkin, Lopez, McCarthy, Erickson, Lord, Hinderaker, DeVine) are outraged that right-wing radio host Rush Limbaugh was dropped from a group trying to buy the St. Louis Rams due to controversy surrounding some of his past statements. Meanwhile, liberal bloggers (Cole, Thers, Willis) are mocking their conservative counterparts' devotion to Limbaugh.
• Conservative bloggers (Erickson, McCain, Thompson) are rallying behind Conservative Party candidate Doug Hoffman in the NY-23 race, and they continue to criticize GOP candidate Dede Scozzafava.
• Liberal bloggers (Singiser, Wheeler, Marshall) are buzzing about reports that NJ GOV candidate Chris Christie (R) "regularly spent beyond federal guidelines on business travel while U.S. attorney."
• Conservative bloggers (Malkin, Hawkins, Klein) are blasting Obama's proposal to give seniors and disabled Americans a one-time payment of $250 to help them get through the recession.

REID: Why Can't He Control His Own Caucus?

There's a growing consensus among liberal bloggers that it's up to Reid to determine whether or not the merged Senate health care bill includes a public option:

• Daily Kos' Markos Moulitsas: "[Ex-Senate Maj. Leader] Bill Frist never had 60 votes. Bill Frist never cared. Republicans ran the Senate as if they owned the place, even when enjoying razor-thin majorities. Yet when Democrats took the chamber, the first thing Harry Reid did was complain that he couldn't do anything because he didn't have 60 votes. Then voters delivered 59 votes. And Harry Reid whined that he still couldn't do anything. In fact, nothing would ever get accomplished unless they had 60, and to do that, they had to bring turncoat [CT Sen.] Joe Lieberman back into the fold, even though he had spent the previous year making common cause with [AZ Sen.] John McCain and [ex-AK Gov.] Sarah Palin, even speaking at the Republican National Convention in Minnesota. [...] So once again, Reid is complaining that he doesn't have 60 votes, which is why they need to anoint Olympia Snowe as de facto President of the United States. Maybe SHE will get us to 60! But we all know Snowe has no intention of voting for real reform, and yet Reid (with White House backing) continue to let themselves get played. It's all a farce. [...] Republican filibuster? Democrats have 60 votes. There is no Republican filibuster, just a Democratic one. The problem is Reid's inability to keep his caucus together. His office can't even be honest about Reid's leadership failures. Fucking liars. I'll take a [NY Sen.] Chuck Schumer-run Senate with 57 Democrats (bye bye Reid, Lieberman, and [AR Sen. Blanche] Lincoln) than a Harry Reid-run one with 75 Democrats."
• Atrios: "A Republican filibuster is unpossible. And I'm tired of getting fundraising emails warning me about Republican obstructionism. Republicans can't obstruct crap without help... from Democrats."
• Firedoglake's David Dayen: "It's important to note that neither Snowe nor [ME Sen. Susan] Collins are necessary for cloture. All Reid has to do is hold his caucus, which [FL Rep.] Alan Grayson demanded on Wednesday. The Democrats need to make a decision on whether they support bipartisanship for bipartisanship's sake, or a bill that works for people."

Firedoglake's Jane Hamsher: "Stu Rothenberg said today that Reid 'is seen as Obama's guy in the Senate and he is.' The question is -- is Reid willing to sacrifice the approval of the Democratic base in Nevada to give [WH CoS] Rahm [Emanuel] and Obama what they want?"

OBAMA: Trigger-Happy

Liberal bloggers are angry that two anonymous WH officials told The New York Times that "the White House looked favorably on the Snowe [trigger] plan":

• AMERICAblog's Joe Sudbay: "Who are these 'senior administration officials'? And, why are they so eager to cede power to one GOP Senator? Is that what last year's election was about? [...] What's next? Changing OFA from Obama for America to Olympia for America?"
• TalkLeft's Big Tent Democrat: "I believe this and think it makes the point Glenn Greenwald and myself have been stating for months now -- pols are not your friend. As Glenn put it yesterday -- 'Shouldn't health care activists care more about the public option than Obama's political standing?' They should and they should send the message that the Snowe trigger is unacceptable and, progressive legislators should sat health care 'reform' without a real public option will not pass. [...] The only way Obama can put Snowe in the driver's seat is IF progressive let him do it. Just say no to the Snowe Trigger. Nonnegotiable. It really is that simple."
• AMERICAblog's Aravosis: "The White House isn't willing to fight for a better bill, isn't willing to fight for the President's own promises. Isn't willing to use the President's power -- which he most certainly has -- to cajole all 60 members of the Democratic caucus into voting the right way. So, President Obama caves, as he so often does when faced with the prospect of having to fight for his beliefs. [...] And keep something in mind. The last few weeks we finally had momentum on our side. The 'opt-out' proposal took everyone by surprise, and even critics of the public option said they were intrigued. But, rather than use that momentum to get the kind of bill the President promised us during the campaign -- to get something better -- President Obama settled for a Republican proposal that was being discussed weeks ago, long before we had the momentum on our side. The White House never intended to try to get a better bill, regardless of whether we provided them with the political landscape to do just that."
• Firedoglake's Scarecrow: "The public option is only 'divisive' or a hurdle/obstacle to those in the White House who have for months been trying to strangle the public option without leaving Obama's fingerprints. But this is his plot and it's time for him to take responsibility for misleading his supporters for over a year. [...] Obama's claimed indecision is inexcusable dithering or a cover. If he doesn't know what he wants, then we have a right to ask, what is his Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel doing in Harry Reid's merger meetings? Either tell us what's been decided, and which faux Democrats are being shielded for their silent filibuster, or send Rahm back to his office."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Good Policy Is Always The Best Politics

Open Left's David Sirota:

"[T]he idea that Snowe's support is important because it will allow the final bill to be called 'bipartisan' -- and the idea that that billing will politically protect Democrats -- is absurd on its face. How do we know this? Because Democrats taught us that via the Iraq War. Recall that a huge chunk of Democratic legislators voted to support the Iraq War. Indeed, the Iraq resolution was far more 'bipartisan' than the health care bill can ever hope to be in this Congress. And yet, Democrats turned right around and used the Iraq War to criticize Republicans and the Bush administration -- and quite effectively, if the 2006 and 2008 elections were any indication. I'm not saying I was 100% happy with that -- I would have liked the Democrats to oppose the war from the get-go, but I am saying it's a pretty clear fact that even though Democrats supported the Iraq War, it didn't prevent them from attacking the Republicans/[George W.] Bush on the issue.

Thus, the idea that one Republican vote from Middle Earth will politically insulate Democrats from GOP attacks on health care doesn't make any sense. The only thing that will ultimately protect Democrats from those inevitable GOP political attacks will be a health care bill that actually delivers real results. In this way, good policy is the best politics and bad policy is the worst politics. Deliver real health care reform that improves the system and brings down costs (ie. one with a public option, regulation, etc.) -- that is, create a third-rail kind of program -- and, as even GOP strategist William Kristol admits, Democrats could be a permanent majority because Republican criticism of the legislation will be like Republican criticism of Medicare (that is, self-defeating). Deliver a bad health care bill that empowers insurance companies and makes the system worse (ie. a [Max] Baucus-like bill with no public option) and Republican criticism of the legislation will be extremely effective."

LEST WE FORGET: I Don't Think We're Quite At That Place In Our Relationship Yet

From Overheard in New York:

Girl #1, at school cafeteria: What is that?
Girl #2: Polenta.
Girl #1: I've never had it. Can I have a bite of your placenta?

Posted by Ian Faerstein at 12:31 PM

October 14, 2009

10/14: Snowed

Liberal bloggers aren't too happy that Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-ME) joined the Dems on the Finance Committee in voting for Chairman Max Baucus's (D-MT) health care bill, since they believe that Snowe's vote will give her considerable sway over what the merged Senate bill looks like. BooMan explains: "It could be argued that her support for the Finance version of this bill will give it a leg-up on [Sen. Chris] Dodd's HELP version. That would be unfortunate." Indeed, lefty bloggers are urging Senate Maj. Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) to "put a public option in the combined Senate bill that is brought to the floor," even if it causes Snowe to withdraw her support from the bill.

Meanwhile, lefty bloggers are blasting Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT) for announcing his opposition to the Finance Committee bill on Don Imus's radio show. They netroots are urging Reid to strip Lieberman of his chairmanship of the Homeland Security Committee if he joins a GOP filibuster of the bill. In fact, some lefty bloggers are warning Reid that he'll deserve the blame if Lieberman or any other Dem doesn't vote for cloture.

What else is happening in the blogosphere?

• Conservative bloggers are giving the redesigned GOP website (which was down for several hours yesterday) a range of reviews, from negative to so-so to positive. However, several righty bloggers (Bandes, Allahpundit) are mocking GOP Chairman Michael Steele for calling his blog "What Up?" (he later re-named his blog "Change The Game").
• Liberal bloggers (Lewison, digby, Singer, Black, Benen, Llorens) are blasting the NRCC for promoting a web video of Adolf Hitler praising Speaker Nancy Pelosi.
• Liberal bloggers (publius, Benen, Cole, Coates) continue to condemn TX Gov. Rick Perry (R) for allegedly approving the execution of an innocent man and subsequently trying to cover it up.
• Conservative bloggers (Erickson, Hinderaker, Allahpundit) are excited about the new anti-Obama organization, "Keep America Safe", which was founded by Liz Cheney, William Kristol, and Debra Burlingame.

SNOWE: Nothing To Celebrate

Liberal bloggers aren't happy that Snowe voted for the Finance Committee bill:

• BooMan: "I'm not sure it is a good thing overall that Snowe supported the bill. It could be argued that her support for the Finance version of this bill will give it a leg-up on Dodd's HELP version. That would be unfortunate."
• Firedoglake's Jon Walker: "Obama has signaled his desperation to win the support of Snowe, and seems willing to accept any idea she has regardless how bad. Snowe's vote may make it easier for the Democratic leadership to declare a political victory, but the cost of winning Snowe's support could be that health care reform is a policy failure. In which case, it is the American people who are the real losers."
• Daily Kos' mcjoan: "Don't celebrate the Snowe vote. [...] By voting yes, Snowe remains relevant -- the Baucus bill passes with that shiny 'bipartisan' sheen that seems still to matter to in Washington. But don't forget that she has her finger on the 'trigger' -- her trigger that would kill the public option. As BTD says, she's kept the Baucus bill alive, and through it the best chance of a making what now seems inevitable -- reform of some kind -- as watered down as possible. The majority does have the votes to pass this without her, and she's basically threatening them to do just that, calculating that keeping her name attached to reform will be the goal for the negotiators. Those negotiators should actually take her up on that threat, and craft a bill that could pass without her. Their larger hurdle remains the House Progressive Block, which isn't backing down from it's insistence on real reform."
• TalkLeft's Big Tent Democrat: "Snowe saw that BaucusCare was fast becoming irrelevant and would have been completely irrelevant without her vote. She did not want to offer her trigger amendment now because she is saving that 'concession' for the endgame. And she wants the final bargaining to begin with BaucusCare. She did what she had to do today to make BaucusCare the blueprint. Senators [Nelson] Rockefeller and [Ron] Wyden (or [Chuck] Schumer) misplayed their hands today by announcing they will vote Yes for BaucusCare. If two of them had voted No (Wyden does not really care about the public option and Schumer is in the leadership so I think I give them a bit of a pass on the political bargaining question), then BaucusCare would have been seen as a nonstarter from the Progressive side. This is important not only in the Senate but in the House, where the Progressive Block needs all the help it can get. Snowe's shrewd play need not be a big deal in the endgame, but it could very likely be one. It all depends on how progressives in the Senate play it. So far, not good."

