Hilzoy, writing in the Washington Monthly, quotes an outraged commentary from respected legal analyst Scott Horton:

“Senate Republicans are now privately threatening to derail the confirmation of key Obama administration nominees for top legal positions by linking the votes to suppressing critical torture memos from the Bush era. A reliable Justice Department source advises me that Senate Republicans are planning to “go nuclear” over the nominations of Dawn Johnsen as chief of the Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) in the Department of Justice and Yale Law School Dean Harold Koh as State Department legal counsel if the torture documents are made public…It now appears that Republicans are seeking an Obama commitment to safeguard the Bush administration’s darkest secrets in exchange for letting these nominations go forward. (…)

Noting that this strategy dovetails with a conservative smear campaign against the two nominees, Hilzoy quite correctly calls it “completely appalling”. As he says:

The slurs on Koh and Johnsen are vile. They are widely respected legal scholars.
Besides the ugliness of the attacks, what the Republicans are doing is really unprecedented. First, the President has traditionally been given deference in the choice of his advisors. If some President wants to have someone in his cabinet, the presumption is that he ought to be able to do so, absent illegality or some sort of manifest incompetence. For the Republican Senators to hold these appointees up not for those reasons, but because they disagree with their policies, is just wrong; if this happened every time a new administration came into office, the opposition party would filibuster half the nominations and no one would never govern at all.
Second, what the Republicans are trying to do is to dictate to the President a matter that is purely his prerogative: deciding whether or not to unclassify documents. This is insane: it’s as though Obama threatened to withhold funding for the Senate unless Mitch McConnell fired some staffer he didn’t like.
And the combination — holding appointments hostage while trashing people’s reputations in order to keep Obama from making a decision he plainly has the right to make — is unconscionable.

It appears the Senate Republicans in question may have overestimated their latitude here, as evidenced by some great comments following Horton’s blog at The Daily Beast. As a commenter with the handle ‘Ultrahop’ responds:

Bring it on! Why back down? Let them filibuster. The public reaction would be rather decisive, I would think. Not every Senate Republican is going to stand on the side of torture. Does Olivia Snow believe in using torture? I think not.

And another who goes by ‘cbl99201’ adds:

I have to agree that these memoranda should see the light of day. This is one worth fighting over. Even Mcain would support it !!

And ‘pennsyskid2000’ notes perceptively:

I can’t wait to see attack ads against Repubs in 2010 for defending the Bush policy essentially advocating torture. I also don’t think filibustering will necessarily work in the long run. Senate Repub leader Bill Frist and other Repubs threatened to change the rules several years ago and require only a majority to confirm appointments, so the Dems can do the same and point to that Republican precedent to justify it. Once again, Republican short-sightedness will turn out to bite themselves in the ass.

Perhaps the best one comes from ‘fblevens’:

Full disclosure and impeachment are necessary only when sex acts are being performed within 20 feet of the Oval Office.
International war crimes? No worries.
Remarkable.

And Digby warns about the precedent that could be set:

Let’s hope Obama stands up to them. If he shows weakness with the Republicans on this, there will be no end to it when it comes to judicial nominees. And it is vitally important that Obama balances out the courts after the past 25 years of centrist to far right appointments.

Clearly President Obama is being tested by the more malevolent elements of the opposition. How he handles this one will indicate the limits of his tolerance for political blackmail — and perhaps his prospects in future confirmation battles.

A new survey of LVs by DCorps and Greenberg Quinlan Rosner, conducted 3/25-29, on the eve on Congress’ pending vote on President Obama’s budget, shows rising optimism among the electorate, continued popularity of President Obama, and “broad support for his priorities and approach to the budget, particularly when framed as a part of a long-term economic program.” (Analysis here, Crosstabs here, Survey PDF here)
The survey notes that 38 percent of LVs, “the highest level we have recorded in over three years,” now say the nation “is going in the right direction” and those rating “the state of the economy as cool” dropped 6 percent. Moreover, according to the survey overview:

