Apologies for not posting very often. I've been busy being employed and girl-friended. I can't say I mind. As always I promise to be better in the future.
I wanted to write briefly about my favorite pol Nancy Pelosi. Her recent row with the CIA is interesting to me in two ways.
First, she is full of it! As the leader of the Democratic party in the house she damned well better have known what the CIA was doing with their "enhanced interrogation" techniques, if he didn't she's incompetent and should be replaced! The idea fact is she got caught. She knew about the torture policy long before she denied knowing about it. And why not? She was running for re-election and it doesn't help her cause to be complicit with a government dominated by the other party. Never mind that she's lying. The idea that her staffer told her and not the CIA is ridiculous on its face and is only to be believed by people predisposed to giving her a pass.
Second, Rep. Hoyer is doing his damnedest to stab her in the back. His response has been, at best, luke warm support for his party boss. Let us not forget that John Murtha was Pelosi's pick for Majority leader and that Hoyer won that election among house Democrats over her objections. He wants her job. His willingness to apply the same standard to her leadership as she does the Bush administration is evidence enough. When he called for the facts to come out and did not rule out an investigation to determine the truth he might as well have declared war on Pelosi's leadership (not that there wasn't open warfare already...).
So what does this mean?
Basically Pelosi is exactly who we thought she was. A bit of a calculating politician who is not overly burdened with details or facts when they do not support her electorial goals. In many ways she is the Democratic party equal of Tom Delay and no less dispicable.
We've also learned that Hoyer is not worried about the Republican party. His open criticism of his party's leadership indicates that he does not believe the R's have a chance in hell in '10. He doesn't want to be minority leader of the house, he wants to be speaker. If he thought the D's were vulnerable he would not dare undermine the top of the party before the midterm. I for one think he is right... on more than one level but that's a different issue. Barring some sort of charasmatic leader emerging the Republicans are boned in '10. They might hold steady but doing much better than that is wishful thinking. That means that we should all be watching as Pelosi and Hoyer sharpen their knives for a leadership fight after the '10 congress is seated.
The Democrats cerca 2010 might fight themselves in a better possition than the Republicans in 2002 despite the electorial win for R's that year. Unlike that Republican party the Democrats are still fairly fresh to their congressional majorities and the party leadership can turn over a few times before becoming feckless. Gingrich fell to Delay in 1998, a change I thought was a net negative at the time. Maybe if Pelosi falls to Hoyer in 2010 the country can chaulk it up as a win.
Required Reading:
John Dickerson
Friday, May 15, 2009
Tuesday, December 30, 2008
God the news is boring
Who knew lame duck presidencies would be so lame? I guess I should write a bit about the Israeli bombing... but even that's pretty boring from an analysis point of view.
Until I get around to writing that short post... I'm taking bets on whether this guy's predictions come true:
Check it out
I'll give you 4 to 1 even.
Step right up!
Some more predictions... not quite as fabulous but still interesting.
Until I get around to writing that short post... I'm taking bets on whether this guy's predictions come true:
Check it out
I'll give you 4 to 1 even.
Step right up!
Some more predictions... not quite as fabulous but still interesting.
Sunday, December 14, 2008
On suggestion
I'd like to nominate a top 10 songs that everyone should hear before they die. This is very much off the top of my head, so please add additions and objections in the comments. This list is intentionally eclectic and is deliberately held to no standard other than the normative.
