Even St. Ronald the First supports the Buffett Rule. Here's the video. It's only a minute long and very much worth viewing for Democrats and Republicans alike.
So now we have a "radical socialist anti-colonial" who as President has:
-advocated changes to the tax code that Reagan also proposed,
-passed a similar health plan to ones supported by Mitt Romney, mid-90's Senate Republicans, and leaders at the conservative Heritage Foundation, while refusing to fight for a public option or single payer,
-passed a stimulus bill that was too small and largely constituted of tax cuts,
-expanded gun rights, earning an F from the anti-gun Brady Campaign,
-extended the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy,
-kept Gitmo open, continued drone attacks and generally continued Bush's foreign policy.
You can agree or disagree with Obama's policies, but to call his Presidency anything other than centrist, or even conservative, is so laughable I couldn't take seriously anyone who would make the claim.
Showing posts with label Barack Obama. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Barack Obama. Show all posts
Monday, October 3, 2011
Monday, September 26, 2011
Obama's tax proposal not "playing to base"
In the last couple weeks, President Obama has advocated plans to pay for his jobs bill and to pay down the deficit by raising taxes on the rich. Many in the media have interpreted this to be Obama "playing to his base". The New York Times' David Brooks laments that Obama's proposal will "fire up liberals but are designed to enrage moderates and conservatives." The theory goes that Progressives are upset over not getting as much as they wanted during Obama's administration, and he's trying to make them happy by waging class warfare, moderates be damned.
It would seem that raising taxes on the wealthy is the sort of thing that would only appeal to pinko-liberal commies like me, and that by advocating tax increases for the rich, Obama is abandoning his long record of compromise and seeking the center (working with Republicans to cut spending, pushing for "grand bargain" with Boehner, not advocating a public option, agreeing to extend Bush's tax cuts, etc).
However, this is clearly not the case, based on recent polling (New York Times (.pdf), Washington Post, NBC/Wall Street Journal (.pdf), Gallup). Depending on how the question is asked, between 54% and 80% of moderates and independents favor these tax increases.
Obama's electoral strategy, as previously discussed, will likely depend on portraying himself as the "adult in the room" trying to govern the nation while Republicans refuse to compromise. Republicans would be helped by stories of Obama playing to his base. But the numbers show that's not what he's doing.
It would seem that raising taxes on the wealthy is the sort of thing that would only appeal to pinko-liberal commies like me, and that by advocating tax increases for the rich, Obama is abandoning his long record of compromise and seeking the center (working with Republicans to cut spending, pushing for "grand bargain" with Boehner, not advocating a public option, agreeing to extend Bush's tax cuts, etc).
However, this is clearly not the case, based on recent polling (New York Times (.pdf), Washington Post, NBC/Wall Street Journal (.pdf), Gallup). Depending on how the question is asked, between 54% and 80% of moderates and independents favor these tax increases.
Obama's electoral strategy, as previously discussed, will likely depend on portraying himself as the "adult in the room" trying to govern the nation while Republicans refuse to compromise. Republicans would be helped by stories of Obama playing to his base. But the numbers show that's not what he's doing.
Thursday, May 6, 2010
What is everyone so angry about? Part 2
As discussed in part 1, conservative media repeatedly portray Obama as a socialist in order to provide cover for not negotiating/compromising with him. In addition to portraying deficits and spending as out of line with historical norms (despite being in line with Bush's last months and CBO projections at the start of his Presidency), they frequently cite the federal government taking a partial ownership in banks and car companies as a condition for saving those companies from extinction with billions of dollars of taxpayer dollars. What Hannity & Co. miss, with these claims, is that it was noted Socialist George W. Bush who required banks give stock to the government in exchange for a bailout, and that doing anything else would have required either a second Great Depression or a massive giveaway to Wall Street.
There was a legitimate debate around the time of TARP (the bank bailout bill) about whether or not taking an ownership stake in companies was a good idea. Just about everyone agreed that letting the banks go out of business would destroy the economy. It was also widely agreed that government cash was the only way that these companies would be kept from closing their doors. Numerous prominent Republicans supported taking ownership in bailed-out banks, including the Bush White House, Senate GOP Leader Mitch McConnell, House GOP Leaders John Boehner and Eric Cantor, along with 89 other House Republicans and 32 other GOP Senators. You can't call Obama a socialist for taking over banks without putting the same label on the GOP. Theirs was not the socialistic goal of achieving government ownership of production; it was to save our (mostly-) capitalist economy.
This claim that Obama took over banks also rings somewhat hollow as he, ya know, wasn't President then.
When Obama actually was President, he applied the same logic that Bush and the GOP leadership (and then-Sen. Obama) did with TARP in bailing out GM and Chrysler. Bush had already allocated billions of dollars to save the two. Obama followed Bush's deal with the banks that, if the federal government was going to share in the risk of loss of billions of dollars, that they should get a share of the potential profits as well.
Another problem with the "Obama-as-Socialist" meme is that he's so bad at it, were that his actual goal. Under Obama's administration, the government has sold back most of the stakes it took in banks, and GM has repaid billions of its debt. His supposed socialist takeover of our health care system expands private insurance much more than it expands government-run plans. In one breath, they criticize Obama as a Socialist who is out to lead a government takeover of the banks, and in the next breath, they say he is in bed with them. They'll twist reality in any way necessary to attack Obama and de-legitimize his policies.
One of my biggest beefs with the Tea Party and the conservative media is that they overemphasize critiques of Obama policies without properly acknowledging the alternatives to those policies. The only alternatives to Obama's action regarding partial ownership of GM and Chrysler were either letting the companies fail by refusing to help them, which would have destroyed millions of jobs, or to give the corporations something for nothing, giving them billions without asking for anything in return. Those alternatives, of course, don't look as good on a sign at a rally as a picture of Obama with a Hitler mustache.