The Republican Party remains marginal as the gap in feelings toward the two parties continues to be steady and large. Meanwhile, Obama continues to sustain his remarkable popularity; his 61 percent favorability rating and 58 percent approval ratings are both near their all-time highs. More important, the president earns extraordinary ratings on a range of key attributes, with 72 percent saying he is a strong leader and 74 percent saying he is willing to work with both parties, for instance. These scores are down only slightly from the halcyon days immediately following his inauguration.
…Six-in-ten voters agree with Obama’s argument that we can only fix the economy and create long-term prosperity with a broad agenda that includes investments in health care and energy (versus just 36 percent who agree with critics that say Obama should put those issues on hold until the financial crisis is past). And by nearly two-to-one they agree that Obama is right to seek solutions on a range of issues, not just the economy. Similarly strong majorities support Obama’s position that we can best balance the budget in the long term by making investments that will lead to economic growth (rather than by limiting spending) and reject the Republican assertion that Obama is trying to implement a radical liberal agenda after campaigning as a moderate.

But there is a cautionary note:

Obama’s budget, when presented alone, has stable majority support, however, that support lacks intensity and does not necessarily move voters to reward Members of Congress who support it. And Republican attacks, particularly those centered on linking the budget to AIG and bailouts, do have an effect, causing a slight shift in support away from the budget. The concern for progressives is that Obama’s plan might be seen as just a budget and be conflated with the unpopular bailouts of the financial and auto industries.

When the budget is presented in context as “part of a plan for long-term economic growth and prosperity” on the other hand, public support becomes “significantly stronger and more enthusiastic,” resulting in “a small net increase in voters’ intention to vote to reelect their Member, even after facing Republican attacks.”

Kevin Sullivan has an interesting RealClearPolitics.com review “Stan Greenberg & The Art of War” of TDS Co-Editor Stan Greenberg’s “Dispatches from the War Room: In the Trenches with Five Extraordinary Leaders.” Sullivan writes,

…Greenberg helped build the disciplined, message-oriented campaign that catapulted Bill Clinton into the White House in 1992. Offering clear choices and a deliverable platform to the electorate, Greenberg and his colleagues created a blueprint for running and winning tough campaigns for left-leaning candidates.

But Sullivan believes that Greenberg’s “most salient examples” flow from his work with Nelson Mandela, Ehud Barak and Tony Blair. “Greenberg soon found himself advising candidates at the highest level of national politics, based on his success at turning a long-shot southern governor into the President of the United States.” Regarding Mandela:

…Sought out by Nelson Mandela’s advisors and staff, Greenberg helped turn the successful reform movement of the African National Congress into a governable body with clear goals for all South Africans. Along with his colleagues, Greenberg helped to develop the “People’s Forum;” events akin to town hall forums that allowed the people to speak out and be closer to the iconic Mandela. These forums also aided the ANC in creating a feasible economic platform that met the needs of South Africans. “Apartheid is a trap,” wrote Greenberg, as the campaign team struggled with a way to create a message that didn’t box Mandela in as a dated reformer. Focusing instead on jobs and education, Greenberg helped the ANC translate ideals into action.

Sullivan sees the merit of Greenberg’s book thusly:

At times, “Dispatches” reads like a campaign manual: a peek inside focus groups, behind closed doors, and inside the pages of strategy drafts and campaign plans. The campaign, as Greenberg explains it, is a chaotic collection of interests, ideals and good intentions. These can all be respectively good things, Greenberg argues, but it’s ultimately the “tyranny of message” that helps organize and coordinate good campaigns. The book, therefore, is as much about leadership and the allocation of resources as it is about polling and survey research. If leadership, as Vice President Cheney argues, is about making tough decisions, than it is Greenberg’s contention that those tough decisions require the information, organization and clarity of message to pierce the clutter and resonate with the public.

And he sums it up:

…”Dispatches from the War Room” serves as a good manual for prospective candidates and campaigners alike. Intent on making the case for public opinion, Greenberg provides substantive examples for why this kind of consultation is important for making the tough – and even the not so tough – decisions that go along with democratic leadership. Organizing ideals into action, Greenberg offers young activists and consultants an inspired how-to on smart campaign strategy; a sort of Rules for Radicals Turned Realists. Anyone can simply take a poll, but not everyone can use that poll to inspire and lead. There’s a difference, and it’s a difference Stan Greenberg successfully advocates in this work.

