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 October 29, 2009 12:31 PM