I hold out hope that as November approaches, conservatives will be forced to say what they will do if returned to power, instead of just what they oppose. Opposing Obama's deficits and spending is all well and good in the abstract, but you can't slash the deficit or lower taxes without specific ideas about what spending to cut. As we'll discuss in Part 3, Tea Partiers, and Americans in general, are susceptible to such vague rhetoric because they have no idea what the government actually spends taxpayers' money on. As Americans become more interested and educated during the upcoming campaign, they will more carefully consider alternatives to Obama's policies, and those policies might not look so un-American anymore.
There was a legitimate debate around the time of TARP (the bank bailout bill) about whether or not taking an ownership stake in companies was a good idea. Just about everyone agreed that letting the banks go out of business would destroy the economy. It was also widely agreed that government cash was the only way that these companies would be kept from closing their doors. Numerous prominent Republicans supported taking ownership in bailed-out banks, including the Bush White House, Senate GOP Leader Mitch McConnell, House GOP Leaders John Boehner and Eric Cantor, along with 89 other House Republicans and 32 other GOP Senators. You can't call Obama a socialist for taking over banks without putting the same label on the GOP. Theirs was not the socialistic goal of achieving government ownership of production; it was to save our (mostly-) capitalist economy.
This claim that Obama took over banks also rings somewhat hollow as he, ya know, wasn't President then.
When Obama actually was President, he applied the same logic that Bush and the GOP leadership (and then-Sen. Obama) did with TARP in bailing out GM and Chrysler. Bush had already allocated billions of dollars to save the two. Obama followed Bush's deal with the banks that, if the federal government was going to share in the risk of loss of billions of dollars, that they should get a share of the potential profits as well.
Another problem with the "Obama-as-Socialist" meme is that he's so bad at it, were that his actual goal. Under Obama's administration, the government has sold back most of the stakes it took in banks, and GM has repaid billions of its debt. His supposed socialist takeover of our health care system expands private insurance much more than it expands government-run plans. In one breath, they criticize Obama as a Socialist who is out to lead a government takeover of the banks, and in the next breath, they say he is in bed with them. They'll twist reality in any way necessary to attack Obama and de-legitimize his policies.
One of my biggest beefs with the Tea Party and the conservative media is that they overemphasize critiques of Obama policies without properly acknowledging the alternatives to those policies. The only alternatives to Obama's action regarding partial ownership of GM and Chrysler were either letting the companies fail by refusing to help them, which would have destroyed millions of jobs, or to give the corporations something for nothing, giving them billions without asking for anything in return. Those alternatives, of course, don't look as good on a sign at a rally as a picture of Obama with a Hitler mustache.
I hold out hope that as November approaches, conservatives will be forced to say what they will do if returned to power, instead of just what they oppose. Opposing Obama's deficits and spending is all well and good in the abstract, but you can't slash the deficit or lower taxes without specific ideas about what spending to cut. As we'll discuss in Part 3, Tea Partiers, and Americans in general, are susceptible to such vague rhetoric because they have no idea what the government actually spends taxpayers' money on. As Americans become more interested and educated during the upcoming campaign, they will more carefully consider alternatives to Obama's policies, and those policies might not look so un-American anymore.
Wednesday, April 28, 2010
What is everyone so angry about? Part 1
Anyone who listens to 2+ hours of conservative talk radio a day like I do can tell you that the Republican Party is defined above all by anger. What's frustrating being a liberal listening to these shows is that the vast majority of that anger is based on claims which are demonstrably false. Over the course of the next several posts, I'll show that Conservative claims that Obama exploded the deficit, that he "shoved ObamaCare down our throats", that we are overtaxed, that Obama is a socialist gobbling up banks and car companies, and that the solution to the deficit is spending cuts are all based on clearly incorrect ideas.
We'll start with Sean Hannity's daily claim that "Obama quadrupled the deficit!" Whenever Hannity is challenged on his frequent claims that Obama is a radical socialist, Hannity trots out this deficit lie as seeming proof of Obama being something peculiar and unprecedented in history. Other presidents have raised or lowered the deficit, the argument goes, but Obama QUADRUPLED it.
Portraying Obama's policies as out of line with any other administration in history is necessary for the conservatives' strategy of resisting absolutely everything the Democrats try to do. You can't refuse to compromise with your opponent unless they are seen as so extreme that even meeting them half-way would be a radical change. Convincing people that Obama quadrupled the debt goes a long way to making him too extreme to be bargained with.
Here's the calculation one has to do to arrive at "quadrupling". In February 2008, Bush's White House projected a deficit for the 12 months from October 2008 through September 2009 to be $407 billion. This number didn't include any of the $150 billion being spent in Iraq and Afghanistan that year, which as part of accounting tricks used to keep the headline deficit number artificially low, were funded via supplemental bills. $407 billion's a dishonest start, but at least it's a start.
In February 2010, Obama projected total debt for Fiscal Year 2010 of $1.6 trillion. As you might be aware, $1.6 trillion divided by $400 billion is 4. A talking point is born.
Of course, kind of a lot happened in the two years between the two budget projections (i.e., guesses about future deficits). Massive unemployment, which led to both a decrease in tax revenue and an increase in demand for government services, along with lost wealth exploded the deficit in the last months of Bush's presidency. In January 2009, before Obama took office, the Congressional Budget Office was projecting a deficit of between $1.2 and $1.3 trillion.
By the time Obama took office, we were losing ~800,000 jobs per month. Obama and the Democrats chose to follow good ol' Econ 101 Keynsian policies, by increasing deficit spending to spur growth in the economy. And so, the projected deficit bumped up by about $400 billion. Which is a lot. I'm not trying to convince you that Obama has been a deficit hawk. But it's only half the increase in the budget deficit that occurred under Bush.
It's much easier to refuse to negotiate with a Marxist than a Keynsian. To try to portray him as the former, Hannity and other conservatives cherry-pick numbers to arrive at claims that are removed from reality. They try to do this in order to further stoke the anger among the Tea Party. As we'll continue to discuss throughout this series, this anger is based on ignorance and misinformation, and is certainly not an appropriate basis for a political party.
We'll start with Sean Hannity's daily claim that "Obama quadrupled the deficit!" Whenever Hannity is challenged on his frequent claims that Obama is a radical socialist, Hannity trots out this deficit lie as seeming proof of Obama being something peculiar and unprecedented in history. Other presidents have raised or lowered the deficit, the argument goes, but Obama QUADRUPLED it.