In no particular order
1) Let it Be - The Beatles
2) Piano Man - Billy Joel (The link is to the music video, but it won't let me embed)
3) Sympathy for the Devil - Rolling Stones (See Blood Sweat and Tears Cover)
4) Comfortably Numb - Pink Floyd
5) Jungleland - Bruce Springsteen
6) Roadhouse Blues - The Doors
7) Something in the Way She Moves - James Taylor
8) You Are my Sunshine - Johny Cash, Bob Dylan
9) Graceland - Paul Simon
10) Africa - Toto (See Andy McKee for one of the most amazing things ever)
Honorable Mention: Thunder Road - Bruce Springsteen
In no particular order
1) Let it Be - The Beatles
2) Piano Man - Billy Joel (The link is to the music video, but it won't let me embed)
3) Sympathy for the Devil - Rolling Stones (See Blood Sweat and Tears Cover)
4) Comfortably Numb - Pink Floyd
5) Jungleland - Bruce Springsteen
6) Roadhouse Blues - The Doors
7) Something in the Way She Moves - James Taylor
8) You Are my Sunshine - Johny Cash, Bob Dylan
9) Graceland - Paul Simon
10) Africa - Toto (See Andy McKee for one of the most amazing things ever)
Honorable Mention: Thunder Road - Bruce Springsteen
Thursday, December 11, 2008
Bail-out is likely dead
The Senate couldn't bring itself to give the car companies a 14 billion dollar loan.
I guess this means that they'll likely file for bankruptcy. Most likely will hurt worse than the extra debt in the short-term. Long-term is harder to say.
I'm really out of thoughts on this one. Nobody agrees with anything except that we'd like the economy to be better. It's tough to say whether government action is helpful in accomplishing that goal. For now the auto industry appears to have been judged and been found(left) wanting.
Sorry Michigan, your unemployment rate is likely to bump above 15% soon.
I guess this means that they'll likely file for bankruptcy. Most likely will hurt worse than the extra debt in the short-term. Long-term is harder to say.
I'm really out of thoughts on this one. Nobody agrees with anything except that we'd like the economy to be better. It's tough to say whether government action is helpful in accomplishing that goal. For now the auto industry appears to have been judged and been found(left) wanting.
Sorry Michigan, your unemployment rate is likely to bump above 15% soon.
Wednesday, December 10, 2008
Senate seat for sale!
Only 2500 bucks apparently for a seat in the Senate. Okay, we don't really know how much governor Rod Blagojevich was asking... and he's not convicted yet anyway. With that disclaimer out of the way, wow! Typical Chicago politics, eh? Good thing we don't elect folks from Illinois for major public office, imagine the sort of things they would have to do to succeed in an environment like that? I mean, one would have to attend the right revolutionary theology church, pay homage to the right radical and make sure to pay off the right real estate crook just to have a shot at being elected to state office...
Okay, that was a bit of a cheap shot. And, I assume every politician is corrupt so I'm not terribly offended when one gets caught.
Still the question presents itself: will this have an effect on the Obama presidency? It is 'his' senate seat, his party's governor and early supporter of his campaign. So guilt by association applies.
The quick answer to whether or not this will hurt Obama is "no." A few reasons:
1) Nobody natoinally knew who this governor was before just now, so the fall from grace isn't really that far. Thus, can't pull Obama down too far either.
2) Obama is not in state politics anymore, he's distant enough to say "who's that guy?" without any problem.
3) Obama's still coated with Teflon. There's no way something that doesn't directly link Obama with aproving of the governor's "sale" will actually hurt him because he's too well liked. E.G.: Reagan during Iran-Contra. He can get away with a simple denial because most want to believe him.
4) This governor was very unpopular before he was corrupt - Obama is popular - they clearly have nothing to do with each other...
I could list another dozen reasons but you get the theme, Obama's too popular, too far removed and too slick for this to even be remembered outside of circles that already hate him.
It's been a bad week for the governor of Illinois, but not so bad for Obama. I predict it will stay contained to Blagojevich's office and maybe those folks who were putting in bids if the prosecutor can prove it. Obama should simply deny deny deny and then demand that everyone "move on with the business of the country" and he will be fine.
He could also distract the public with this story from Japan
Okay, that was a bit of a cheap shot. And, I assume every politician is corrupt so I'm not terribly offended when one gets caught.
Still the question presents itself: will this have an effect on the Obama presidency? It is 'his' senate seat, his party's governor and early supporter of his campaign. So guilt by association applies.
The quick answer to whether or not this will hurt Obama is "no." A few reasons:
1) Nobody natoinally knew who this governor was before just now, so the fall from grace isn't really that far. Thus, can't pull Obama down too far either.
