Posts filed under 'Politics'
A lot of people have criticized efforts by Obama and the Democratic leadership to get bipartisan support for legislation. I think this is a mistaken critique. For instance, it is hard for me to think of a successful social movement that didn’t involve at some point a good-faith attempt to engage the other side in a dialog. There are a lot of people out there who disagree with Obama and Pelosi and Reid and those people should have their voices heard.
This doesn’t mean giving in to ridiculous demands. Pelosi said hey, if the Republicans have good ideas we’ll include them. That is about right. And I have no problem with occasionally making concessions to ensure support, so long as the integrity of a bill is not compromised.
But with that willingness to hug it out, there must also be an understanding of the situation we’re in (and if at all possible, that understanding should be expressed in passive voice). Our political system is antiquated, and specifically designed to make structural and systemic change difficult. And the latter part is not a bad idea, especially when Republicans have devoted decades to tearing apart social insurance programs like social security and medicare.
But uh, the time for change is now. And that is going to mean using any legal means necessary to achieve reform. Pass the health care bill under budget reconciliation. Not because you have to, because you can. Because if you only need 51 yeas you are going to get a better bill. And to hell with the idea that there are certain types of things that don’t belong in this stimulus bill, and should be saved for a more appropriate piece of legislation. If it is a good idea and won’t prevent the bill’s passage, include it. Now is not the time for worrying about setting a bad precedent for how bills are created and passed. Now, as mentioned earlier, is the time for change.
And if Republicans want to filibuster, let them actually go through with it. See who really wants to talk for ten hours at a time to keep EFCA from becoming law. And for God’s sake, make these things better when they go to conference committee. It’s not cheating, it’s what they’re for. It’s what the Republicans have done since they could eat solid foods. If we see procedural loopholes that allow the abuse of legislative power we can pass laws to close them, but let’s not let misguided notions about how an ideal system should work prevent us from getting things done.
Another for instance, Gregg reportedly wants a promise that he’ll be replaced by a Republican if he vacates his seat to join the cabinet. That’s not how it works, bubba. New Hampshire has been shedding Republicans like waterweight since he was last elected, so I don’t see how Gregg’s actual constituents are best served by appointing a member from the minority party in that state to take his place.
Bipartisanship doesn’t mean agreeing the Republicans’ framing of the rules and issues. And if it does mean that, then it’s a stupendously bad idea. But being considerate and being persistent don’t have to be mutually exclusive. We’re not talking about cognitive dissonance, here, we’re talking about what’s necessary. I don’t think Obama gets the fighting aspect of the yin yang deal all the time, but he does get the other half, when so many progressives out there do not.
January 31st, 2009
The AP is reporting that NH senator Judd Gregg, a Republican, is high on the list of potential Secretary of Commerce nominees. It is rare, but not unheard of, for someone to leave the senate for a second tier cabinet position. Gregg, however, is up for election in 2 years in a state that Obama won by ten points. So maybe he sees the writing on the wall.
Obama can kill two birds here, answering calls for a more bipartisan cabinet, and also possibly adding that magical 60th Democratic senator, as the governor in New Hampshire is indeed a Dem. Obviously this part of the deal is not an afterthought, and is likely the primary calculus behind picking Gregg for the spot. And Gregg is a relatively moderate guy, with Commerce Sec being one of those unimportant posts that probably should be folded into another department.
I won’t believe this until I see it, because it certainly seems like Gregg would be taking a demotion, and one can only imagine what kind of threats the GOP leadership will make to keep him from abandoning ship.
I’m working on some broader posts about Obama and Congress, so I won’t get into this too much now, but I think this would be a great move. I think the only reason Obama didn’t try more of this is because he thought it would be hard to find takers. 60 Dems doesn’t guarantee anything, but it’s worth remembering that the stimulus bill just passed in the House with zero Republican votes. Having the option of busting up a filibuster with absolutely no Republican support would sure be nice, especially if Senate GOPers decide to be anywhere near as uncooperative as House conservatives.
January 30th, 2009
It’s tough to get too bent out of shape over any particular Obama appointment so far. They all seem to be very bright, competent folks. There is probably the most concern on the left over the Hillary appointment, and Spencer Ackerman has a very good piece detailing why this could be a problem. But it is hard to single out any one choice and say this is categorically a baaad idea.