A good plug for a good book, and one which deserves a thorough read by Democratic candidiates and campaign managers, especially those looking for victory in ’10.

The hypocrisy that underlays the GOP’s ‘big government’-bashing has been noted before, but seldom so well explained, as by Dr. Julian E. Zelizer, a professor of history and public affairs at Princeton University’s Woodrow Wilson School. Zelizer, author of forthcoming “Arsenal of Democracy: The Politics of National Security — From World War II to the War on Terrorism” and other political science texts, puts it this way in his commentary “GOP’s ‘small government’ talk is hollow” at CNN Politics.com:

After the past eight years in American politics, it is impossible to reconcile current promises by conservatives for small government with the historical record of President Bush’s administration. Most experts on the left and right can find one issue upon which to agree: The federal government expanded significantly after 2001 when George W. Bush was in the White House.
The growth did not just take place with national security spending but with domestic programs as well. Even as the administration fought to reduce the cost of certain programs by preventing cost-of-living increases in benefits, in many other areas of policy — such as Medicare prescription drug benefits, federal education standards and agricultural subsidies — the federal government expanded by leaps and bounds. And then there are the costs of Afghanistan and Iraq.

Zelizer points out that govenrment spending reached $1.9 trillion when President Clinton left office, while President Bush proposed spending $3.1 trillion this year. Republicans controlled both houses of congress betwen 2002 and 2006 when much of the increase occurred. The conservative Cato Institute reported in 2005 that total government spending increased by a third during Bush’s first term — “the largest overall increase in inflation-adjusted federal spending since Lyndon B. Johnson.”
Zelizer’s article also notes the expansion of executive power under Republican rule, hardly commensurate with their advocacy of smaller government.

Fifty years of American history have shown that even the party that traditionally advocates small government on the campaign trail opts for big government when it gets into power. The rhetoric of small government has helped Republicans attract some support in the past, but it is hard to take such rhetoric seriously given the historical record — and it is a now a question whether this rhetoric is even appealing since many Americans want government to help them cope with the current crisis.

Government-bashing is an ever-present staple of GOP propaganda. Dems should not hesitate to hold them accountable for their record, as well as their rhetoric, and Zelizer’s article provides one of the best responses thus far.

Good news for the President and Dems from a new bipartisan survey of 800 LV’s conducted 3/12 and 14 by Public Opinion Strategies in conjunction with Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research for National Public Radio. According to GQR’s executive summary (audio here):

The first bipartisan survey conducted for NPR by Public Opinion Strategies and Greenberg Quinlan Rosner since the 2008 election shows Barack Obama with high overall approval ratings and strong marks on handling the economy, but much more important, Democrats winning the big debates surrounding Obama’s first budget on taxes, energy, health care, and the deficit by significant margins.

Further,

On both energy and health care the Democratic message wins by 53 to 42 percent, a margin nearly twice the Democrats’ 6-point partisan advantage. A majority of voters also side with the Democratic argument on taxes (52 to 43 percent) and the deficit (51 to 45 percent).

And,

President Obama’s approval rating remains strong. Nearly six-in-ten voters (59 percent) approve of the job President Obama is doing while just 35 percent disapprove…Indeed, by a near two-to-one margin, voters think that Obama’s economic recovery package will help rather than hurt the economy (40 to 21 percent with 34 percent believing it will have little impact on the economy) and a strong majority favor the recovery package passed by Congress and signed into law by the President (55 percent favor to 42 percent oppose).

The poll findings indicate that retirement and job security are now the top priorities for LV’s. The survey found that “worries about the declining stock market and investment losses” matches “the number who mention loss of work, pay cuts or the inability to get a job” as the two leading concerns of respondents. For more, detail, see the PDF here.