Portraying Obama's policies as out of line with any other administration in history is necessary for the conservatives' strategy of resisting absolutely everything the Democrats try to do. You can't refuse to compromise with your opponent unless they are seen as so extreme that even meeting them half-way would be a radical change. Convincing people that Obama quadrupled the debt goes a long way to making him too extreme to be bargained with.
Here's the calculation one has to do to arrive at "quadrupling". In February 2008, Bush's White House projected a deficit for the 12 months from October 2008 through September 2009 to be $407 billion. This number didn't include any of the $150 billion being spent in Iraq and Afghanistan that year, which as part of accounting tricks used to keep the headline deficit number artificially low, were funded via supplemental bills. $407 billion's a dishonest start, but at least it's a start.
In February 2010, Obama projected total debt for Fiscal Year 2010 of $1.6 trillion. As you might be aware, $1.6 trillion divided by $400 billion is 4. A talking point is born.
Of course, kind of a lot happened in the two years between the two budget projections (i.e., guesses about future deficits). Massive unemployment, which led to both a decrease in tax revenue and an increase in demand for government services, along with lost wealth exploded the deficit in the last months of Bush's presidency. In January 2009, before Obama took office, the Congressional Budget Office was projecting a deficit of between $1.2 and $1.3 trillion.
By the time Obama took office, we were losing ~800,000 jobs per month. Obama and the Democrats chose to follow good ol' Econ 101 Keynsian policies, by increasing deficit spending to spur growth in the economy. And so, the projected deficit bumped up by about $400 billion. Which is a lot. I'm not trying to convince you that Obama has been a deficit hawk. But it's only half the increase in the budget deficit that occurred under Bush.
It's much easier to refuse to negotiate with a Marxist than a Keynsian. To try to portray him as the former, Hannity and other conservatives cherry-pick numbers to arrive at claims that are removed from reality. They try to do this in order to further stoke the anger among the Tea Party. As we'll continue to discuss throughout this series, this anger is based on ignorance and misinformation, and is certainly not an appropriate basis for a political party.
Tuesday, February 24, 2009
"State of the Union" Live-Blog
Welcome back to the Doctor's Office in scenic Pittsburgh, PA. I've been meaning to getting back to the blog, and the President's pseudo-State of the Union speech seems as good an entry point as any, so here goes. As usual, I'm watching on MSNBC:
8:58 - Unprofessional move by Chris Matthews, taking a huge whack at Bobby Jindal, the Louisiana Governor, who is giving the GOP response to the President's speech. Says he's "not at all impressed with Jindal". Way to make MSNBC look ridiculous!
9:00 - That reminds me, and just skip to the next one if you don't watch MSNBC kind of a lot, but are you as annoyed as I am with that ridiculous "Hardball" commercial where Matthews says "I hate to teach politics to the experts, but it's fun." in just the jerkiest way possible?
9:04 - Whilst they're still introducing people, let me point you over to an article on fivethirtyeight.com written by a Berkeley linguistics professor about Obama's use of language as unconscious persuasion.
9:08 - Can't they cut out all the slowly introducing people while everyone just sort of mills about and shakes hands with people they've worked with in Congress for 20 years? Isn't there a huge economic crisis y'all could be working on?
9:10 - It's weird, but I still don't really think of Obama as the President. Like, my first-hundredth-of-a-second "how do you think of Barack Obama?" reaction does not include being President. He's still a candidate in my mind.
9:13 - Did Orrin Hatch just grab Obama by the back of the neck? I know he meant it as a friendly gesture, but the man is President!
9:14 - Damn, while typing I apparently missed Hillary kissing Obama (presumably on the cheek). Oh the perils of live-blogging
9:15 - The applauding continuously while the "star" thanks everyone in an attempt to quiet them is strangely "Tonight Show"-ish.
9:16 - Once again Obama steps on a line. He was supposed to wait for Speaker Pelosi to introduce him, but instead started right in on the first few words of his speech.
9:18 - Oh thank God, MSNBC has the opinion meter thingy where two on-screen lines represent how much Obama or McCain voters "like" what he is saying! Now I don't have to worry about forming my own opinion
9:19 - It is oddly hypnotic, though
9:20 - Let's see how smart McCain voters are. He's setting up to trash Bush's policies. I wonder when McCain voters realize it.
9:24 - OK, he didn't go at it nearly as hard as I thought he might. But he definitely gave a few jabs that went unnoticed
9:25 - Aw, look at Joe act all surprised and embarrassed after being complimented by the President. It's like he didn't know it was coming.
9:27 - He's trying to be more optimistic tonight than he's been previously, emphasizing not the "we're in trouble" and more on the "we won't be forever".
9:29 - So why are people worried about nationalizing banks? These banks, by all laws of capitalism, should have gone out of business. But the government stepped in and kept them afloat. So why should people get to keep their shares of a company which should have gone out of business? The only moral argument for people being rich is that the market determined their value to be that high. The market dictates that people who had millions of dollars in Citigroup, AIG etc should have lost their entire investment. So why are we worrying about wiping out the fake "value" of their investment?
9:33 - My oh my, but that opinion meter graph is distracting
9:34 - It's fun when there's a partisan issue that only the Democrats stand up and applaud for. Then you can see a stark representation of their dominant majority in Congress.
9:37 - It's so bizarre to have a President who argues for government, and not calling it the problem.
9:39 - Maybe this is a sign I watch too much sports, but Pelosi is killing Biden at starting standing ovations. Is Biden injured?
9:41 - All this bailout stuff has totally crushed my sense of the value of money in politics. When Obama mentions $15 billion a year for green energy research, my first response is "hmmpf! chump change..."
9:43 - I always thought they rehearsed when to burst into applause. Like, someone would go through the speech with the VP (and Speaker, if they're all the same party) and figure out when to stand up. Pelosi clearly has her own agenda.
9:44 - Isn't it ridiculous that whatever spellchecker this site uses still doesn't recognize "Pelosi" or "Obama"?