Not every liberal blogger was disappointed by Snowe's vote, however. Before the vote took place, The Washington Post's Ezra Klein argued that "liberals should hope for an 'aye' from Snowe": "If [Snowe] abandons the bill, that empowers [NE Sen.] Ben Nelson as the eventual dealmaker, much as he was during stimulus. He's already announced that he won't vote for the legislation without some bipartisan support, and if he's the guy left to secure that support, he may well do exactly what he did during the stimulus debate: create a voting bloc out of a couple conservative Democrats and Snowe and [ME Sen. Susan] Collins that will delay cloture until they secure a package of idiosyncratic and damaging concessions that infuriate liberals. But this isn't the stimulus. A move like that could blow up whatever delicate compromise emerges from the HELP/Finance blender, and throw the negotiations into a late and unnecessary chaos. On health-care reform, it's a lot more dangerous to leave the power with the most conservative Democrat than the most liberal Republican."

On the other side of the blogosphere, conservative bloggers (Morrissey, Mirengoff, Chesser) criticized Snowe's vote. RedState Editor Erick Erickson urged his readers to "melt Snowe" by sending bags of rock salt to her office -- a suggestion that drew mockery from liberal bloggers.

LIEBERMAN: Pay Attention To Meeeeeeee!

Liberal bloggers are furious that Lieberman announced that he doesn't support the Finance Committee bill:

• The Washington Monthly's Steve Benen: "Lieberman, who has been trashing the reform effort for months, told Don Imus today he opposes the Baucus bill, and again argued that he doesn't even like the idea of working on health care reform. [...] This is just so absurd. Health care reform, if it passes, will take years to be implemented. There's no reason for a recession to interfere with fixing a broken system, but even if that were a driving factor, this recession will end before 2013. Lieberman must know this, which means he's looking for excuses, even cheap ones, to oppose reform."
• Daily Kos' Markos Moulitsas: "Yo Barack and Harry, what was it with Lieberman being 'with us on everything but the war'?"

Liberal bloggers are urging Reid to strip Lieberman of his chairmanship of the Homeland Security Committee if he joins the GOP in filibustering the health care bill:

• Open Left's Adam Green: "Now, it's time for Leader Reid to lead -- and to tell Lieberman that keeping his committee chairmanship while helping Republicans block a vote on health care reform is 'unacceptable.' Help urge Reid to take that step today."
• BooMan: "If [Lieberman] threatens to join a filibuster of the president's health care plan, then there was no point in keeping him around. He should be out on his own petard."
• digby: "Now we know why they are courting Snowe like she's the second coming. This asshole is clearly going to show the Democrats who they messed with and vote with the Republicans every step of the way. He's off the team entirely. It's long past time to strip him of his chairmanship and lock him out of all strategy meetings. If he gets mad, who gives a shit? It's impossible to believe that there's any benefit to having him vote with caucus anymore. 60 doesn't mean 60, that's for sure."

Firedoglake's Jane Hamsher warns Reid that he'll deserve the blame if Lieberman or any other Dem filibusters the health care bill: "Either Harry Reid enforces caucus discipline on this one or it becomes the model for every single piece of legislation that comes before the Senate from hereon in. It guarantees that every piece of Democratic legislation is written by the caucus’s most conservative members. [...] If the Senate combined bill does not include the HELP committee public option, without triggers, opt-outs, co-ops or anything else that makes an already weak proposal weaker, I pledge to do everything in my power to defeat Harry Reid -- and his son -- in 2010. If the Senate combined bill allows a filibuster from members of the Democratic caucus and Reid doesn't strip them of their committee chairmanships, I pledge to do everything in my power to defeat Harry Reid -- and his son -- in 2010."

Klein doesn't think Lieberman would really filibuster the health care bill: "I could be proven wrong on this, but I'm not that worried about Lieberman. His name hasn't come up in any of the conversations I've had with Senate staffers about wavering members. And Democrats actually have a lot of leverage over Lieberman. They're in the majority, and likely to stay that way. He's chairman of a committee that he wants to keep, and that he needs Democratic votes to retain. Nor does he have enough friends left in the Senate to protect himself from reprisals if he defects on such a high-profile vote. In fact, plenty of Democrats would be all too glad to strip him of his power and prove that there are consequences for crossing the party. That would make his remaining years in office pretty miserable."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Petraeus For President?

Hot Air's Allahpundit responds to Peter Beinart's suggestion that the GOP nominate Gen. David Petraeus as their '12 WH candidate:

"We've been over this before. He gave a Sherman statement to Chris Wallace back in 2007. Even if he was inclined to renege, it's hard to believe he'd do it to challenge his own commander-in-chief in 2012. If it's going to happen, it'll happen in 2016, and that'll require another crushing GOP defeat against The One.

That said, Beinart's larger point is well taken. Among the major Republican candidates, the only one who truly excites the base is [AK Gov. Sarah] Palin, yet she's sufficiently poisonous to moderates at the moment that [ex-VA AG] Bob McDonnell won't even take her up on her offer to campaign for him in Virginia while sitting on a nine-point lead. Petraeus is the only person on the landscape, it seems, capable of intriguing the base and centrists. His problem is that, for the foreseeable future, the country's problems don't play to his strengths. Ike [Eisenhower] was an easy choice for post-war America because he epitomized strength and victory at a moment when the red menace was top priority; our own top priority for most of the next decade, I imagine, will be unemployment and debt unless Iran or North Korea does something astoundingly nutty. Why look to a general to deal with that? Like Beinart says, a serious look at Petraeus would require another Republican flameout in 2012, driving the party to such desperation that they'll practically be forced to look outside the box. He'll only be 64 in 2016. Why not?"

LEST WE FORGET: Sotomayor Misses Supreme Court Case After Failing To Get Out Of Jury Duty

From The Onion:

"WASHINGTON -- Recently appointed justice Sonia Sotomayor told reporters that, despite making dozens of excuses, she was selected for jury duty this week, causing her to miss a landmark Supreme Court case addressing campaign finance reform.

'I probably threw away four of those letters before I got one that said I had to appear or "face serious penalties," whatever that means,' said Sotomayor, who was forced to appear at a nearby municipal courthouse Monday. 'I just got a new job, for Christ's sake. I can't afford to be sitting in some dingy courtroom all day. God, what a waste of time.'

'The guy is totally guilty, by the way,' Sotomayor continued. 'You can tell just by looking at him.'"

Posted by Ian Faerstein at 12:47 PM

October 13, 2009

10/13: The Empire Strikes Back

Most liberal bloggers dismissed the health insurance industry's analysis of the Senate Finance Committee health care bill, which warned that the legislation would lead to rising insurance premiums. Lefty bloggers believe that a report commissioned by an industry trade group has little legitimacy, and they're describing it as "deceptive" and "complete bullsh*t". However, rather than simply denouncing the report, the netroots are portraying it as an additional argument in favor of a public option. In their view, the insurance industry's warning about rising premiums only demonstrates the need for a strong public option to keep costs in check. digby writes:

"There has never been a better argument for the public plan than the one the insurance company just handed the Democrats in congress. They have produced a shoddy, self-serving report as a blatant threat to raise premiums higher than they already plan to raise them. If there has ever been a more obvious case of bad faith than this, I haven't seen it."

What else is happening in the blogosphere?

• Liberal bloggers reacted angrily yesterday when NBC's John Harwood quoted an anonymous Obama adviser who asserted that the liberal netroots "need to take off their pajamas, get dressed and realize that governing a closely-divided country is complicated and difficult." Now that the WH has disavowed the blind quote, most liberal bloggers (Moulitsas, Silver, Benen, digby, Serwer) think that the comment isn't worth obsessing over. However, other bloggers (Hamsher, Aravosis, Greenwald, Bink) are accusing the Obama admin. of repeatedly ignoring the online left.
• Liberal bloggers (Lewison, Singer, Benen) are pleased that the Obama admin. is criticizing the Fox News Channel, while conservative bloggers (Malkin, Hawkins, Allahpundit) are defending Fox.
• Liberal bloggers (Marshall, publius, Kleiman, Blue Texan) are buzzing about allegations that TX Gov. Rick Perry (R) approved the execution of an innocent man and subsequently tried to cover up an investigation into the incident.

HEALTH CARE REFORM: He Who Pays The Piper Names The Tune

Most liberal bloggers dismissed the validity of the insurance industry report and criticized the media for giving it so much coverage:

• TPM's Josh Marshall: "Let me get this right. The big news tomorrow is that 'America's Health Insurance Plans' (AHIP, aka the health insurance lobby) has commissioned a study by PriceWaterHouseCoopers that comes to the conclusion that the Senate Finance Committee bill is a bad, bad thing and would lead to health care costs going up even faster than they are under the current system. This is news?"
• The Reality-Based Community's Mark Kleiman: "Not that it's any surprise, but the PricewaterhouseCoopers 'analysis' of the [Max] Baucus proposal, paid for by the health insurance lobby, is complete bullsh*t. Ezra Klein has details, but also the on-one-foot summary: 'the report assumes no behavioral changes in response to new policies.' Astonishing that the Washington Post gave front-page coverage to this bamboozlement. Or maybe not."
• Balloon Juice's John Cole: "An industry thinks a bill is going to hurt the industry. So their lobby pays some accountants to write a study portraying the bill in the worst possible light. And to Drudgico, Halperin, and Kaplan, that is big news. What a world."

On the other hand, conservative bloggers took the report seriously:

• Townhall's Jillian Bandes: "[A]n independent study has confirmed that Obamacare will indeed raise health care costs for those who already have insurance. [...T]his is what we've been saying all along."
• Power Line's John Hinderaker: "PWC is one of the world's most respected consulting firms. Its conclusions carry a great deal more weight than the fuzzy math and pie-in-the-sky assumptions that typically drive politicians' claims. And the logic of the PWC report is clearly correct."

HEALTH CARE REFORM II: See? This Is Why We Need A Public Option!