However, viewed in totality, there are a few troubling signs. Obama didn’t run as a progressive ideologue and those expecting a bleeding heart cabinet were sorely misguided. But progressives had a lot to do with Obama’s victory in the primary and in the general as well. At some point in the night, you need to dance with the girl that brought you. Which means progressives can’t be completely shut out of an Obama administration. And so far, his foreign policy team (Clinton and Gates) is markedly to the right of where a lot of his supporters are. Holder and Napolitano are pretty much in the “effective pragmatist” mold we keep hearing about — not exactly innovative government reformers. Geithner and Summers are smart, but certainly not progressive. The list goes on.
The problem for progressives is that they usually are locked out of the big government gigs. So it’s easy to say don’t appoint any lefties, because everyone will be mad, and they don’t have any experience running things, anyway. And to a certain extent, you want a steady, well-practiced hand in times of crisis. Additionally, you don’t want to expend political capital on appointments that are spit out by the Senate or ineffective once accepted.
This, however, is the same slippery slope Bill slid down. He worried about criticism he’d take (and did take) for picking progressives, and basically played it safe. So by the time he left office, he hadn’t really made any progress in terms of injecting liberals into the bloodstream of power. This isn’t even a question of dominating all areas of bureaucracy, it’s just a matter of giving the side that fucking won a seat at the table.
Dubya, of course, had the opposite problem. One of his enduring legacies will be all the young conservatives he stuffed the federal courts with, and all the ideologue hacks he tossed into various government bureaucracies. Obama can’t only hire “pragmatic centrists” who are going to worry about hurting feelings if they clean house and get rid of the folks who had no business holding those jobs in the first place. Pragmatic need not be a synonym for conventional.
Smarter men than I have noted that the key isn’t to keep from appearing too left wing or too weak or any of those things. The key is getting things done, which will involve pushing for institutional change and dramatic reforms, when necessary. If we have affordable health care and our troops home in four years, etc., voters will have no trouble reelecting progressives, or socialists, or pragmatists, or nihilists, or whatever god damn word we want to attach to the folks who work for a successful administration.
November 23rd, 2008
This is for everyone who thinks I’m too hard on John Edwards. This right here! I’ve always felt that John Edwards and Bill Clinton had more than a little used car salesman in them. Maybe every politician does. The only difference is, I’d probably still buy the car from Bill.
November 15th, 2008
Speculation over cabinet appointments isn’t especially useful. And lacking any real insider knowledge, most of my guesses on what’s going on behind the scenes are amateur speculation. Or wrong. Wrong would be another word for what they are. And yet I continue. I really like the idea of Clinton as Secretary of State.
The other top choices being floated around are Bill Richardson, John Kerry and Dick Lugar. The SecState needs to be well-liked (sorry, Kerry), and perceived as strong (sorry, Kerry) and competent (sorry, Bill). And we need to give some top foreign policy jobs to Dems, so we can kill this ridiculous “Dems are weak on foreign policy” meme. Which brings us to sorry, Lugar.
No one has ever accused Clinton of being weak. And while some worry that she is too hawkish on FP, she won’t really be pushing her own agenda as Sec. Remember, Colin Powell was significantly more moderate than the rest of the Bush Administration, and yet he was still willing to sell his soul make the case for war at the UN Security Council. Because the SecState serves at the leisure of the Prez and all that.
The real question is whether she’d want to give up her seat for it. I had originally thought no, but it seems like she’s farther away a leadership role in the Senate than she deserves to be, as having seniority in the Senate means you can remember voting for FDR’s wacky New Deal.
If she could stay and help run the Senate, that’d be swell. Because she’d be a hell of a lot better than an invertebrate Mormon, say. But if that’s not in the cards, this could be a good option. I think her acceptance is still contingent on this possibly being an 8-year stint, which it usually isn’t. Who wants to give up what is basically tenure in the Senate for a four-year wham bam thank you ma’am? So this means that she has to think Obama will do well enough to earn a second term and that she’ll do well enough to earn a second term. Chris Bowers calls it a high-risk, high-reward opportunity. And as everyone knows, Chris Bowers calls em like he sees em.
Offering her the job seems like a smart move by Obama. In a way, it’s more of a sign of respect than saying be my VP, because it’s not some political shotgun marriage, and the SOS actually has some responsibility (unlike VPS and those darned community organizers). It says, you’re smart, I’m smart, let’s DO this. Now it’s up to Hil if she wants to bide her time in the Senate or take on a new challenge. Either Obama gets a good SOS out of it, or he gets points for asking. Or I don’t know what I’m talking about.