2) Obama is not in state politics anymore, he's distant enough to say "who's that guy?" without any problem.
3) Obama's still coated with Teflon. There's no way something that doesn't directly link Obama with aproving of the governor's "sale" will actually hurt him because he's too well liked. E.G.: Reagan during Iran-Contra. He can get away with a simple denial because most want to believe him.
4) This governor was very unpopular before he was corrupt - Obama is popular - they clearly have nothing to do with each other...
I could list another dozen reasons but you get the theme, Obama's too popular, too far removed and too slick for this to even be remembered outside of circles that already hate him.
It's been a bad week for the governor of Illinois, but not so bad for Obama. I predict it will stay contained to Blagojevich's office and maybe those folks who were putting in bids if the prosecutor can prove it. Obama should simply deny deny deny and then demand that everyone "move on with the business of the country" and he will be fine.
He could also distract the public with this story from Japan
Tuesday, December 9, 2008
The Transition
The last few weeks of political action have been fairly dull compared to the election. Though one thing that is slightly different is happening and is worth a note: Obama is getting his administration together FAST.
Neither Bush nor Clinton had all his cabinet secretaries picked out by inauguration day. Most new presidents tend to ease into the job. Only GHW Bush has ever had anything close to the pace of Obama's transition and that is because he was basically an incumbent.
Why is Obama moving so quickly? And why has not there been a single leftist named to a Cabinet position?
I believe that Obama has only one true goal: to succeed. I'm convinced that he is putting together a "team of rivals" for reasons more akin to Bill Clinton's politics than Lincoln's. He wants to have a presidency that the historians judge to be a good one. It means that he will be risk-adverse, non-ideological and calculating. This is not a criticism, there have been Presidents who have had the same philosophy of government that have been very successful, such as Franklin Roosevelt. When analysing his reasoning it's important to keep in mind that he is most often not doing things because he believes that they are "right." Rather he is doing things because he believes that they are "best."
To explain his haste with picking his cabinet we can divide his reasoning into two categories: Practical and Political.
Practical:
GW Bush is one of the lamest of lame ducks and there is a strong public demand for governance. Bush is not able to provide because he has been politically castrated. This is a problem beyond a normal end-of-term president because he has become so independently unpopular and things have gone poorly. As always the blame and credit sticks to the president. So while there are and will be defenders of the Bush legacy for now his efficacy is lower than a worm's belly.
This means that Obama is being looked to for leadership. He doesn't have power, and sure as heck Bush isn't going to give him the reigns one day earlier than he has to but Obama has the opportunity to set out all the ground work for a policy agenda before he actually takes office. This requires clear indications of who is in charge and who holds the power, thus he nominates his cabinet earlier than most presidents to cement his roll as leader and enable him to get off to a running start.
Political:
Obama has another challenge during this transition. Maintaining the political mandate to govern. The Republican Party is, for now, deep into its "loyal opposition" role. The Republicans were offended by Democrats that were so "disloyal" during the Bush administration and believe that they can teach them a lesson in proper decorum by refusing to use the same tactics. Republicans are wasting if they think that anyone is going to give them credit for being nice. Calling the president a "liar and a murder" on the floor of the congress is far more effective at alienating the public than saying he's got a "different opinion." Still, the Republicans are so far refusing to lower themselves to actually attacking Obama and it is something Obama should not take for granted. The Republicans are basically telling Obama that as long as he doesn't offend them, he will have a free(ish) hand. Obama has strengthened his position vis-a-vis the Republicans by acting quickly to set up his administration before they can decide they want to be harsher with their criticism.