Many liberal bloggers are arguing that the insurance industry report demonstrates the need for a strong public option:

• digby: "There has never been a better argument for the public plan than the one the insurance company just handed the Democrats in congress. They have produced a shoddy, self-serving report as a blatant threat to raise premiums higher than they already plan to raise them. If there has ever been a more obvious case of bad faith than this, I haven't seen it. [...] If these insurance companies can't see the gift horse they've been given with this Rube Goldberg mess that's been created then they are too incompetent to stay in business."
• Open Left's Mike Lux: "The insurance industry inadvertently gave health reformers the best argument we ever could have had to pass a public option and the strongest possible regulations on insurers. Declaring that rates will go up dramatically if reform passes, insurers launched a full-scale open assault on the idea of any reform at all yesterday, except I guess a reform plan especially tailored to them and their profitability. What they left out of their little study is that they are the ones who decide when rates go up because the biggest companies have very little competition in most of the markets they are in. There is no federal rate regulation, there is no anti-trust enforcement in insurance (they are specifically exempted from it in the McCarran-Ferguson Act), and unless there is a public option, there will be little competition. They will be the ones who decide if the rates go up, and they have just guaranteed they would raise those rates if we don't stop them from doing it."
• Daily Kos' mcjoan: "As Rep. [Anthony] Weiner says, adequate cost containment just isn't in the Baucus bill, and while the last thing -- the very last thing AHIP wants is a public option, they make a damned good argument for it by commissioning this report. [...] They've just shown that, despite all the cozy meetings early on with White House officials and the Baucus team, that they are intrinsically opposed to reform and they'll do anything to kill it. So now that AHIP has betrayed their true selves, maybe we can get a real push from the White House and the Senate leadership for real reform, and a robust public option."
• David Dayen: "The industry appears to want it both ways: they want to force everyone to buy their insurance, while cherry-picking the healthiest members of the uninsured for themselves, and sacrificing nothing in profits -- in fact, increasing them. The Senate Finance bill doesn't give the insurance industry every single thing they want, so they've decided to go to war with it. Which gives top Democrats a choice: now that the insurance industry has revealed itself to be utterly contemptuous of any reform, does leadership really have to be solicitous toward it in any way, like by eliminating the market competition of a public option?"

In other health care news, liberal bloggers (Hunter, Benen) are criticizing Sen. Bill Nelson (D-FL) for saying that he prefers the public option "trigger" to the new "opt-out" compromise.

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: The Trouble With Deeds

NRO's Jim Geraghty assesses the obstacles confronting VA GOV candidate Creigh Deeds (D):

"In retrospect, Democratic wins in 2005, 2006, and 2008 appear heavily driven by frustration and exhaustion with Pres. George W. Bush. Once he departed the stage, the Democrats were judged not by contrast, but by their own merits. Democrat Tim Kaine, the current governor, won in 2005 by running on [Mark] Warner's coattails; Kaine has generated no positive buzz to offer his potential Democratic successor. Kaine has been a bland, underachieving disappointment.

But Deeds has some pretty striking weaknesses for a candidate. Besides his bouts with inarticulateness, Deeds entered the general election with a record as a state legislator that is pretty 'meh,' a particularly weak geographic base from which to run a statewide campaign, and a pretty vague agenda. He responded to bad polls by going negative, and then by going negative again. He and his team really seemed to think spotlighting [GOP candidate] Bob McDonnell's thesis from 20 years ago was going to be sufficient.

The Virginia GOP takes my criticism well, so I'll reiterate that I think they're wrong when they try to argue that Deeds is a liberal soul behind a moderate façade. I think he's an ambitious, craven, unprincipled soul behind...well, an ambitious, craven, unprincipled façade (which doesn't really make it a façade, I guess). I think the reason Creigh Deeds is so often tripped up when trying to explain what he'll do on taxes, or transportation plans, or education, or gay rights, or so many other issues is that he doesn't really care that much about the specifics. He wants to be governor, the details can wait. In the right campaign environment, voters notice that."

LEST WE FORGET: Iran Developing Boy Band, U.N. Fears

The Huffington Post's Andy Borowitz:

"NEW YORK (The Borowitz Report) -- The United Nations Security Council met in emergency session today amid fears that Iran may be close to developing a boy band.

Intelligence sources have worried for years that the Iranian government has been assembling the know-how to assemble such a singing group, but concerns spiked considerably last month when satellite photos detected a shipment of choreographers from Miami arriving in Tehran.

'The proliferation of boy bands is quickly becoming the number one global security threat,' said Professor Davis Logsdon, who has been studying the efforts of so-called rogue states to acquire homegrown boy bands."

Posted by Ian Faerstein at 01:00 PM

October 09, 2009

BLOGGER SPOTLIGHT: Chris Bowers

Today the Blogometer talks to Chris Bowers, who blogs at Open Left.

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

Where did you grow up?
Liverpool, New York. It is a suburb just north of Syracuse, New York.

Where do you live now?
West Philadelphia, just outside of University City.

If you have an occupation other than blogging, what is it?
Netroots organizing and consulting.

What's on your iPod right now?
I really got to listen to more music. Never bought an iPOD or downloaded music online.

What book do you think every person should read?
I don't think anyone should have to read anything. Not big into monoculture.

Please finish this sentence: "When I'm not blogging, you'll probably find me..."
Sleeping. I should diversify my life. :)

What has been your favorite blog post, or your favorite story to write about?
Of all the work I have done online, I remain the proudest of simultaneously launching Googlebomb the Elections and Use It Or Lose It back in late mid-October, 2006.

I doubt I will ever have another two weeks of blogging as good as those.

Which blogger(s) do you consider indispensable, if any?
As Kos once noted when he went away for a few weeks, and Daily Kos kept going just fine, no blogger is indispensible. The blogosphere is simply too vast to ever breakdown if one individual just stopped. So, while it makes me a little sad to say it, no one is indispensible.

Who's your favorite non-liberal blogger?
This is going to sound silly, but I love Centauri Dreams!

Who's your favorite active politician? Least favorite?
Senator Russ Feingold is my absolute favorite. He is the only Democrat who voted against the Iraq war authorization, and both Wall Street bailouts. First to call for withdrawal from Iraq and Afghanistan. Only Democrat to vote against the Patriot Act. A true champion.

Least favorite: I guess I can't think of one. Maybe I don't see any individual as a problem -- just the overall system.

What would you realistically like to see Democrats accomplish before the 2010 midterms?
--Public option
--EFCA compromise
--5-10% increase on income tax for top 1%
--DC representation in the House
--Immigration reform

If you could give President Obama advice, what would it be?
Start quietly rounding up support to use the nuclear option to destroy the filibuster, once and for all.

What keeps you up at night?
Wondering if it is possible to raise a family and retire off blogging.

Please feel free to ask and answer your own question.
Who's the master? Sho 'nuff!

Posted by Ian Faerstein at 01:28 PM

10/9: Take That, IOC!

Conservative bloggers are blasting the Norwegian Nobel Committee for awarding the Nobel Peace Prize to Pres. Obama. Michelle Malkin calls the decision "the final nail in the Nobel Peace Prize Committee's coffin," while Erick Erickson quips: "I did not realize the Nobel Peace Prize had an affirmative action quota for it." Other righty bloggers are arguing that the decision "will harm Obama politically in the United States, contrasting his role as international celebrity with his record devoid of accomplishments." On the other side of the blogosphere, the reaction from liberal bloggers is mixed. Some are offering a qualified defense of the committee's decision to give Obama the award, while others are complaining that "there are simply no meaningful 'peace' accomplishment in [Obama's] record -- at least not yet -- and there's plenty of the opposite." That said, most lefty bloggers are enjoying the "collective temper tantrum" being thrown by conservative bloggers in response to the announcement.

What else is happening in the blogosphere?

• Most liberal bloggers (Marshall, Silver, Moulitsas, Llorens, Benen) continue to express interest in a compromise approach to health care reform that would allow individual states to "opt out" of a national public option. Other lefty bloggers (McCarter, BooMan, digby) are open to the compromise but want more details. Meanwhile, a few liberal bloggers (Hamsher, Walker) are opposed to any compromise that doesn't offer a public option to every American.
• Liberal bloggers (Singiser, Singer) are promoting the new Democracy Corps poll that shows NJ Gov. Jon Corzine (D) leading ex-U.S. Atty Chris Christie (R). Meanwhile, conservative bloggers (Geraghty, Lewis) are promoting the new Washington Post poll that shows ex-AG Bob McDonnell (R) leading State Sen. Creigh Deeds (D) in the VA GOV race.
• Conservative bloggers are accusing Education Dept. official Kevin Jennings of "encourag[ing] predatory relationships between young boys and grown men." Meanwhile, liberal bloggers are blasting conservative pundits for promoting this "smear."
• Daily Kos founder Markos Moulitsas is calling on House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Charlie Rangel (D-NY) to "step down from his chairmanship until the ethics committee completes its work and issues a final report."

Finally, please check back later today for our interview with Open Left's Chris Bowers!

NOBEL: Are You Kidding Me?!?

Conservative bloggers are blasting the Norwegian Nobel Committee for awarding the Nobel Peace Prize to Obama:

• RedState's Erickson: "I did not realize the Nobel Peace Prize had an affirmative action quota for it, but that is the only thing I can think of for this news."
• Malkin: "It's the final nail in the Nobel Peace Prize Committee's coffin."
• NRO's Peter Wehner: "The decision is not simply a mistake; it's also a joke. But then again, so is the Norwegian Nobel Committee."
• Dan Riehl: "Are you frickin' kidding me? What a stupid joke. What a worthless award. [...] They put weight on his WORK? For Nuclear Weapons? All he has done is TALK! This is total BS! THE MAN HASN'T DONE ANYTHING!! I can't believe this. Really, I can't. What a waste. One sensed this was just a worthless political award anymore. But this removes all doubt. If I were on the committee I'd be embarrassed. This is an absolute disgrace."
• Hot Air's Allahpundit: "This makes three times, incidentally, in just seven years that the committee's turned the Peace Prize into a 'f*** Bush' award by bestowing it on a liberal American Democrat. The Goracle got it in 2007 and [Jimmy] Carter received it in 2002, making today's announcement yet one more reason to consider The One his presidential heir."
• AmSpec Blog's John Tabin: "The Peace Prize is quite often nothing more than the vehicle through which the mandarins of transnational progressivism express their support for opponents of American hegemony in general and [George W.] Bush in particular. If Obama doesn't turn down the prize, as several commentators are urging, the signal will be that the American president is perfectly happy being a Carter-like posterboy for American weakness."
• NRO's Andy McCarthy: "The transnational progressives who pass out these accolades believe America is the problem in the world, the main threat to peace, the impediment to 'progress,' etc. The award is a symbolic statement of opposition to American exceptionalism, American might, American capitalism, American self-determinism, and American pursuit of America's interests in the world. That is why Obama could win it based on only ten days in office -- merely by capturing the White House and the levers of power, he stands to do more for the Left's 'knock America off its pedestal' program than any figure in history."

Other conservative bloggers are arguing that receiving the award will hurt Obama politically:

• NRO's Daniel Pipes: "The absurdity of the prize decision will harm Obama politically in the United States, contrasting his role as international celebrity with his record devoid of accomplishments."
• NRO's Mark Krikorian: "[T]his just reinforces the Saturday Night Live meme that Obama has done nothing. This really might be his Carter whacking-the-bunny-rabbit moment."
• NRO's Mona Charen: "If Obama needs anything now, it is a sense of modesty, a willingness to tack and accept half a loaf, and diminish his grandiosity. (Not that I want him to learn these lessons. I'd rather he overreach, but as a matter of analysis.) His self-worship has created real problems for him and this will only feed into it. His vanity is his Achilles heel. The Nobel committee actually did him no favor."
• NRO's Steve Heyward: "I'm guessing the political folks in the White House are probably tone-deaf to how this can play badly for them."

Other conservative bloggers (Reynolds, Hillyer, Coffin) are simply making fun of the decision.