9:46 - Thoroughly uninspiring section on health care. I don't have anything to say about it.
9:49 - Having as your national goal reclaiming the highest percentage in the world of the population with college degrees doesn't quite have the inspirational cache of sending a man to the moon
9:51 - He's starting to overuse the "no red or blue states, on the United States"-"not a Democratic issue, not a Republican issue, but an American issue" construction.
9:53 - Oh, in case you didn't hear, the White House announced today that, instead of having all our troops out of Iraq in 16 months, as Obama aimed for during the campaign, he will now aim to have all combat troops out in 19 months. Damn
9:56 - Nice job pointing out the ridiculousness of the Bush policy to not include the costs of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan when calculating the deficit. That's hundreds of billions of dollars a year that they just didn't include on the supposed "bottom line".
9:57 - Of course, it is not without advantage to Obama to make this change. It's rhetorically easier to double a trillion dollar deficit than triple a half a trillion dollar deficit
10:00 - How sad that I'm glad to hear the President say we don't torture and to believe him. How was that not always a given?
10:05 - Bland, "inspirational" section here. Not really much to say
10:06 - ...so let's talk some more about the audience reaction lines. McCain's voters have pretty consistently been higher than the Obama voters' line. I guess the redliners are trying to be bipartisan or something.
10:08 - In the audience, Ohio Sen. looks like he just had a stroke.
10:09 - He really is pushing hard for the stimulus and budget being mostly things he wants to do anyway (health care, green energy, etc.). Starting out his term going for a home run. OK speech without any particularly memorable moments.
10:13 - Getting ready for Jindal. I honestly don't know why the opposing party always does these. It's pretty much impossible to invent a juxtaposition that makes you look shittier than comparing yourself while standing in an empty office to the Leader of the Free World addressing a joint session of Congress.
10:15 - And Matthews comes around again to dump on Jindal before he even speaks. I really would like it if MSNBC would make at least some effort to separate their opinion people from their news people.
10:24 - Did someone just say "Oh god" under their breath as Jindal came on? Was that Keith?
10:25 - Having never heard him talk in this setting before, I can tell you that my first impression is that he's not very good at this. Neither conversational nor formal. Just kinda silly and fake.
10:29 - Neither he nor Obama have had much in terms of specifics. Such a shame
10:32 - As a doctor, I can tell you that we already have a system where decisions are NOT made by a patient and their doctor. Insurance companies have a lot of say. To state that universal care would ruin a pure patient/doctor relationship is ridiculous
10:33 - Obama voters are not feeling the obligation that McCain voters were to support the other guy. Much lower blue scores for Jindal than red scores for Obama
10:36 - Not great. Nothing memorable from either. I don't think anyone will remember tonight on either side.
8:58 - Unprofessional move by Chris Matthews, taking a huge whack at Bobby Jindal, the Louisiana Governor, who is giving the GOP response to the President's speech. Says he's "not at all impressed with Jindal". Way to make MSNBC look ridiculous!
9:00 - That reminds me, and just skip to the next one if you don't watch MSNBC kind of a lot, but are you as annoyed as I am with that ridiculous "Hardball" commercial where Matthews says "I hate to teach politics to the experts, but it's fun." in just the jerkiest way possible?
9:04 - Whilst they're still introducing people, let me point you over to an article on fivethirtyeight.com written by a Berkeley linguistics professor about Obama's use of language as unconscious persuasion.
9:08 - Can't they cut out all the slowly introducing people while everyone just sort of mills about and shakes hands with people they've worked with in Congress for 20 years? Isn't there a huge economic crisis y'all could be working on?
9:10 - It's weird, but I still don't really think of Obama as the President. Like, my first-hundredth-of-a-second "how do you think of Barack Obama?" reaction does not include being President. He's still a candidate in my mind.
9:13 - Did Orrin Hatch just grab Obama by the back of the neck? I know he meant it as a friendly gesture, but the man is President!
9:14 - Damn, while typing I apparently missed Hillary kissing Obama (presumably on the cheek). Oh the perils of live-blogging
9:15 - The applauding continuously while the "star" thanks everyone in an attempt to quiet them is strangely "Tonight Show"-ish.
9:16 - Once again Obama steps on a line. He was supposed to wait for Speaker Pelosi to introduce him, but instead started right in on the first few words of his speech.
9:18 - Oh thank God, MSNBC has the opinion meter thingy where two on-screen lines represent how much Obama or McCain voters "like" what he is saying! Now I don't have to worry about forming my own opinion
9:19 - It is oddly hypnotic, though
9:20 - Let's see how smart McCain voters are. He's setting up to trash Bush's policies. I wonder when McCain voters realize it.
9:24 - OK, he didn't go at it nearly as hard as I thought he might. But he definitely gave a few jabs that went unnoticed
9:25 - Aw, look at Joe act all surprised and embarrassed after being complimented by the President. It's like he didn't know it was coming.
9:27 - He's trying to be more optimistic tonight than he's been previously, emphasizing not the "we're in trouble" and more on the "we won't be forever".
9:29 - So why are people worried about nationalizing banks? These banks, by all laws of capitalism, should have gone out of business. But the government stepped in and kept them afloat. So why should people get to keep their shares of a company which should have gone out of business? The only moral argument for people being rich is that the market determined their value to be that high. The market dictates that people who had millions of dollars in Citigroup, AIG etc should have lost their entire investment. So why are we worrying about wiping out the fake "value" of their investment?
9:33 - My oh my, but that opinion meter graph is distracting
9:34 - It's fun when there's a partisan issue that only the Democrats stand up and applaud for. Then you can see a stark representation of their dominant majority in Congress.
9:37 - It's so bizarre to have a President who argues for government, and not calling it the problem.
9:39 - Maybe this is a sign I watch too much sports, but Pelosi is killing Biden at starting standing ovations. Is Biden injured?
9:41 - All this bailout stuff has totally crushed my sense of the value of money in politics. When Obama mentions $15 billion a year for green energy research, my first response is "hmmpf! chump change..."
9:43 - I always thought they rehearsed when to burst into applause. Like, someone would go through the speech with the VP (and Speaker, if they're all the same party) and figure out when to stand up. Pelosi clearly has her own agenda.