Also, he's nominating a bunch of big named moderates. No Senate will even debate the confirmation of Hillary Clinton or Robert Gates or any of this other picks so far. They could pass his whole Cabinet by voice vote on a slate. He's trying not to pick fights over his advisers by tapping folks that have a political base beyond his own. This allows him to co-opt some of the possible opposition leadership and force everybody else to pay tribute to him for making picks that are beyond his assumed comfort area... thus singling that he is open to advice even from those with whom he disagrees. Leftists among his picks would make the whole process slower and riskier because they might encourage opposition from the right. At the moment Obama has nothing to fear from the left because he is still their golden child, so for expediency's sake they're being ignored so that he can get his administration running ASAP. The moderates will help Obama fill the leadership vacuum in Washington more quickly because there'll be no debate over their confirmation. Obama is counting on the fact that the President sets policy and governs not the secretary of State or Defense to defend himself from being out-flanked from the left in coming years... and he's probably safe in doing so.
Neither Bush nor Clinton had all his cabinet secretaries picked out by inauguration day. Most new presidents tend to ease into the job. Only GHW Bush has ever had anything close to the pace of Obama's transition and that is because he was basically an incumbent.
Why is Obama moving so quickly? And why has not there been a single leftist named to a Cabinet position?
I believe that Obama has only one true goal: to succeed. I'm convinced that he is putting together a "team of rivals" for reasons more akin to Bill Clinton's politics than Lincoln's. He wants to have a presidency that the historians judge to be a good one. It means that he will be risk-adverse, non-ideological and calculating. This is not a criticism, there have been Presidents who have had the same philosophy of government that have been very successful, such as Franklin Roosevelt. When analysing his reasoning it's important to keep in mind that he is most often not doing things because he believes that they are "right." Rather he is doing things because he believes that they are "best."
To explain his haste with picking his cabinet we can divide his reasoning into two categories: Practical and Political.
Practical:
GW Bush is one of the lamest of lame ducks and there is a strong public demand for governance. Bush is not able to provide because he has been politically castrated. This is a problem beyond a normal end-of-term president because he has become so independently unpopular and things have gone poorly. As always the blame and credit sticks to the president. So while there are and will be defenders of the Bush legacy for now his efficacy is lower than a worm's belly.
This means that Obama is being looked to for leadership. He doesn't have power, and sure as heck Bush isn't going to give him the reigns one day earlier than he has to but Obama has the opportunity to set out all the ground work for a policy agenda before he actually takes office. This requires clear indications of who is in charge and who holds the power, thus he nominates his cabinet earlier than most presidents to cement his roll as leader and enable him to get off to a running start.
Political:
Obama has another challenge during this transition. Maintaining the political mandate to govern. The Republican Party is, for now, deep into its "loyal opposition" role. The Republicans were offended by Democrats that were so "disloyal" during the Bush administration and believe that they can teach them a lesson in proper decorum by refusing to use the same tactics. Republicans are wasting if they think that anyone is going to give them credit for being nice. Calling the president a "liar and a murder" on the floor of the congress is far more effective at alienating the public than saying he's got a "different opinion." Still, the Republicans are so far refusing to lower themselves to actually attacking Obama and it is something Obama should not take for granted. The Republicans are basically telling Obama that as long as he doesn't offend them, he will have a free(ish) hand. Obama has strengthened his position vis-a-vis the Republicans by acting quickly to set up his administration before they can decide they want to be harsher with their criticism.
Also, he's nominating a bunch of big named moderates. No Senate will even debate the confirmation of Hillary Clinton or Robert Gates or any of this other picks so far. They could pass his whole Cabinet by voice vote on a slate. He's trying not to pick fights over his advisers by tapping folks that have a political base beyond his own. This allows him to co-opt some of the possible opposition leadership and force everybody else to pay tribute to him for making picks that are beyond his assumed comfort area... thus singling that he is open to advice even from those with whom he disagrees. Leftists among his picks would make the whole process slower and riskier because they might encourage opposition from the right. At the moment Obama has nothing to fear from the left because he is still their golden child, so for expediency's sake they're being ignored so that he can get his administration running ASAP. The moderates will help Obama fill the leadership vacuum in Washington more quickly because there'll be no debate over their confirmation. Obama is counting on the fact that the President sets policy and governs not the secretary of State or Defense to defend himself from being out-flanked from the left in coming years... and he's probably safe in doing so.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