NOBEL II: A Mixed Reaction From The Left

Some liberal bloggers are offering qualified defenses of the Nobel Committee's decision to award Obama the Peace Prize:

• MyDD's Jerome Armstrong: "[G]lobally, it is fair to say that Obama has created a 'new climate' and represents a 'hope' of more global cooperation. While indeed he's President, Obama would've made a great secretary of state. The prize is more a statement about hoping Obama fulfills his promise than his accomplishments to date."
• iThe Washington Monthly's Steve Benen: "The announcement will no doubt generate considerable criticism, some from conservatives who simply oppose the president reflexively, and some from those who believe the honor is premature given Obama's fairly brief tenure. An intellectually honest approach suggests the latter's concerns are not unreasonable. But the accolade is nevertheless defensible. The Nobel Peace Prize, as I understand it, is awarded to the person (or persons) who've shown great leadership in advancing the cause of international peace. President Obama has invested consider energy and political capital in doing just that -- promoting counter-proliferation, reversing policies on torture, embracing a new approach to international engagement, and recommitting the U.S. to the Middle East peace process."

Others think the award is premature:

• Salon's Glenn Greenwald: "Through no fault of his own, Obama presides over a massive war-making state that spends on its military close to what the rest of the world spends combined. The U.S. accounts for almost 70% of worldwide arms sales. We're currently occupying and waging wars in two separate Muslim countries and making clear we reserve the 'right' to attack a third. Someone who made meaningful changes to those realities would truly be a man of peace. It's unreasonable to expect that Obama would magically transform all of this in nine months, and he certainly hasn't. Instead, he presides over it and is continuing much of it. One can reasonably debate how much blame he merits for all of that, but there are simply no meaningful 'peace' accomplishment in his record -- at least not yet -- and there's plenty of the opposite. That's what makes this Prize so painfully and self-evidently ludicrous."
• Open Left's Adam Bink: "Words and good intentions are not actions, and while Obama has helped move things along in areas like re-engaging the U.S. in world diplomacy... there remains a glaring lack of significant accomplishment. [...] In the end, since it seems more important to get that kind of boost to one's credibility, stature, etc. and actually achieve some good, I'm glad he was awarded the Prize. I remain wholly skeptical of both the rationale and any real accomplishments, but progress is more important, and this furthers progress."
• Think Progress' Matthew Yglesias: "Well, here's hoping Obama snags himself a second Peace Prize after he delivers on an Israeli-Arab peace deal, and international climate agreement, and a path to normalization of relations with Cuba."

Most liberal bloggers are simply enjoying the reaction from conservatives:

• Firedoglake's Blue Texan: "President Obama Wins Nobel Peace Prize, Wingnuts Throw Collective Temper Tantrum."
• Firedoglake's Peterr: "I can almost hear the screaming from Dick Cheney and the neocons as they get the news."
• Balloon Juice's John Cole: "Not sure why he was given it, other than as a repudiation of the Bush way of doing things, but man I am enjoying the freak-out from the usual suspects. Allahpundit sounds like he is about to stroke out, [Andrew] Breitbart probably won't speak for two weeks, and this is yet another opportunity for Republicans to show the entire country what assholes they can be. I'm really looking forward to it."
• Attaturk: "I guess [Charles] Krauthammer was right, the international regard for the United States has so fallen after Obama became President that they just awarded our Chief Executive the Nobel Peace Prize -- probably for not being like Charles Krauthammer."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Understanding Independents

digby:

"I was listening to all the gasbags drone on all day yesterday about how the 'independents' are all unhappy with Obama and are probably going to vote for the Republicans again when just a couple of years ago they were all unhappy with Bush and voted with the Democrats. This was interpreted as a signal that Obama needs to tack right immediately to recapture them. Does that make sense? Isn't the answer more logically that independents just habitually dislike whoever is in power and think that both parties are incompetent? Why else would they identify as independents in the first place?

I realize that the villagers think there is some sort of 'median' moderate voter who believes that the answer to all of our problems lies somewhere between the positions of the two parties. But that's not necessarily the independent's position. They don't like either party true, but it doesn't necessarily follow that they yearn to split the difference. In fact, I suspect that a large number of them are apolitical people who don't really understand politics at all and simply reject whoever is in power when things aren't going well, without regard to party. (In fact, there is great social utility in rejecting party politics and proclaiming yourself unhappy with the whole set-up. Who can't relate to that on some level?) Many independents ideologically fall far enough outside the two parties that they can't consider themselves members of either --- libertarians, greens etc.

The number of independents out there is quite large and all national politicians need to reach them in elections in order to win. But the knee jerk assumption that they are always more moderate than everyone else is probably wrong. They might just be more cranky, more cynical, more uninformed, more skeptical or more impatient. There are a lot of reasons why someone might be an independent in American politics but I suspect that ideology is at the bottom of the list."

LEST WE FORGET: Quaker Oats Canister Relabeled 'DRUGS' For Grade School Play

From The Onion:

"ABINGDON, MD -- In order to dispel any confusion regarding the contents of a 42-ounce Quaker Oats canister used in the play Drugs Stink!, Orchard Elementary School students wrapped the tin cylinder in red construction paper and wrote 'DRUGS' on it in large block letters, sources reported Tuesday. 'Here, try some of my drugs,' said third-grader Beth Carlisle, who, ensuring her grip did not obscure the canister's sinister label, spilled some imaginary narcotics into the palm of fellow cast member Samantha Drake. 'They'll make you feel real good, heh, heh, heh.' According to witnesses, the canister was later discovered by a school janitor, who determined it would make an ideal container for storing his weed."

Posted by Ian Faerstein at 12:32 PM

October 08, 2009

10/8: The Silver Bullet?

Have Dem senators figured out a compromise approach to health care reform that would satisfy both progressives and centrists? Liberal bloggers hope so. The netroots are currently buzzing about Sam Stein's report that Dem senators are considering a proposal "that would establish a robust, national public option for insurance coverage but give individual states the right to opt out of the program." Lefty bloggers prefer this idea to the compromise solution being floated by Sen. Tom Carper (D-DE), which "envisions health-insurance plans run by state governments." Liberals believe that Carper's proposal would result in weak state insurance options with little bargaining power, whereas the "opt-out" compromise would mean that "the blue states get the public option at full strength and the red states get to ignore it entirely." Joan McCarter explains:

"If giving governors the opportunity to turn it down is the compromise we need make a strong, federal public option operating the majority of the nation, it might be worth a look. It's certainly better than Carper's alternative, creating fragmented state options. It's better than co-ops or triggers, or even [NY Sen. Chuck] Schumer's level playing field."

What else is happening in the blogosphere?

• Liberal bloggers (McCarter, Klein, Cohn, Benen, Bowers) and conservative bloggers (Malkin, Glass, Levin, Allahpundit) are both discussing the CBO's prediction that Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus's health care bill "would meet President Obama's cost target and would reduce future federal deficits by a deeper amount than previously projected."
• Liberal bloggers (Moulitsas, DougJ, Kleiman, Clawson, Black, Lemos, Benen) are blasting the 30 GOP senators who voted against Sen. Al Franken's (D-MN) amendment to the 2010 Defense Appropriations bill, which "would withhold defense contracts from companies like Halliburton if they restrict their employees from taking workplace sexual assault, battery and discrimination cases to court."
• Conservative bloggers (Malkin, Bandes, Howe) are criticizing House Dems (and the 6 GOPers who joined them) for voting to block a resolution to remove Rep. Charles Rangel (D-NY) from the chairmanship of the Ways and Means Committee.
• Liberal bloggers (Moulitsas, Benen, Lemos) are buzzing about the news that ex-Sen. Bob Dole (R-KS) endorsed the Dem health care reform effort.

HEALTH CARE REFORM: A Public Option For Blue States

Most liberal bloggers are open to the idea of establishing a national government-run insurance option but giving individual states the right to opt out:

• The Washington Monthly's Steve Benen: "[This] new compromise proposal [is] easily the best of the bunch. [...] This effectively takes Carper's idea, and makes it better. Carper would let states create their own public options, and possibly increase their economies of scale by partnering with other states. This new alternative makes it an opt-out, instead of an opt-in -- Congress would create the public plan, and if states didn't want to participate, they wouldn't have to. As a rule, it's tough to figure out what public option opponents will come up with in terms of rationales, but this really should satisfy the concerns of [NE Sen.] Ben Nelson & Co. It's not altogether clear who's championing this approach, but if a compromise has to be part of the mix, this one has real promise."
• Daily Kos' mcjoan: "This could make political sense. What they're talking about is a robust national public option, one that would be set up to be successful. If giving governors the opportunity to turn it down is the compromise we need make a strong, federal public option operating the majority of the nation, it might be worth a look. It's certainly better than Carper's alternative, creating fragmented state options. It's better than co-ops or triggers, or even Schumer's level playing field."
• TPM's Josh Marshall: "[J]ust on the face of it, this sounds like a compromise reformers could embrace because I suspect many, probably most states would opt in, providing a plenty large enough pool to get to the bargaining power that is essential to make a public option work. Part of my assumption here is that you'd have relatively few states opting out and they'd tend toward lower population states, likely clustered in the South and mountain states. So I suspect that a substantial majority of the population would be in opt-in states, providing the bargaining power that would make the public option threshold viable. And if the public option works, one would think the people in opt-out states would quickly become pretty envious of the folks in states who had the option and pressure their state governments to get in."
• The Washington Post's Ezra Klein: "[This proposal] gives you an essentially national administrative structure, but also gives states the right to reject the option entirely. It means, in other words, that the blue states get the public option at full strength and the red states get to ignore it entirely. That's a real improvement over Tom Carper's proposal allowing individual states to create their own public options, which would would be quite a bit weaker than a national program. It also creates a neat policy experiment: We can see, over time, what happens to state insurance markets that include the national public option and compare them with those that don't. We can see whether the worst fears of conservatives are realized and private insurers are driven out and providers are forced out of business due to low payment rates, and we can see whether the hopes of liberals are right and costs come down and private insurers become leaner and more efficient. Or both, or neither."
• TalkLeft's Big Tent Democrat: "Now we can define the right wing of the Senate Democratic Party as in favor of the Carper Proposal [...] and the House Democrats in favor of a robust public option (national plan, Medicare +5 rates, etc.) President Obama can swoop in and be the 'consensus builder' -- and put forth the Blue State Public Option -- a national robust public option from which individual states can opt out. Nebraska and North Dakota can have their state run co-ops. Arkansas and Alabama can take a pass on the whole thing (no mandates, no public plan, etc.) 11 dimensional chess or just plain luck -- this solution would work for me as a camel's nose under the tent health care reform worth passing."
• AMERICAblog's John Aravosis: "[I] definitely need more information as to what decreasing the size of the overall market does to costs. But there is a certain irony, and magic, in the fact that all the red states could simply opt out and screw themselves while the rest of us get healthy and save money with better care."

Not every liberal blogger is open to this compromise, however. The Daily Kos community is divided, with some diarists expressing enthusiasm for the idea and others criticizing it. Firedoglake's Jane Hamsher is perhaps the most prominent liberal blogger to oppose the idea: "The fact that anyone is taking this seriously this morning, or celebrating the fact that 'red' states will opt out and screw themselves, is the price we pay for having talked about the health care debate in purely political terms. [...] Health care is a civil right. This is a matter of right and wrong, and it's our moral obligation to heal the sick and leave no one behind."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: The Chamber's Mistake

Think Progress' Matthew Yglesias analyzes the recent defections from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce in response to the organization's opposition to climate change legislation:

"The fundamental problem the Chamber of Commerce is going to have on this is that they're really really wrong. Not like how they're morally wrong about, say, labor rights or workplace safety rules. They're analytically mistaken about the interests of the United States business community. If we take action to avert ecological catastrophe, economic growth will still happen. Capitalism will march on. Big companies will be big, and people will earn lots of money managing them. Yes, the present-day owners of coal companies or manufacturers specifically wedded to unusually energy-intensive processes will be in trouble. But 'business' in a broad and general sense will keep on keeping on. People will still want gadgets and furniture, will shop at stores, will buy and sell, and generally keep being customers for business.