9:44 - Isn't it ridiculous that whatever spellchecker this site uses still doesn't recognize "Pelosi" or "Obama"?
9:46 - Thoroughly uninspiring section on health care. I don't have anything to say about it.
9:49 - Having as your national goal reclaiming the highest percentage in the world of the population with college degrees doesn't quite have the inspirational cache of sending a man to the moon
9:51 - He's starting to overuse the "no red or blue states, on the United States"-"not a Democratic issue, not a Republican issue, but an American issue" construction.
9:53 - Oh, in case you didn't hear, the White House announced today that, instead of having all our troops out of Iraq in 16 months, as Obama aimed for during the campaign, he will now aim to have all combat troops out in 19 months. Damn
9:56 - Nice job pointing out the ridiculousness of the Bush policy to not include the costs of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan when calculating the deficit. That's hundreds of billions of dollars a year that they just didn't include on the supposed "bottom line".
9:57 - Of course, it is not without advantage to Obama to make this change. It's rhetorically easier to double a trillion dollar deficit than triple a half a trillion dollar deficit
10:00 - How sad that I'm glad to hear the President say we don't torture and to believe him. How was that not always a given?
10:05 - Bland, "inspirational" section here. Not really much to say
10:06 - ...so let's talk some more about the audience reaction lines. McCain's voters have pretty consistently been higher than the Obama voters' line. I guess the redliners are trying to be bipartisan or something.
10:08 - In the audience, Ohio Sen. looks like he just had a stroke.
10:09 - He really is pushing hard for the stimulus and budget being mostly things he wants to do anyway (health care, green energy, etc.). Starting out his term going for a home run. OK speech without any particularly memorable moments.
10:13 - Getting ready for Jindal. I honestly don't know why the opposing party always does these. It's pretty much impossible to invent a juxtaposition that makes you look shittier than comparing yourself while standing in an empty office to the Leader of the Free World addressing a joint session of Congress.
10:15 - And Matthews comes around again to dump on Jindal before he even speaks. I really would like it if MSNBC would make at least some effort to separate their opinion people from their news people.
10:24 - Did someone just say "Oh god" under their breath as Jindal came on? Was that Keith?
10:25 - Having never heard him talk in this setting before, I can tell you that my first impression is that he's not very good at this. Neither conversational nor formal. Just kinda silly and fake.
10:29 - Neither he nor Obama have had much in terms of specifics. Such a shame
10:32 - As a doctor, I can tell you that we already have a system where decisions are NOT made by a patient and their doctor. Insurance companies have a lot of say. To state that universal care would ruin a pure patient/doctor relationship is ridiculous
10:33 - Obama voters are not feeling the obligation that McCain voters were to support the other guy. Much lower blue scores for Jindal than red scores for Obama
10:36 - Not great. Nothing memorable from either. I don't think anyone will remember tonight on either side.
Thursday, January 29, 2009
Is the Republican Party Doomed?
Rachel Maddow was up in arms yesterday on her show about the President's stimulus bill that was passed by the House. Despite efforts by the President to include elements in the bill to appeal to Republicans (tax cuts, etc.) at the expense of more spending on infrastructure, alternative energy and unemployment benefits, not one Republican voted for the bill. Not one. Amazing...
How is it possible that every single one of the 178 Republicans held together to oppose the bill? Even with Obama's popularity, eleven Democrats went against him on this one. And yet no GOPer had the gall to oppose the mighty John Boehner. I suppose this is due to circling the wagons when under attack, along with the fact that only the Republican-est of Republican districts elected Republicans this time around.
So what can be done to fight such solidarity among the GOP in opposition to Obama's attempts at bipartisanship? What can we derive from the saga of the stimulus plan regarding Obama's plan for doing so? It would appear that, as Ms. Maddow fears, that the President screwed up. He gave the Republicans part of what they wanted and yet got not one single vote in return. I have an alternative and more hopeful interpretation.
The outcome of Congressional votes is seldom in doubt. Most times, the exact vote of every single Congressman is known beforehand. Rahm Emanuel, Obama's Chief of Staff, surely knew that, despite their concessions, they wouldn't have any GOP support. And yet the Democrats decided to include the tax cuts in the bill. This is part, I think, of a plan by the Administration to crush the Republican Party once and for all.
It's important to Obama's popularity that he be seen as a new sort of politician. He can't be seen as a blithely partisan figure. He has to make these sorts of attempts to build bipartisan consensus. He still manages to have the stimulus be seen as an entirely Democratic accomplishment, but he now has the added advantage of making the Republican Party look ridiculously obstructionist and out-of-touch, refusing to give even one vote in exchange for substantial concessions by the President.
If the economy recovers by November 2010, the Republicans are doomed. Like, Whig- and Federalist-level doomed. They're already down 77 in the House, and 18 in the Senate, with way more Republican Senate seats up for re-election in 2010 than those currently held by Democrats, meaning they are more likely than not to lose even more seats. A growing economy after an all-Democrat stimulus bill means they will lose so many more seats that they will become irrelevant.
How is it possible that every single one of the 178 Republicans held together to oppose the bill? Even with Obama's popularity, eleven Democrats went against him on this one. And yet no GOPer had the gall to oppose the mighty John Boehner. I suppose this is due to circling the wagons when under attack, along with the fact that only the Republican-est of Republican districts elected Republicans this time around.
So what can be done to fight such solidarity among the GOP in opposition to Obama's attempts at bipartisanship? What can we derive from the saga of the stimulus plan regarding Obama's plan for doing so? It would appear that, as Ms. Maddow fears, that the President screwed up. He gave the Republicans part of what they wanted and yet got not one single vote in return. I have an alternative and more hopeful interpretation.
The outcome of Congressional votes is seldom in doubt. Most times, the exact vote of every single Congressman is known beforehand. Rahm Emanuel, Obama's Chief of Staff, surely knew that, despite their concessions, they wouldn't have any GOP support. And yet the Democrats decided to include the tax cuts in the bill. This is part, I think, of a plan by the Administration to crush the Republican Party once and for all.