And we can all laugh at how women can’t catch a break: You want to be president, and end up someone’s secretary instead.
November 15th, 2008
The fact that it is being widely reported that Kerry is making a big push for Sec’y of State probably means one of four things:
1) He’s just not that clever about these maneuvers. No one wants it known they are actively saying, “appoint me”.
2) The Obama Team is floating his name to see if the reaction is overwhelmingly negative or just kind of negative.
3) Kerry was promised the appointment in return for his primary endorsement and doesn’t want Obama to reneg.
4) He was asked if he would take the post and wanted to say, “it depends”, but that had already gotten him in trouble. So he just said “yes”.
I actually have a lot of admiration for Kerry, and I’m almost postive I’ll prefer him to whoever else might get the job. But my feeling is that appointing Kerry would expend more political capital than it’s worth. And that’s a shame. You gotta feel some sympathy for the guy. He can’t quietly jockey for power, he can’t win outside of Massachusetts, and he can’t tell a joke to save his life. These are pretty important abilities for most pols.
November 6th, 2008
It seemed overwhelmingly likely that Obama was going to win for some time, so while I was relieved on election day, I was also mildly disappointed about a few of the other results. I didn’t want to toss out some pessimistic post and ruin anyone’s post-election high. Fortunately, in the words of Jeffrey Lebowski, certain things have come to light, and given the nature of this new shit, I have a much better feeling about where we’re headed.
As per my Congressional Primer post, I still think the best looking issue — and coincidentally the most important issue — is energy reform. Between the Cousins Udall in NM and CO, Merkley in OR, Shaheen in NH and just maybe Franken Berry in MN (in fact, I’m gonna go ahead and predict he wins the recount, and I think it will also tighten in AK for Begich), there are a lot of green freshmen entering the Senate. I’ll let that ridiculous pun sink in and then point out that another huge development is taking place in the House.
Congressman Waxman is challenging Michigan Man John Dingell for chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee. Dingell is strongly sympathetic to the auto industry and has been mucking up climate change legislation and CAFE standards for years. He’s from Detroit, so it would be politically suicidal for him to do anything else. That is why we need to bring out the cane. Waxman is a complete badass, easily one of the best Congressmen in all the land. And there is no love lost between Dingell and Pelosi, so hopefully she’ll help oust him.
And if that weren’t enough, RFK Jr. is being mentioned as possible head of the EPA, the organization that in recent years censored its climate change reports and refused to let California raise emission standards. Robert is the best man I can think to turn this agency around. Obama has said that energy reform is his top priority after he takes steps to stabilize the economy, and so far I’m thinking he might be serious.
The bad news is that Obama looks to be taking a pretty middle of the road approach to the economy.
This is an oversimplification, but basically most of the economics guys who are going to be advising Obama or heading up the Treasury are the Clinton deregulators; Larry “Barefoot and Pregnant” Summers, Robert Rubin, and Tim Geithner. Now, these are all smart cats, and they have signaled that they understand the need for economic stimulus and oversight given the hole we’re in, blah blah blah. But it’s a shame that there won’t be more input from more left of center academics like Krugman and DeLong in an Obama administration. Krugman, of course, cooked his own goose by strongly criticizing Obama in the primary, and has indicated he doesn’t like advising politicians, anyway.
Really, it’s just a shame that there isn’t more ideological diversity among Obie’s economic advisors (with the notable exception of Warren Buffet). It could come from wherever, I don’t care.
Definitely a mixed bag here, but there are definitely some encouraging signs.
Update: I guess there is some opposition to RFK Jr. as head of the EPA or Sec of Interior in the scientific community, because he’s one of the people who is anti-vaccine, believing it causes autism, although there just isn’t much empirical evidence supporting that theory. This is where I feel stupid, because I really have no idea if he’s an unqualified ideologue, or this is an isolated case of bad judgment.
November 6th, 2008
To hear some pundits tell it, millions of voters switched their allegiance to Ronald Reagan right after he uttered the words “There you go again.” These debates are important in part, simply because we say they are. As I’ve said, I don’t think they tell us much about any of the players and issues involved (I already knew Brokaw was a blowhard, already pretty sure I liked Obama’s health plan better than McCain’s, etc).
Some people mentioned the visual juxtaposition of a young, energetic candidate standing next to an old man. I thought it was even more disturbing to listen to to McCain’s labored breathing into the mic (Tony Soprano, anyone?), and he also sounded scatterbrained on a number of answers. Obama was pretty strong for the first few minutes — when the most people are watching — and they both seemed to get lost in uninteresting, meandering answers during the middle innings.