The real risk is being run by doing nothing. It's doing nothing that might end the party, and lead to various kinds of nightmare scenarios. And over time, more and more firms are going to see that they have no particular stake in underpricing pollution. One maybe of the Chamber board is a guy from Anheuser-Busch. A serious climate bill's not going to put him out of business. Nor, to just pick board affiliated companies whose lines of business I recognize, is it going to put State Farm Insurance or IBM or AT&T or Pfizer or Accenture out of business. But the executives at those companies and their kids and their customers are all going to face all the problems caused by untrammeled climate change. And why, genuinely, should a pharmaceutical company or a telecom company be fighting to stop people from stopping an ecological disaster? It genuinely doesn't make sense."

LEST WE FORGET: We've Been Saying That for Years, Sir

From Overheard in the Office:

Manager in sales meeting: I want you to ask for my help. I'm like a tool in your tool box. I am a tool.

Posted by Ian Faerstein at 01:02 PM

October 07, 2009

10/7: Movement In The Mid-Atlantic?

Liberal bloggers have spent the past few months focusing on national issues (namely, health care reform), so they haven't been paying as much attention to local races. But two recent developments have prompted lefty bloggers to start talking about statewide races again. First, a new Fairleigh Dickinson Univ. poll showed NJ Gov. Jon Corzine (D) leading ex-U.S. Atty Chris Christie (R) for the first time in months. Lefty bloggers are now buzzing about Corzine's momentum (although righty bloggers argue that Christie is still favored). Second, Rep. Mike Castle (R-DE) decided to run for Senate next year. The netroots think Castle is either even-money or slightly favored to win, although they're confident that Dems can capture his old House seat.

What else is happening in the blogosphere?

• Liberal bloggers (Moulitsas, Lewison, Aravosis, Black, Yglesias, Benen) are blasting the NRCC for issuing a press release urging Gen. Stanley McChrystal to "put [Speaker Nancy Pelosi] in her place."
• RedState editor Erick Erickson is urging his readers to support the Conservative Party candidate, Doug Hoffman, over the GOP candidate, "the ACORN backed Dede Scozzafava," in the NY-23 race.
• Liberal bloggers (McCarter, Hamsher) are pleased that the NE Dem party "put the state's senior senator, Ben Nelson, in an awkward spot" by passing a resolution expressing support for a public insurance option. However, Nelson still refuses to commit to voting against a GOP filibuster of health care legislation. Meanwhile, liberal bloggers (Lewison, Benen, Kurtz, Eli) are surprised and pleased that FOX News anchor Shepard Smith gave an impassioned defense of the public option during an inteview with Sen. John Barrasso (R-WY).
• Conservative bloggers (Johnson, Liebau, Goldberg, Jacobson, Lopez) are still speculating that ex-Weather Underground member Bill Ayers secretly wrote Obama's autobiography, Dreams From My Father. However, one conservative blogger thinks the theory is bogus.

NJ GOV: Comeback Corzine?

Liberal bloggers are buzzing about the new Fairleigh Dickinson Univ. poll that gives Corzine his first lead over Christie in months:

• MyDD's Jonathan Singer: "Corzine has the momentum as Christie continues to sink badly. What's more, as I noted last week, considering that pre-election polling in New Jersey has consistently underestimated support for Democratic candidates -- in the 2002 Senate campaign, in the 2004 presidential campaign, in the 2005 gubernatorial campaign, and in the 2006 Senate campaign -- the fact that Corzine has now caught up with Christie in this polling means that the Democrat has a much greater shot at victory in this race than at virtually any other previous point in this campaign. And even if you gave me some odds, I'm not sure that at this point I'd put any money on Christie to eek out a victory."
• TPM's Josh Marshall: "All but one poll shows Christie with some lead, even if only two or three points. But the trend is pretty clear. And it's a perilous place for a New Jersey Republican to be. Because the state has a long history of Republicans candidates who held comfortable leads and then watched them melt away in October and see the Democrat take it in November."
• Daily Kos' Steve Singiser: "This dissolution of the Chris Christie inevitability has come gradually. It began in earnest in August and early September, when the GOP nominee seemed to suffer through an apparent avalanche of self-inflicted ethical mini-scandals. Right at that point, his once-insurmountable lead in the governors race began to dissipate. That dissipation began to accelerate in past few weeks, when the barrage of bad news cycles for Christie were augmented by the growing sense that he had been less than forthcoming about his prescriptions for the state, a fact so glaring that even the right-leaning Wall Street Journal slapped him around for it last week. His proclivity to avoid details was on display in last week's debate, a debate in which voters according to the FDU poll said he came in a distant third."

On the right side of the blogosphere, AmSpec Blog's W. James Antle, III still thinks Christie is favored: "The fundamentals here still favor Christie, I think. First of all, Corzine's lead is within the margin of error. When you look at the questions besides the head-to-head matchup, the governor's numbers are terrible. Corzine's numbers remain stuck in the mid-to-low 40s even after the ad blitz, a terrible place for an incumbent to be. It shows the voters have made up their mind about him. Finally, unlike past races where New Jersey has teased Republicans by giving the GOP candidate competitive poll numbers and then a decisive defeat on election day (think Dick Zimmer), Corzine has actually trailed for most of this year. Corzine could still pull it out if enough people vote for the independent candidates, splitting the anti-Corzine vote and letting the governor be re-elected with 40 to 45 percent. [...] But I wouldn't look at this one poll and conclude Jon Corzine is going to get four more years just yet."

DE SEN: Storming The Castle

Liberal bloggers think Castle will be a formidable opponent, although they're pleased that Dems now have a chance to capture his old House seat:

• Marshall: "Big Break for GOP. [...] Castle's decision instantly makes this a competitive race."
• MyDD's desmoinesdem: "Biden will have to fight for this one, although he won't be as big an underdog as his father was the first time he ran for U.S. Senate in 1972. It's too bad that Democrats will have to invest resources in holding this seat (now represented by placeholder appointee Ted Kaufman). On the plus side, we are very likely to win the at-large House seat Castle will be vacating."
• Singiser: "This immediately changes the calculus of the Senate race, as Democrats defend the open seat created by the elevation of Joe Biden to the Vice-Presidency. Without exaggeration, it is fair to say that Castle was the only Republican in the state with a chance of flipping this seat to the GOP. Indeed, recent polling has shown that Castle actually holds a narrow lead over the most likely Democratic entrant into the race, state Attorney General Beau Biden. Without question, it would be one of the most watched races in the campaign cycle. A true toss-up, if ever there was one. [...] One aspect of the Castle decision that is being overlooked, however, is the fact that this creates an almost certain Democratic takeover of the state's long House seat. Former state Lt. Governor John Carney has been in the race since the Spring, and has already raised an enviable war chest. Furthermore, the GOP bench in Delaware is painfully thin. It is hard to find a way for the GOP to hang onto this seat."
• FiveThirtyEight's Nate Silver: "Castle's odds are somewhere north of [55-60%]. With that said, the race is no gimme, particularly if as expected Castle is opposed by Joe Biden's son Beau, who is currently Delaware's Attorney General. Polling released by Rasmussen and PPP had shown Castle with leads of 5 and 8 points in an as-then-hypothetical matchup against Beau Biden. Castle recently turned 70 and has had some health issues and is unlikely to be as energetic [as] his 40-year-old opponent. Although a gifted and experienced handler of his constituents, Castle may also run into trouble trying to balance some of the more radical elements of the his party with his centrist positioning, a problem common to all moderate Republicans. And, given that the Vice President's son is running, we can expect the White House to go 'all-in' on this race, although the Biden last name could be a fundraising magnet for Republicans as well."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Why Are We Worried About Afghanistan, Exactly?

The Atlantic's Jeffrey Goldberg:

"Sorry for saying this again, but I'm not clear about why Afghanistan is the central front in the war on Islamist terror. Afghanistan did not produce the terrorists who perpetrated the 9/11 attacks, nor did it have a central role in the creation of the ideology of those terrorists (the Soviet defeat in Afghanistan, of course, created feelings of superiority in Islamists, but that's another story). It is an Arab-made ideology, and to a lesser though still important degree, Pakistani-made, ideology that concerns us most. And it is Arab and Pakistani terrorists who are our main concern. Obviously, the U.S. should be in the business of denying safe havens to al-Qaeda terrorists in Afghanistan, but occupying and reforming a country that has proven itself so resistant to occupation and reform, and which isn't the at the root of the ideology we claim we're fighting -- I'm not sure I get it. A more central front is Pakistan; another more central front is Yemen. Cairo, London and Paris are also central fronts. Iran is a central front of a different sort. And yes, Iraq is a central front. But Afghanistan?

And no, I'm not advocating an invasion of Pakistan or Yemen or Cairo or London. But I believe that we should at least get our categories straight. Victory in Afghanistan won't do much to change what is essentially an Arab problem."

LEST WE FORGET: Obama: Health Care Plan Would Give Seniors Right To Choose How They Are Killed

From The Onion:

"WASHINGTON -- President Barack Obama held a nationally televised address Tuesday to 'clarify any misunderstandings' about his health care proposal, assuring Americans that under the new bill senior citizens -- and not the federal government -- will have the right to choose how they are executed.

'Let me dispel these ridiculous rumors once and for all and set the record straight: Under my plan, seniors are going to be killed the way they want to be killed, end of story,' said the president, who acknowledged that 'wiping out' the nation's elderly population has always been his No. 1 priority. 'If your grandmother would rather be euthanized in the privacy of her own home than be gutted and hanged on a high school soccer field, she is entitled to that right.'

'Once again, let me be perfectly clear,' Obama continued. 'Seniors, rest easy knowing that I will never, under any circumstance, sign a bill that doesn't give you the option of being murdered by my administration in a manner of your choosing. I promise you that.'"

Posted by Ian Faerstein at 12:41 PM

October 06, 2009

10/6: Well, There's Good News And Bad News...

As has so often been the case during the health care debate, liberal bloggers are seeing both good news and bad news today in their hopes of passing a strong bill. On the one hand, lefty bloggers are cautiously optimistic about reports that the Obama admin. is pushing Senate Dems to include "some version" of the public option in the merged Senate bill. The netroots are currently focusing their efforts on ensuring that the final bill includes a "real" or "robust" public option. As Joan McCarter explains: "We've won the battle over making the public option an essential part of healthcare reform. Now we have to win the war over what form that public option takes."

Not everything is turning up roses for liberals, however. Several lefty bloggers are criticizing Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-ME) for helping to kill Sen. John Kerry's (D-MA) amendment to the Finance Committee bill, which would have created a more aggressive health insurance exchange. Jon Walker complains that "in an effort to win Snowe health care reform is being crippled."

What else is happening in the blogosphere?