It's important to Obama's popularity that he be seen as a new sort of politician. He can't be seen as a blithely partisan figure. He has to make these sorts of attempts to build bipartisan consensus. He still manages to have the stimulus be seen as an entirely Democratic accomplishment, but he now has the added advantage of making the Republican Party look ridiculously obstructionist and out-of-touch, refusing to give even one vote in exchange for substantial concessions by the President.
If the economy recovers by November 2010, the Republicans are doomed. Like, Whig- and Federalist-level doomed. They're already down 77 in the House, and 18 in the Senate, with way more Republican Senate seats up for re-election in 2010 than those currently held by Democrats, meaning they are more likely than not to lose even more seats. A growing economy after an all-Democrat stimulus bill means they will lose so many more seats that they will become irrelevant.
Monday, January 5, 2009
Thursday, December 18, 2008
Baggage Fees and Government Cheese
(Posting during another electronic medical records class. I still haven't figured out how to include links, so I'll clean these posts up later. sorry)
Earlier this year, most airlines began charging passengers $15 for their first checked bag, as well as increasing fees for subsequent bags. The reason given by the airlines when they introduced these fees was increased fuel costs at a time when oil was $147 a barrel.
At the time of this post, oil is trading at $38.97, which is down over 70% from its peak earlier this year. Jet fuel prices have fallen 60% since July. And yet, airlines are still charging the same fees that they added to "cover increased fuel prices".
Why haven't these charges been rescinded? It's because consumers have already gotten used to the idea of being charged for baggage; they aren't mad about it anymore, so airlines will keep making them pay it, even though the supposed rationale for the fee is long gone.
Similar to the inertia of baggage fees, government programs, once enacted, are very difficult to get rid of because people become accustomed to them. Social Security and Medicare were controversial programs when they were first enacted, and it wouldn't have caused a huge political upheaval if they were never passed. Now that we have these entitlements, however, there would be senior citizens rioting in the streets if the programs were seriously threatened.
This concept shows the potential for huge and long-lasting change Obama and the Democrats in the next few years. Government-subsidized health insurance is a hot issue right now, but once people have a government insurance card in their wallet, they'll be much more likely to favor the program and support candidates who will protect it.
Earlier this year, most airlines began charging passengers $15 for their first checked bag, as well as increasing fees for subsequent bags. The reason given by the airlines when they introduced these fees was increased fuel costs at a time when oil was $147 a barrel.
At the time of this post, oil is trading at $38.97, which is down over 70% from its peak earlier this year. Jet fuel prices have fallen 60% since July. And yet, airlines are still charging the same fees that they added to "cover increased fuel prices".
Why haven't these charges been rescinded? It's because consumers have already gotten used to the idea of being charged for baggage; they aren't mad about it anymore, so airlines will keep making them pay it, even though the supposed rationale for the fee is long gone.
Similar to the inertia of baggage fees, government programs, once enacted, are very difficult to get rid of because people become accustomed to them. Social Security and Medicare were controversial programs when they were first enacted, and it wouldn't have caused a huge political upheaval if they were never passed. Now that we have these entitlements, however, there would be senior citizens rioting in the streets if the programs were seriously threatened.
This concept shows the potential for huge and long-lasting change Obama and the Democrats in the next few years. Government-subsidized health insurance is a hot issue right now, but once people have a government insurance card in their wallet, they'll be much more likely to favor the program and support candidates who will protect it.
Thursday, December 11, 2008
Obama/Dems Need to Be More Aggressive
This whole Blagojevich thing has not been handled well at all by the Obama transition team. Journalists are trying to figure out what the President-elect knew and when he knew it, which is never a good thing to have journalists asking about you. And, as discussed previously, the transition team's response has not done much to assuage concerns.
Obviously it would have been much better if, upon first hearing Blagojevich's ridiculous demands, the Obama team would have called up U.S. Attorney Fitzgerald's office, which was publicly investigating the Governor for months, to inform Fitzgerald of Blagojevich's corruption. That would have kept any of Blagojevich's stink from being passed on to the transition.
Similarly, Obama and his Democratic allies in Congress need to be more aggressive and publicly confrontational in fighting Senate Republicans over the auto bailout. Yesterday, the bailout passed the House mainly due to Democrat support. Its fate in the Senate, where 60% of Senators must support the bill (or at least support a vote on the bill), is murky, with Republicans led by Richard Selby (R-AL) and Jeff Sessions (R-AL) threatening a filibuster even though the bailout is supported by the GOP White House.
I say, let 'em filibuster, and make 'em actually keep talking on the floor of the Senate; in recent years when a cloture vote fails to end debate, the Senate just moves on to something else, instead of making Senators actually filibuster, which is a shame. Such drama on the Senate floor would lay bare the clear conflicts of interest at play on this issue.
Alabama is home to three Honda and Hyundai plants, which the state attracted by giving the Japanese manufacturer's a bunch of tax breaks and subsidies. So Sens. Selby and Sessions are more than happy to abandon their apparent love for the removing government influence over the free market when it benefits their own state, but not when it helps save millions (or hundreds of thousands, depending on whose analysis you believe) of American manufacturing jobs. Republicans would also benefit from a weakened United Auto Workers, which reliably supports Democratic candidates all over the country.
By drawing attention to Republican opposition to the bailout, Democrats can either a) generate enough public support to get the bill passed, or b) clearly establish that it is Republicans who killed the bill and allowed the companies to fail. Seems like a win-win.
Obviously it would have been much better if, upon first hearing Blagojevich's ridiculous demands, the Obama team would have called up U.S. Attorney Fitzgerald's office, which was publicly investigating the Governor for months, to inform Fitzgerald of Blagojevich's corruption. That would have kept any of Blagojevich's stink from being passed on to the transition.
Similarly, Obama and his Democratic allies in Congress need to be more aggressive and publicly confrontational in fighting Senate Republicans over the auto bailout. Yesterday, the bailout passed the House mainly due to Democrat support. Its fate in the Senate, where 60% of Senators must support the bill (or at least support a vote on the bill), is murky, with Republicans led by Richard Selby (R-AL) and Jeff Sessions (R-AL) threatening a filibuster even though the bailout is supported by the GOP White House.