I still worry about all the Americans who think Obama is Muslim, or unpatriotic, or who just don’t want to vote for the black fella. I think the polls are likely to tighten before November. But I’m pretty sure he’s going to win, and he’s going to have close to a 60-seat majority in the senate as well.
With the markets in free-fall, home foreclosures continuing to cripple the economy, and more and more Americans fearing for their futures, a lot of other things just seem really unimportant. I think McCain and Palin are disrespectful and dishonest, but I only take that seriously because they are the second-most likely duo to waltz into the Oval Office in January. But McPalin isn’t really a serious ticket; it doesn’t discuss serious issues, and it doesn’t offer serious solutions.
What matters now is how forceful Obama and the Democrats are willing to be in taking the necessary measures to address the economic woes of the country and the world, and then working to create more efficient and sustainable ways of doing things. That is going to mean putting a lot of the cleanup cost for this on the backs of the rich. It’s going to mean offering real relief to a lot of home owners with unmanageable mortgages — because the economy is not going to recover without a less toxic housing market. It’s going to mean reforming health care so it isn’t nearly as big a drain on the average paycheck.
And it’s going to require serious investment in alternative energy, infrastructure rebuilding, job creation, effective regulations on financial institutions, and almost assuredly, it’s going to require temporary nationalization of the banks.
You may disagree with the solutions I propose, but most of you will probably agree with the diagnosis; we’re in deep shit. Even a more damning juxtaposition than McCain’s age and Obama’s youth, is McCain’s petulance and selfishness contrasted with the serious times we’re living in.
October 8th, 2008
Barack calling McCain out on Iraq was the most memorable moment of the night. It’s possible that will be what sticks with voters. More please! I thought he did ok in terms of composure and command of the facts and all that. But more saber-rattling in defense of Georgia? Georgia? I’m also excited that, like Reagan, he’s for missile defense, because Star Wars was one of my favorite movies as a kid. Jesus Christ. I know Samantha Power wouldn’t have told Obama to say this stuff.
It is curious to me that Obie feels the need to sprinkle in these cynical panders about issues that I don’t think are at the top of anyone’s Christmas list. It’s less important than McCain pretending he hasn’t been for deregulation since Moses parted the Red Sea (or at least Keating 5), but it might be just as far from the truth. I don’t really know.
Plus, when Jim Lehrer gives you multiple opportunities to explain the tough decisions you are willing to make, in light of the astronomically expensive bailout we’re lurching towards, that is the time to channel FDR or JFK even, and say something meaningful. Best chance of the night for either one to step up, and neither did. No, budget freezes don’t count. Also, they should really let Walter Cronkite Lehrer moderate all the debates. Or elect him president, as TPM suggested.
Let me just conclude by saying that I’m disappointed with Obama only because I expect a lot from him. He’s my favorite presidential candidate of my lifetime, and I liked Kerry and Gore. And I’m not part of the in crowd, so I don’t have anything but an abstract idea of the pressures of a national campaign and the realities of what is politically feasible and what is not. But after watching last night’s debate I’m more inclined to agree with Mr. Penn than I would like.
September 27th, 2008
I think I’ve reached the point of being too cynical to render effective judgment. I just always assume McCain’s sophomoric pranks are going to work for him, because they always work for Republicans. I thought Palin would work, I thought “suspending” his campaign would work, and I thought he won the debate.
His “what the upstart from Illinois doesn’t understand” routine worked for me, although next time he might want to cut down on the seething contempt. If voters see me as a qualified and honorable man, and I really believe my opponent isn’t a qualified and honorable man and indicate as much, that can be an authentic and effective argument. Unfortunately, the only thing undercutting that line of attack for John McCain, was Barack Obama standing right beside him, appearing rather presidential and honorable.
And McCain went on and on about earmarks. Earmarks beat up your kid. Earmarks stole your parking space. To be clear, these earmark responses were avoiding the real question. But it’s something he has a record on. At the very least, the man knows enough to talk up his strengths.
I was equally enamored with “Here is a story of me doing things when I was younger. Clearly I have a reputation for doing things. And I think the solution for the future just might be ‘doing things’, my friends.” He could have used better examples (even factually accurate ones), but saying this is what I did in past crises, and that’s the kind of leadership you can look for in future crises — that is a powerful argument.
September 27th, 2008
Previous Posts