• Conservative bloggers (Wolf, Geraghty) are excited that Rep. Mike Castle (R-DE) is running for Senate. Other conservative bloggers (Geraghty, McCormack) are excited about FL SEN candidate Marco Rubio's (R) Q3 fundraising numbers.
• Daily Kos founder Markos Moulitsas wants MT Gov. Brian Schweitzer (D) to challenge Sen. Max Baucus (D) in 2014.
• Power Line's Paul Mirengoff thinks it's "unfortunate" that some conservatives celebrated Chicago's failure to win the 2016 Olympic Games. However, RedState's Erick Erickson refuses to apologize, explaining, "I love America, therefore I must cheer this Obama defeat."

PUBLIC OPTION: Accept No Substitutes

Liberal bloggers are cautiously optimistic about reports that the Obama admin. is pushing Senate Dems to include "some version" of the public option in the merged bill:

• Open Left's Chris Bowers: "Good. If they succeed, and a public option is in the bill sent to the Senate floor, it will be a huge boost to the public option campaign. Getting 60 votes to overcome a filibuster of the entire bill is a lot easier than getting 60 votes to add a public option to the bill via Senate floor amendment. This is because even the Senate Conservadems are loathe to cross President Obama by filibustering health care reform, and Senator [Chuck] Schumer claims there are 54 to 56 votes for a public option in and of itself. Schumer's numbers seem a bit optimistic to me, but they are still hopeful."
• The Washington Monthly's Steve Benen: "All things being equal, this sounds pretty good. At this point, I was more or less expecting Democratic leaders to start lowering expectations, and preparing the party base for a letdown on the public option. Instead, most of the rhetoric seems to be pointing in the other direction [...] But it's still wise to temper one's enthusiasm. For one thing, the distance between here and the finish line is still pretty long. For another, as we recently learned, 'some form of a public option' can mean different things. [Senate Maj. Leader Harry] Reid conceded last week that 'public option' is a 'relative term.' Taken together, put me down for 'cautious optimism.'"

Liberal bloggers are demanding that the final bill not simply include "some version" of the public option, but a "real" or "robust" public option:

• Daily Kos' mcjoan: "We've won the battle over making the public option an essential part of healthcare reform. Now we have to win the war over what form that public option takes. [...] Snowe's trigger isn't a substitute for a public option. Once you scratch the surface, it's obvious that the trigger isn't intended to just phase in a public option, it's intended to kill it by ensuring that the threshold for it's being triggered is never met. [WA Sen. Maria] Cantwell's amendment is good for what it does, but it's not a substitute for a robust public option that can compete against private insurance companies. [...] The House Progressive Block is fully committed to a robust public option, and has the numbers to back that up. Every poll that's been done in the past month -- even after the August temper tantrum townhalls -- show that the majority of American voters support a Medicare-like public option. That even includes [AR Sen.] Blanche Lincoln's constituents. And according to Chuck Schumer, a healthy majority of Senate Democrats are behind it. Winning the war on a robust public option, on real healthcare reform that at least puts us on a path to universal, affordable, comprehensive coverage shouldn't be this hard. There's no need to settle for 'some version' of a public option."
• AMERICAblog's Joe Sudbay: "It's not question of if there will be a public option in the health insurance reform bill, it's a question of whether it's a real public option. [...] Elected Democrats in D.C. often spurred on by their weak-kneed and ineffective political consultants, have an uncanny ability to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. Over the next few weeks, we'll see all kinds of attempts to waffle on the public option and the health insurance reform bill. There will be trial balloons floated with all kinds of gimmicks and schemes. Enough. Democrats have the power. We all worked our asses off in the election so they'd have the power. Now, they have to do the right thing."

SNOWE: Watering Down Legislation Is Her Specialty

Liberal bloggers are criticizing Snowe for helping to kill Kerry's amendment to the Finance Committee bill, which would have created a more aggressive health insurance exchange:

• The Washington Post's Ezra Klein: "There's a good chance that Kerry's amendment will triumph down the line, and the 'prudent purchaser' language included in the House and HELP Committee bills will be in the final legislation. But it's worth keeping an eye on. If [Jon] Kingsdale, the only guy who's actually run one of these exchanges effectively, says this is necessary, then it's necessary."
• Think Progress' Matthew Yglesias: "Olympia Snowe looks set to reprise her roll in hobbling the stimulus bill in exchange for providing the key pivotal vote for it by killing John Kerry's amendment, 'Empowering State Exchanges to be Prudent Purchasers.' [...] Ezra Klein observes that Jon Kingsdale is basically the only person in America's who's run anything like the exchanges envisioned in all the different bills -- he does the job in Massachusetts -- and he views the prudent purchaser rule as absolutely essential. Against that Snowe is pitting, I guess, her intuition that this is too much government involvement."

Firedoglake's Walker thinks Senate Dems should stop trying to win Snowe's vote: "This is not the only time that Snowe has demanded an awful policy change. [...] A worthless trigger instead of a public option, weak, poorly regulated exchanges, the terrible 'free rider' provisions -- these bad policies might all be part of reform legislation in order to win Olympia Snowe. (I think we will be finding out for months what other bad ideas Snowe demanded be part of the bill.) In an effort to win Snowe health care reform is being crippled. Winning her could cost the government hundreds of billions of dollars and regular American families a few thousand a year in higher premiums. Is one Republican vote really worth the high price of Snowe?"

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: The Partisan Construction Of Bipartisanship

NRO's Ramesh Ponnuru:

"I keep reading commentary about the Republicans' terrible failure to work with the Democrats on health care. (The New Republic ran an editorial calling the Republicans' obstructionism a crisis for our political system.) Yet the administration could have had the support of nearly all Republicans and a minority of Democrats, and have had legislation passed today, if it had pursued a different vision of health-care reform: one that extended tax credits to people locked out of employer-based insurance and removed state regulatory obstacles to the emergence of a national market in individually purchased insurance.

If Obama had followed this path, most liberal health-policy experts would have screamed that he had betrayed the cause, since the policies I am describing formed the [John] McCain plan during the last campaign. I don't really fault the Democrats for not violating their own views of sound health-care policy. But neither do I fault the Republicans for not embracing the same health-care policies they rejected in 1994. The parties have incompatible views of where health-care policy should go. If the Democrats want to do something comprehensive, they will basically have to go it alone. Everybody knows this, and everyone should have known it all year."

LEST WE FORGET: Secretary Of The Ulterior Clearly Vying For Better Cabinet Position

From The Onion:

"WASHINGTON -- Following a Monday morning staff meeting, White House sources said it has become clear that Department of the Ulterior head Arthur Killen is jockeying for a higher-ranking cabinet position. 'I thought I'd bring in some gourmet coffee cake today -- no reason, really, I just know how everyone loves a nice coffee cake,' Killen was overheard saying moments after he explained to Rahm Emanuel that he 'had no idea' how a report addressing wasteful spending in the Department of Energy had ended up in the chief of staff's briefcase. 'Where is [current Energy Secretary] Steven [Chu]? Oh, he's out of town today? Boy, he's really been missing a lot of work lately, hasn't he?' White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said it is unlikely Killen will be promoted, as the ulterior secretary's latest actions have once again proved he is ideally suited for his current position."

Posted by Ian Faerstein at 12:30 PM

October 05, 2009

10/5: The Fallout From Copenhagen

Bloggers spent the weekend discussing the political consequences of Chicago's failure to capture the 2016 Olympics in spite of Pres. Obama's lobbying. Conservative bloggers are portraying Obama's unsuccessful effort as a "PR nightmare" that damaged "Obama's and the nation's standing in the world". Some are even speculating that the incident could "mark the moment when the wheels finally came off the Obama presidency." Liberal bloggers, on the other hand, are chastising conservatives for celebrating Chicago's defeat. One lefty blogger declares: "Cheering because your COUNTRY lost an Olympic bid because it might give you a fleeting moment of partisan gain is the dictionary definition of being unpatriotic." Another writes: "[I]f President Obama's trip was a little bit stupid, the conservative response has been even dumber."

What else is happening in the blogosphere?

• Conservative bloggers (Geraghty, Lane, Lopez, Rubin) are criticizing the Obama admin. for delaying the President's meeting with the Dalai Lama "in an attempt to gain favor with China."
• Liberal bloggers (Benen, Dayen, Kleiman, Marshall, Calvo) are accusing Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC) and other congressional GOPers of undermining U.S. diplomacy with their trips abroad.
• Liberal bloggers (Benen, desmoinesdem, Sudbay, Morrill) are still buzzing about last week's New York Times article detailing possible ethical violations by Sen. John Ensign (R-NV).

OBAMA: Epic Fail

Conservative bloggers are portraying Obama's failed Olympics lobbying effort as a huge mistake:

• NRO's Victor Davis Hanson: "A PR Nightmare for the Obamas."
• NRO's Peter Wehner: "[Obama] hurt his prestige a great deal today, and he failed in an environment when things look bad and he is beginning to seem overmatched on almost every front. [...] I suspect this moment will be remembered as one that adds to an increasingly negative 'narrative' of the Obama presidency. Few presidents have suffered this much loss of support in so short a period of time -- and things will probably get worse before they get better. Friday didn't help. Mr. Obama has sustained a political wound at a vulnerable moment for him."
• RedState's Dan McLaughlin: "Obama's and the nation's standing in the world can't help but be chipped away by this; the next time he goes jetting off to a summit or some other international event, people won't be so quick to assume that he has all figured out in advance how he's going to get what he wants. That aura, that mystique is a thing of value that the President is supposed to husband carefully for when the nation really needs it. [George] Bush was impotent by the end of his presidency because he'd burned that up, but he had it for the better part of five years. Obama's losing it already."
• AmSpec Blog's Jeffrey Lord: "The Obama administration put their man out there front and center at what was a distinctly non-presidential task: getting the Olympics for Chicago. And he failed. Spectacularly. Now casting this as a talking point about meeting General [Stanley] McCrystal to discuss Afghanistan won't wipe away the image created of a president rendered impotent -- this time not by a rabbit or a pair of socks, but by the International Olympic Committee. Now that's an Olympic-sized political accomplishment."
• Commentary's Jennifer Rubin: "What [Obama] needs is to discard incompetent staff and unworkable plans, govern from the center of the political spectrum, restore his image as a resolute commander in chief, and lead rather than follow. If the Olympic-bid fiasco can set him on the course to do all that, it will prove worth the temporary hit. And if not, it will mark the moment when the wheels finally came off the Obama presidency."

Glenn Reynolds: "'SMART DIPLOMACY' FAIL: Chicago first out in bid for Olympics. That's too bad. I was kinda looking forward to seeing President [Sarah] Palin speak at the opening ceremonies..."

OBAMA II: So Much For His Powers Of Persuasion...

One of the popular conservative talking points over the weekend was that Obama's failure to convince the IOC members to give Chicago the Olympics indicates that he won't be able to effectively negotiate with Iran:

• NRO's John J. Miller: "Wow, what an embarrassment for Obama. If he can't work his personal magic with the Olympians, why does he expect it to work with the Iranians?"
• NRO's Ramesh Ponnuru: "Chicago is out of contention. Obviously I had way too much confidence in the Obama administration's political skills. But I'm sure that Obama will be a lot more persuasive with the Iranians."
• RedState's Erick Erickson: "If Barack Obama cannot convince the IOC to give Chicago the Olympics, how is he ever going to be able to convince Iran to give up its nukes?"
• Power Line's John Hinderaker: "I suppose that will be the explanation when Obama can't persuade the mullahs to abandon their nukes, either."