I say, let 'em filibuster, and make 'em actually keep talking on the floor of the Senate; in recent years when a cloture vote fails to end debate, the Senate just moves on to something else, instead of making Senators actually filibuster, which is a shame. Such drama on the Senate floor would lay bare the clear conflicts of interest at play on this issue.
Alabama is home to three Honda and Hyundai plants, which the state attracted by giving the Japanese manufacturer's a bunch of tax breaks and subsidies. So Sens. Selby and Sessions are more than happy to abandon their apparent love for the removing government influence over the free market when it benefits their own state, but not when it helps save millions (or hundreds of thousands, depending on whose analysis you believe) of American manufacturing jobs. Republicans would also benefit from a weakened United Auto Workers, which reliably supports Democratic candidates all over the country.
By drawing attention to Republican opposition to the bailout, Democrats can either a) generate enough public support to get the bill passed, or b) clearly establish that it is Republicans who killed the bill and allowed the companies to fail. Seems like a win-win.
Tuesday, December 9, 2008
Oh yeah, I forgot...
In the taped calls, Blagojevich says at some point, when discussing who he thought was Obama's preferred candidate to take his old Senate seat, "they're not willing to give me anything except appreciation."
Let me tell you, that's a great bit of tape for Democrats
Let me tell you, that's a great bit of tape for Democrats
Obama's First Potential Scandal
Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich was arrested by the FBI this morning. According the the press release put out by U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald, who is the man who successfully prosecuted former Cheney Chief of Staff Scooter Libby, he was attempting to sell Obama's Senate seat, which as Illinois Gov he is solely responsible for appointing the new Senator. Let me summarize the issue as briefly as I can:
Gov. Blagojevich was being investigated by the Feds for corruption, getting campaign contributions from lots of rich folk, including our old friend Tony Rezko, in exchange for your standard slate of government contracts and other favors. As part of his investigation, Fitzgerald, who is widely thought to be the best prosecutor in the country, tapped Blagojevich's personal and office phones, as well as his office and a conference room at "Friends of Blagojevich", his political organization. The Illinois legislature passed an ethics law to make it tougher for Blagojevich to raise money, starting January 1, 2009, so time was a-wastin'.
As it became clear that Obama was going to win, giving Blagojevich the opportunity to appoint his successor to the Senate. Appointing himself to the seat would benefit him, so he made clear to anyone who would listen that he was open to offers. Bribes he was asking for included:
1. Being appointed Secretary of Health and Human Services, Energy, or an ambassador
2. Getting his wife a well-paying position on a corporate board
3. A high-paying job for himself with a political committee and/or a non-profit group
4. Campaign funds
So yeah, it's illegal to ask people for that stuff in exchange for an official decision.
There are two ways this can come back to sting Obama. First off, there's Rezko's involvement. There was a real estate deal involving Rezko and the Obamas in the past that, while probably not anything that will ever be a big deal, it hurts any time "Obama" and "Rezko" are in the same news story.
The more serious issue is a discrepancy between Obama's statements on this issue and those of David Axelrod, Obama's chief campaign strategist. In an interview with the Chicago Fox affiliate a couple weeks ago, Axelrod said that Obama had "talked to the governor" about who would replace him. Today, Obama said "I had no contact with the governor or his office." If Obama indeed has spoken with Blagojevich in the past month or two, Fitzgerald would have a recording of the conversation. Let's hope Obama's telling the truth. I think he is, actually. It seems unlikely that Obama would actually personally talk to pretty much anyone directly, especially a corrupt governor. So Axelrod just meant that Obama's people talked to Blagojevich and/or his people.
During Obama's comments today about the issue, he said "I had no contact with the governor or his office and so we were not, I was not aware of what was happening." Notice that he stopped himself from saying "we were not aware", correcting to "I was not aware". So clearly his team knew what was going on, but Obama at least has plausible deniability. Depending on how close it gets to the man himself, he could be politically hurt, leaving him less able to pass his agenda. Health insurance reform and funding for green energy, infrastructure and higher education got a little less likely. We'll find out how much less.
Gov. Blagojevich was being investigated by the Feds for corruption, getting campaign contributions from lots of rich folk, including our old friend Tony Rezko, in exchange for your standard slate of government contracts and other favors. As part of his investigation, Fitzgerald, who is widely thought to be the best prosecutor in the country, tapped Blagojevich's personal and office phones, as well as his office and a conference room at "Friends of Blagojevich", his political organization. The Illinois legislature passed an ethics law to make it tougher for Blagojevich to raise money, starting January 1, 2009, so time was a-wastin'.
As it became clear that Obama was going to win, giving Blagojevich the opportunity to appoint his successor to the Senate. Appointing himself to the seat would benefit him, so he made clear to anyone who would listen that he was open to offers. Bribes he was asking for included:
1. Being appointed Secretary of Health and Human Services, Energy, or an ambassador
2. Getting his wife a well-paying position on a corporate board
3. A high-paying job for himself with a political committee and/or a non-profit group
4. Campaign funds
So yeah, it's illegal to ask people for that stuff in exchange for an official decision.
There are two ways this can come back to sting Obama. First off, there's Rezko's involvement. There was a real estate deal involving Rezko and the Obamas in the past that, while probably not anything that will ever be a big deal, it hurts any time "Obama" and "Rezko" are in the same news story.
The more serious issue is a discrepancy between Obama's statements on this issue and those of David Axelrod, Obama's chief campaign strategist. In an interview with the Chicago Fox affiliate a couple weeks ago, Axelrod said that Obama had "talked to the governor" about who would replace him. Today, Obama said "I had no contact with the governor or his office." If Obama indeed has spoken with Blagojevich in the past month or two, Fitzgerald would have a recording of the conversation. Let's hope Obama's telling the truth. I think he is, actually. It seems unlikely that Obama would actually personally talk to pretty much anyone directly, especially a corrupt governor. So Axelrod just meant that Obama's people talked to Blagojevich and/or his people.