Read Zuraya Tapia-Alfaro’s post today at NDN Blog for a link-rich update on the current politics of immigration.
In the Sunday New York Times, John Harwood weighs the pros and cons of President Obama abandoning the bipartisan consensus strategy and using filibuster-proof “budget reconciliation” rules to achieve his legislative goals for health care reform and energy independence.
The Associated Press has a report on the growing clout of the moderate New Democrat Coalition.
David Sirota’s “Harkin Delivers The Perfect EFCA Message” at OpenLeft is a good read for those seeking a “succinct smackdown” of the conservative argument that EFCA must be stopped to save the economy.
Crisitunity’s ‘Daily Digest’ at Swing State Project reports that Sen Arlen Specter will stay a Republican, according to Pennsylvania Governor Ed Rendell, who tried to persuade him otherwise.
Newsweek financial columnist Daniel Gross makes the case at Slate.com that Obama “should pay no attention to stock prices” in developing his economic reform strategy.
Sheri and Allan Rivlin have an insightful analysis up at Pollster.com today comparing public opinion towards health care reform in 1993 vs. today
WaPo‘s Chris Cillizza reports in ‘The Fix” that Team Obama is ready to launch “an unprecedented attempt to transfer the grass-roots energy built during the presidential campaign into an effort to sway Congress” to pass the Administration’s $3.55 trillion budget.

The current (3/18) issue of The New Republic sports a nifty ’30s-style prole art cover and the articles are organized around the theme “Obama’s New Deal.” Inside, TNR features an interesting discussion of one of the more important grand strategy choices Obama must make half way through the first hundred days — focusing his agenda, with TDS co-editor William Galston offering a critique of “Barack’s Too Long Wish List,” and a response by TNR’s Jonathan Cohn, “The Case for Presidential Multi-Tasking.” A couple of nut graphs from Galston:

Roosevelt organized his first term around two principles that the Obama administration would do well to ponder. First, he kept his (and the country’s) attention firmly fixed on a single task: ending the crisis of confidence and restarting economic activity. While he was more sensitive than previous presidents to the links among seemingly disparate issues, these interconnections in his view did not warrant trying to move on all fronts at once. The people and the Congress had to be brought along with an agenda and a narrative that they could understand.
Second, although FDR moved quickly starting on inauguration day, he never believed that his capacity to legislate would wane after his first year in office. On the contrary, he used early momentum to build popular support, yielding further congressional gains in 1934 and a massive landslide in 1936. The creative period of the New Deal continued until Roosevelt overreached in 1937 with his ill-considered proposal to reorganize (or as his detractors put it, “pack”) the Supreme Court.

And a teaser from Cohn:

…Obama’s multi-faceted strategy has certain clear advantages. For one thing, it keeps the right wing unsettled. With so many initiatives going forward, there’s no chance for conservatives to coalesce in opposition to any one issue. Instead of the entire conservative movement hammering away in unison, you have some of them going after health care, some of them going after earmarks, some of them going after cap-and-trade, and so on. In that sort of environment, few attacks resonate because they don’tt get the sustained attention they need.
The converse is true, of course; Obama isn’t giving the affirmative case sustained attention, either. But if neither side can rally its forces, then the most likely result would seem to be status quo politics. And status quo politics right now, I would argue, favors the party that just won a landslide presidential election while building up huge congressional majorities.

An interesting dialogue, and the choices about focus to be made in the weeks ahead may well determine the success of the President — and his party.

Greg Sargent’s Plum Line blog has some great news — the launching of “Progressive Media,” a new activist “war room” focused on pushing the Obama Administration’s agenda and message du jour. Progressive Media will be based at the Center for American Progress and will be staffed by a “nearly a dozen” activists. Sargent explains:

The Democratic operatives running the project are already holding a daily early morning call with dozens of operatives from liberal groups — labor, health care, the environment — to coordinate messaging and to deliver usable talking points for the day, according to liberal operative Jennifer Palmieri, who’s the project’s communications director.
The new war room — which is called Progressive Media — represents a serious ratcheting up of efforts to present a united liberal front in the coming policy wars. The goal of the war room will be to do hard-hitting research that boils down complex policy questions into usable talking points and narratives that play well in the media and build public support for the White House’s policy goals.
“We’re trying to break policy down into digestible bits that mean something to people,” Palmieri says, citing as an example an analysis the group did finding that 14,000 people a day are losing health care.

Progressive Media is a joint project of the Center for American Progress Action Fund and Media Matters for America Action Network and will be headed up by Tara McGuinness, an anti-war activist and former aide to Sen. John Kerry.