Liberal blogger Matthew Yglesias responds: "These are lame jokes, yes, but I also think they reveal the profound misunderstanding of how international relations works that exists on the right. The competition to host the 2016 Olympics is just that, a competition. It's a friendly competition, yes, but it's still a competition. It's zero sum. If Rio wins, then Chicago and Sao Paulo and Tokyo lose. But the overall relationship between the United States and Iran is not a zero-sum competition. A world in which Iran accepts verifiable safeguards on its nuclear program in exchange for security guarantees and a relaxation of American sanctions is a world in which both the United States and Iran wind up better off. A world in which the US and Iran cooperate in Afghanistan is a world is which both the United States and Iran wind up better off. If we fight in Iran, we both wind up worse off."

OBAMA III: Way To Root Against America, Conservatives!

Liberal bloggers are blasting conservatives for celebrating Chicago's defeat:

• Balloon Juice's John Cole: "Cheering because your COUNTRY lost an Olympic bid because it might give you a fleeting moment of partisan gain is the dictionary definition of being unpatriotic."
• AMERICAblog's John Aravosis: "It is a bit sick rooting for America to lose the Olympics, and bad-mouth Chicago, simply because Obama is from there."
• Daily Kos' Jed Lewison: "[I]f President Obama's trip was a little bit stupid, the conservative response has been even dumber. Instead of biting their tongue, they decided to get out in front of the story, whooping with glee and using this setback as an opportunity to celebrate what they see as Obama's defeat."
• Mother Jones' Kevin Drum: "I hopped back over to The Corner a few minutes ago, and the Olympics are by far the biggest topic of conversation there this morning. But The Corner is a gossipy place, so that's not such a big deal. What is stunning, though, is just how openly thrilled they are that America lost its bid. All because a president they don't like decided to make a direct pitch for his adopted hometown. Ditto for the Weekly Standard, apparently. It sure doesn't take much to turn these guys against their country, does it?"
• The Washington Monthly's Steve Benen: "It's probably too much to ask for some kind of significant backlash, but I suspect if a pollster were to ask Americans which bothered them more, the president trying to bring the Olympics to the U.S. or the president's detractors cheering the Olympics not coming to the U.S., conservatives wouldn't fare especially well."
• FiveThirtyEight's Nate Silver: "That the conservative intelligentsia reacted giddily to news of the Americans losing is telling. It's telling of a movement that was long ago knocked off its intellectual moorings and has lost the capacity to think about what people outside the room think about. Sometimes -- certainly on the health care debate, very probably on the bailouts question -- conservatives back into something approaching mainstream American sentiment and can cause Obama and his allies a lot of problems. But any movement which also criticizes the President for giving a speech to schoolchildren, which cheers when the United States loses its Olympic bid, is mostly just engaged in the business of throwing a bunch of Kaká at the wall and seeing what sticks. I don't know whether it's unpatriotic -- but it's pretty freakin' dumb."

The Atlantic's Andrew Sullivan: "Criticizing a president is one thing -- and important. Hoping he fails -- even to the point of celebrating a national loss -- is a sign of partisanship that has become pathologically blind to any sense of perspective or patriotism."

Meanwhile, Balloon Juice's DougJ sees electoral repercussions for at least one GOP pol: "Nate Silver had Illinois as the ninth likeliest Senate seat to switch parties in his most recent rankings. I've got to think that the Republican reaction to the Olympics decision is going to change that. Mark Kirk can't be too pleased with the wingerati right now."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Are Conservatives Helping Obama With The Left?

AmSpec Blog's Philip Klein:

"The Wall Street Journal has an article exploring whether conservative attacks on President Obama have allowed him to shore up support among liberals even as he disappoints them on a number of issues. This is something that first struck me during the [SC Rep.] Joe Wilson 'You Lie!' episode. Even though President Obama gave a health care speech to a joint session of Congress in which he opened the door to ditching the government health insurance plan, liberals were too busy snarling about Wilson to get angry about it.

This phenomenon is nothing new to politics. President Bush, for instance, still enjoyed strong support among conservatives for much of his presidency, even as he passed the largest expansion of entitlements since the Great Society and expanded the federal role in education. While there was always criticism along the margins, and a temporary uproar, it would be quickly forgotten once a liberal made some outrageous charge. It wasn't really until Bush's nomination of Harriet Miers in 2005 that we saw a widespread and sustained conservative revolt from which he never really recovered.

So as Obama enters the stage of the health care debate in which he'll have to find a way to talk liberals into accepting less, his best ally may be his critics on the right. One can see a White House pitch to liberals that more or less amounts to, a loss on health care means victory for Joe Wilson, Sarah Palin, Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh."

LEST WE FORGET: US Warns Iran: Dismantle Nukes Or We Will Block You On Facebook

The Huffington Post's Andy Borowitz:

"WASHINGTON (The Borowitz Report) -- In its sternest rhetoric to date about the Iranian nuclear threat, the U.S. today issued an ultimatum to the Iranian government: dismantle your nuclear program at once, or risk being blocked on Facebook.

A Facebook blockade against Iran would have serious consequences, analysts said, such as preventing the Iranian government from accessing the U.S.'s profile or playing such popular online quizzes as 'What 80's Toy Are You?'

According to one State Dept. source, the U.S. has been considering blocking Iran on Facebook for some time, especially after Iran sent it a series of increasingly provocative and annoying event invitations.

'When they invited us to an event called "Medium Range Missile Test," that was really the last straw,' the source said."

Posted by Ian Faerstein at 12:31 PM

October 02, 2009

10/2: The Right's New Target

Fresh off their successful campaign against ex-WH green jobs adviser Van Jones, conservative bloggers are hunting for their next scalp: Education Dept. official Kevin Jennings. Righty bloggers are attacking Jennings over (among other things) advice he gave to a gay student whom he counseled 21 years ago. Although Jennings recently admitted that he "should have handled the situation differently," righty bloggers are accusing Jennings of "ignor[ing] child sex abuse" and are urging Pres. Obama to fire him. Meanwhile, liberal bloggers are defending Jennings and decrying "the Conservative Attack Machine" that's targeting him.

What else is happening in the blogosphere?

• Most conservative bloggers (Erickson, Rubin, Malkin, Allahpundit) are mocking Obama after Chicago lost its bid for the 2016 Olympic Games in spite of the President's lobbying. However, a few conservative bloggers (Glass, Hillyer) are urging their colleagues not to celebrate Chicago's defeat.
• Liberal bloggers (McCarter, Dayen, Walker 1, Walker 2, Walker 3) don't perceive any of the various public option compromises being advocated by members of the Senate Finance Committee as adequate substitutes for a public option. Lefty bloggers (Moulitsas, Hamsher, Bowers) continue to push hard for a "robust" public option.
• Liberal bloggers (Bowers, Moulitsas) see good news for Rep. Joe Sestak (D-PA) in the new PA SEN poll conducted by Quinnipiac Univ. Meanwhile, conservative bloggers think that ex-Rep. Pat Toomey (R-PA) is "rising." In other Senate news, several of the front-page contributors at RedState have endorsed CA SEN candidate Chuck DeVore (R), calling him "our best bet" against Sen. Barbara Boxer (D).
• Daily Kos founder Markos Moulitsas has endorsed the Republican candidate, Assemb. DeDe Scozzafava, in the NY-23 race. Meanwhile, RedState editor Erick Erickson urges the GOP WH '12 contenders to join ex-Sen. Fred Thompson (R-TN) in endorsing Conservative Party candidate Doug Hoffman.
• Liberal bloggers (Bowers, Bink, Yglesias) continue to defend Rep. Alan Grayson (D-FL) after he made controversial remarks about the GOP's approach to health care, while conservative bloggers (Malkin, Hoft) continue to criticize Grayson. Meanwhile, Jim Geraghty examines Grayson's potential GOP challengers.
• Liberal bloggers (Dayen, Benen, Coates, Morrill, Kleiman) are accusing TX Gov. Rick Perry (R) of engaging in a cover-up "after he swept three appointees from their jobs just two days before they were set to critically examine a flawed arson investigation that contributed to the execution of a Corsicana man."

JENNINGS: The Next Van Jones?

Conservative bloggers are blasting Jennings:

• Pajamas Media's Scott Ott: "Let's be clear: Kevin Jennings let a potentially terminally-ill minor and a victim of rape walk out of his office, and Jennings never reported the incident to the boy's parents, the school nurse, the police, or anyone who might help protect this child. This Kevin Jennings is President Obama's new 'safe schools czar.' Consider the implications. Is the United States suffering from such a dearth of qualified applicants for this position that the president couldn't find someone who lacked a track record of child endangerment? Can you picture this man traveling the country as the president's emissary for safety in our schools? So egregious is this appointment, it's hard to imagine a worse pick. It's almost as if the White House is intentionally pushing the limits until we no longer feel outrage."
• Power Line's John Hinderaker: "Obama nominee Kevin Jennings actually said that the founder of NAMBLA -- the North American Man-Boy Love Association -- Harry Hay, is '[o]ne of the people that's always inspired me.' If you're not aware of it, NAMBLA is an organization that advocates sexual relationships between middle-aged men and teenage and pre-teen boys. Why, exactly, would a President put someone who admires those who advocate homosexual relationships between middle-aged men and high school or junior high school aged boys in charge of 'safety' in American public schools? Who would do that? It's not as though Kevin Jennings' benign view of such exploitation is a secret; on the contrary, this is his career, his claim to fame, his qualification for federal employment. One can only ask: is the Obama administration completely insane?"
• Michelle Malkin: "Regarding his illicit drug use, Jennings now says that the experience makes him a better safe schools czar -- just as his admission of failure in handling the child predator disclosure makes him more qualified for the job. Screw up, move up. It's how the Obama administration rolls. Feel safer?"
• The Heritage Foundation's Rory Cooper: "A senior official in the Obama administration responsible for child safety has been exposed to have ignored child sex abuse when he was a high school teacher, and yet retains the confidence of the Secretary of Education. [...] It appears that a growing double standard is emerging among liberals. After months spent scolding the disgraced former Congressman from Florida, Mark Foley, for exchanging lurid text messages with a 16 year old page, it appears there is only silence regarding this senior Obama Administration official's illegal behavior, condoning child sex abuse. Just as in the Roman Polanski case, the hypocrisy must end."

Glenn Reynolds: "At this point, I don't think it's that they're not vetting people. I think it's that the vetters have a rather unusual understanding of what constitutes a problem."

Liberal bloggers, on the other hand, are criticizing the right-wing campaign against Jennings:

• The Washington Monthly's Steve Benen: "The Conservative Attack Machine seems to have a new hobby. In the wake of Van Jones' departure, every day is a game of 'which administration figure can we target this week?' The latest target is the Department of Education's Kevin Jennings. [...] This is about targeting administration officials the right considers vulnerable. Next week, it'll be someone else. The week after, someone else. This anecdote from Jennings' book has been around for quite a while, but it's become a 'story' now because conservatives got bored with their last target and needed a new one. Hopefully, the White House will ignore the cries."
• Media Matters: "Many in the conservative media are engaging in an all-out attack on Office of Safe and Drug-Free Schools director Kevin Jennings, unleashing anti-gay rhetoric, grossly distorting a discussion Jennings recounted having with a teenager, and, in some cases, even pushing for him to be fired or to resign. But these right-wing caricatures of Jennings are undercut by the fact that education and other officials have spoken highly of Jennings, who has received numerous awards and was a one-time appointee of Republican Massachusetts Gov. William Weld."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Indefensible

The Nation's Katha Pollitt unloads on Roman Polanski's defenders (h/t Quin Hillyer):

"It's enraging that literary superstars who go on and on about human dignity, and human rights, and even women's rights (at least when the women are Muslim) either don't see what Polanski did as rape, or don't care, because he is, after all, Polanski--an artist like themselves. That some of his defenders are women is particularly disappointing. Don't they see how they are signing on to arguments that blame the victim, minimize rape, and bend over backwards to exonerate the perpetrator? Error of youth, might have mistaken her age, teen slut, stage mother -- is that what we want people to think when middle-aged men prey on ninth-graders?

The widespread support for Polanski shows the liberal cultural elite at its preening, fatuous worst. They may make great movies, write great books, and design beautiful things, they may have lots of noble humanitarian ideas and care, in the abstract, about all the right principles: equality under the law, for example. But in this case, they're just the white culture-class counterpart of hip-hop fans who stood by R. Kelly and Chris Brown and of sports fans who automatically support their favorite athletes when they're accused of beating their wives and raping hotel workers. No wonder Middle America hates them."

LEST WE FORGET: Aussie Aussie Aussie, Oi Oi Oi!

McSweeney's contributors Wayne Gladstone and Ian Carey compile a list of "Failed One-Liners From My Audition For Host Of Australia's Funniest Home Videos":

• "I said throw a shrimp on the Barbie -- not Grandma!"
• "It's like the lady's saying to her dog, 'don't you dare eat my toast.' And the dog's saying, 'I vegemite. I vegemite not.'"
• "Is that a wombat in your pants, mate or are you just happy to see me? Crikey! It IS a wombat!"
• "That's not a boy paralyzing himself on a trampoline. THAT'S a boy paralyzing himself on a trampoline."
• "To wallaby or not to wallaby: that is the question. Crikey! NOT to wallaby."
• "Didgeridoo? More like didgeriDON'T, am I right?"
• "Ouch, looks like that Australian native just took a boomerang right to the aborigi-KNEES!"
• "Maybe the baby ate your dingo!"
• "Crikey! That's the crikiest criker in who ever criked a ... I'll just show myself out."

Posted by Ian Faerstein at 01:03 PM

October 01, 2009

10/1: Getting Grayson's Back

Liberal bloggers are leaping to the defense of Rep. Alan Grayson (D-FL) after he was criticized by House GOPers and the NRCC for declaring: "If you get sick, America, the Republican health care plan is this: Die quickly." Lefty bloggers think it's hypocritical for the GOP to demand an apology from Grayson, considering that various GOPers have made similarly hyperbolic remarks without having to apologize. Josh Marshall writes: "I'm not going to defend [Grayson's comments]. But is this really a controversy when half the Republican elected officials in the country have been saying for the last couple months, as a statement of purported fact, that the Democrats want to institute 'death panels' that will euthanize or deny care to people who can't justify their lives on utilitarian grounds?" Meanwhile, other lefty bloggers are praising Grayson for being "fearless" and are urging their readers to donate money to him. Grayson wrote his own fundraising diary on Daily Kos, asking readers to "help me speak truth." He has already raised over $90K on ActBlue in the past 24 hours.

What else is happening in the blogosphere?

• MN Gov. Tim Pawlenty (R) held a conference call with conservative bloggers (Johnson, Erickson, Morrissey) this morning to announce the creation of his Freedom First PAC. Many observers see this announcement as a sign that Pawlenty is running for Pres. in '12. However, Jim Geraghty wonders if Pawlenty's lack of charisma could impede his WH ambitions.
• Liberal bloggers (Morrill, Dayen) are criticizing Sens. Kent Conrad (D-ND) and Blanche Lincoln (D-AR) for joining their GOP colleagues on the Finance Committee in voting for an amendment that provides "tens of millions of dollars to fund abstinence education programs for teens." Meanwhile, Markos Moulitsas declares that "it'll be good riddance" if Lincoln loses her Senate seat to a GOP challenger next year.

GRAYSON: Apologize? Are You Serious?

Liberal bloggers argue that House GOPers are hypocritical to complain about Grayson's remarks, considering that various House GOPers have made similarly hyperbolic statements:

• digby: "So, let me get this straight: the same party that's been saying the Democrats are planning to pull the plug on Grandma for months is having an epic fit of the vapors because Alan Grayson said that the Republican Health Care plan is 'Don't get sick and if you do get sick, die quickly?' Really? How do they live with this much gall?"
• Daily Kos' BarbinMD: "Why don't these outraged Republicans get back to us after they line up to apologize for the garbage they've been spewing about health care reform in an effort to pander to their teabagging base?"
• Firedoglake's Jane Hamsher: "It's insane that this has reached this level, and that progressives are being once again sacrificed to a right-wing hissy fit when Republicans regularly engage in the most extreme eliminationist rhetoric with absolutely no consequences."
• TPM's Marshall: "Rep. Alan Grayson delivered a speech last night in which he made some really over the top comments -- namely that the Republican plan for health care is a) don't get sick and b) if you do get sick, die quickly. I'm not going to defend that. But is this really a controversy when half the Republican elected officials in the country have been saying for the last couple months, as a statement of purported fact, that the Democrats want to institute 'death panels' that will euthanize or deny care to people who can't justify their lives on utilitarian grounds? Really? And what reporters are stupid enough not to point this out?"
• The Washington Monthly's Steve Benen: "[I]sn't it a little late in the game for congressional Republican to feign outrage about death-related rhetoric? [...] Rep. Ginny Brown-Waite (R-Fla.) said Dem plans would tell seniors to 'drop dead.' Rep. Paul Broun (R-Ga.) said Democratic plans for a public option would 'kill people.' Rep. Virginia Foxx (R-N.C.) said Dems' proposals might 'put seniors in a position of being put to death by their government.' Plenty of other House Republicans have made similar remarks, and not one of them has every apologized. House Democrats haven't even asked. Grayson may have been deliberately provocative to highlight a larger point, but if 'die quickly' is beyond the pale, the GOP should probably start lining up now, asking for forgiveness for months of dishonest fear-mongering."

GRAYSON II: Defend Alan!

Many liberal bloggers are praising Grayson's defiant approach:

• BarbinMD: "How refreshing to have a Democrat who doesn't cave to Republican whimpering."
• AMERICAblog's Joe Sudbay: "We need more Democrats like Alan Grayson. He's fearless, in addition to being right. As I said last night, I'm loving Grayson these days -- and all the more because he's offended the very delicate George Stephanopoulos and enraged the Republicans. I had a chance to spend some time with Grayson at Netroots Nation. The guy really is brilliant. His work on financial issues, especially his focus on the Fed, has really changed the course of the debate in Congress."
• Open Left's Chris Bowers: "Republican lies, double-standards for progressives, backstabbing Democrats, Congressional leaders who won't stand by us -- if we don't stand up for one of our own at a time like this, no one will. We have to defend our champions when the right-wing smear machine comes after them, and Democrats help that smear machine out. Donate to Alan Grayson now, and defend a Better Democrat who made it to Congress."

Liberal bloggers were particularly impressed by Grayson's performance on CNN's "The Situation Room," where he refused to back down from his remarks:

• Oliver Willis: "This is what you do. You don't kowtow to the 'journalists' and conservatives begging for an ethics panel or whining about incivility when a Dem speaks up."
• Sudbay: "This is the kind of behavior that should be rewarded. We don't see enough of it from people on the Hill. You can donate to Grayson here. It's one way to show Grayson's colleagues that while "the Villagers" may be appalled, the rest of are ecstatic."
• dday: "Republicans seriously don't know who they're dealing with when it comes to Alan Grayson. [...] This just does not compute for Republicans, who are supposed to wail and moan and collect their scalp for their hissy fit. They don't understand a Democrat taking ownership of his actions and throwing it right back at them."

BooMan likes Grayson's "aggressiveness" but worries that he's putting his House seat at risk: "Personally, I think Grayson should adjust his message slightly. I like his aggressiveness. I like the substance of what he's saying. But he's probably making himself more a lightning rod than he needs to to get his message across. He's putting his seat at risk. That's good and bad. It's good that he's willing to lose and unafraid to stick up for people in need. But there might be a degree of recklessness involved, too, that isn't necessary."

GRAYSON III: Holocaust?

Conservative bloggers are blasting Grayson for calling the plight of uninsured Americans a "holocaust":

• RedState's Erick Erickson: "Continuing his descent into insanity, Alan Grayson went back to the floor of the House of Representatives today to apologize for saying Republicans want people to die -- oblivious to his own support for euthanasia and abortion on demand. Instead of apologizing, Grayson said he wanted to apologize to Americans for this 'holocaust' in health care. Grayson, who thinks the Anti-Defamation League is 'a crazy racist institution', can neither see the irony or shame in his statement. The holocaust was real with a real meaning. Roping it into the health care debate cheapens what it was all about. And what is truly ironic is Grayson champions a system that actually would compel people into terminating their elderly relatives' lives as the elderly suffer at the back of a rationed health care line withering and dying. The National Republican Campaign Committee is collecting money, the sole purpose of which will be to defeat Alan Grayson. I suggest we all give."
• NRO's Geraghty: "I realize you can apparently set your watch to the regularly occuring foolish and obnoxious outbursts from Alan Grayson, the man who represents Orlando in the House of Representatives, but I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest that 'holocaust' is really not a word you can throw around casually when you're a congressman from Florida. So, just to follow the comparison, doctors, nurses, and our medical community are the Nazis in this metaphor, right?"
• The Weekly Standard's John McCormack: "How bad of a year was 2008 for the GOP? This guy narrowly defeated a four-term Republican incumbent in Orlando, Florida. [...] The good news: after saying on the House floor that the GOP health-care plan is for Americans to 'die quickly' if they get sick -- and then doubling-down today, calling the current health-care system an ongoing 'Holocaust' -- Rep. Alan Grayson will almost certainly be thrown out of office in 2010."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Bush > Obama?

Right Wing News' John Hawkins:

"Although I think Bush did a much better job on national security issues and foreign policy than people give him credit for, he was a huge disappointment on the domestic front. Yet, horrible approval rating and terrible messaging aside, Bush was a much better, more competent, and skilled President than Obama. That's even the case if you set aside ideological issues. Bush was more transparent, worked better with the other side, was a much more skilled diplomat, had a much better idea of what government could accomplish, and was several orders of magnitude more honest.

Bush was not a great President. On the domestic front, he wasn't even a good one. He also did great damage to the Republican Party by being so stubborn, obtuse, and by making so little effort to get his message out. But, all that said: When you get beyond the hyperbole and polling data, it's Obama, not Bush, who suffers when the two men are compared."

LEST WE FORGET: The Golden Rule?

From Overheard in New York:

Girl #1: Yeah, so my new boyfriend peed my bed the first night. After the second time, I broke up with him.
Girl #2: Good move. My motto is: "Pee my bed once, shame on you. Pee my bed twice, shame on me."

Posted by Ian Faerstein at 12:47 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.