During Obama's comments today about the issue, he said "I had no contact with the governor or his office and so we were not, I was not aware of what was happening." Notice that he stopped himself from saying "we were not aware", correcting to "I was not aware". So clearly his team knew what was going on, but Obama at least has plausible deniability. Depending on how close it gets to the man himself, he could be politically hurt, leaving him less able to pass his agenda. Health insurance reform and funding for green energy, infrastructure and higher education got a little less likely. We'll find out how much less.
Sunday, December 7, 2008
Obama on Meet the Press
Posting while Obama's on Meet the Press with Tom Brokaw this morning; all quotes are paraphrased as best as I can remember them whilst watching live:
-Starting off with the economy. Who'da thunk?
-All Obama's talk of helping states and telling Brokaw that "Governors have projects that are shovel-ready" and just need funding gives him a tremendous amount of political capital. He's basically telling 50 state leaders "come along with me and I'll make you look good to your consituents"
-He's better than any politician of my adult life at explaining both sides of an issue, stressing both the need to help the Big Three automakers and the need for them to restructure.
-He actually seems to think that if we give Ford/GM/Chrysler billions of dollars, they won't come back for more. Maybe he is hopelessly naive.
-Just did a great job deflecting Brokaw's suggestion of a new gas tax, since gas is so "cheap" now, by pointing out the other ways people are worse off economically. Good policy, but even better politics. "I feel your pain", in quite a few more words.
-Interesting thought about the "moral hazard" problem of bailing out homeowners who took bad mortgages, thereby "punishing" responsible homeowners by making them pay their whole mortgage and pay taxes to bail out their neighbor. "If my neighbor's house is on fire, even if they were smoking in their bedroom, I want to keep the fire from spreading to my house."
-Commercial break. I don't know if you ever watch these Sunday morning shows, but there are some weird freakin' ads all the time. Companies like Boeing and Archer-Daniels-Midland, the huge agricultural business, advertise a lot, even though 99.999% of people never buy anything from these companies, those big-time corporate "decision-makers" do watch these shows, so it's worth it to advertise to that tiny but powerful faction.
-He's really talking like his presidency is going to be a complete refutation of the Reagan Revolution. Greed is not good. Help everyone to help the economy, don't just help the rich and wait for benefits to trickle-down.
-When do you suppose Obama actually offered the Secretary of State job to Hillary Clinton? In November? During the general election? My money's on toward the end of primary season.
-Nothing earth-shattering so far. But really, there never is with Obama. Part of his appeal, I suppose.
-Ostensibly talking about farmers in Afghanistan, he says that the country needs things like infrastructure improvements and increased aid from the Afghan national government. Nice, subtle effort to further bolster support of such help to the American little guy, too.
-Would have been better if he had said it at some point during the campaign without prompting from Brokaw, but Obama's answer extolling the virtues of the Presidential "bully pulpit" being used for wider purposes than just government, such as culture, parenting, art, etc.
-Obama won't say that he's quit smoking but does say that he's done a great job, "under the circumstances", to make himself healthier. Meaning every now and then, brotha needs a smoke.
-And we end with "news" about the future of Meet the Press, with David Gregory replacing Tom Brokaw. Good riddance! I've never liked Brokaw. He completely lost me when he came out with all those books about "The Greatest Generation". I mean, sure, they did a lot of great things, but his completely positive portrayal of them struck me as a blatant attempt to make money off of nostalgia. Tim Russert tried the same thing with "Big Russ and Me". So watch for the next book to offer a collective blow job to the people who gave us Nixon and Reagan, from new MtP host David Gregory!
-Starting off with the economy. Who'da thunk?
-All Obama's talk of helping states and telling Brokaw that "Governors have projects that are shovel-ready" and just need funding gives him a tremendous amount of political capital. He's basically telling 50 state leaders "come along with me and I'll make you look good to your consituents"
-He's better than any politician of my adult life at explaining both sides of an issue, stressing both the need to help the Big Three automakers and the need for them to restructure.
-He actually seems to think that if we give Ford/GM/Chrysler billions of dollars, they won't come back for more. Maybe he is hopelessly naive.
-Just did a great job deflecting Brokaw's suggestion of a new gas tax, since gas is so "cheap" now, by pointing out the other ways people are worse off economically. Good policy, but even better politics. "I feel your pain", in quite a few more words.
-Interesting thought about the "moral hazard" problem of bailing out homeowners who took bad mortgages, thereby "punishing" responsible homeowners by making them pay their whole mortgage and pay taxes to bail out their neighbor. "If my neighbor's house is on fire, even if they were smoking in their bedroom, I want to keep the fire from spreading to my house."
-Commercial break. I don't know if you ever watch these Sunday morning shows, but there are some weird freakin' ads all the time. Companies like Boeing and Archer-Daniels-Midland, the huge agricultural business, advertise a lot, even though 99.999% of people never buy anything from these companies, those big-time corporate "decision-makers" do watch these shows, so it's worth it to advertise to that tiny but powerful faction.
-He's really talking like his presidency is going to be a complete refutation of the Reagan Revolution. Greed is not good. Help everyone to help the economy, don't just help the rich and wait for benefits to trickle-down.
-When do you suppose Obama actually offered the Secretary of State job to Hillary Clinton? In November? During the general election? My money's on toward the end of primary season.
-Nothing earth-shattering so far. But really, there never is with Obama. Part of his appeal, I suppose.
-Ostensibly talking about farmers in Afghanistan, he says that the country needs things like infrastructure improvements and increased aid from the Afghan national government. Nice, subtle effort to further bolster support of such help to the American little guy, too.
-Would have been better if he had said it at some point during the campaign without prompting from Brokaw, but Obama's answer extolling the virtues of the Presidential "bully pulpit" being used for wider purposes than just government, such as culture, parenting, art, etc.
-Obama won't say that he's quit smoking but does say that he's done a great job, "under the circumstances", to make himself healthier. Meaning every now and then, brotha needs a smoke.
-And we end with "news" about the future of Meet the Press, with David Gregory replacing Tom Brokaw. Good riddance! I've never liked Brokaw. He completely lost me when he came out with all those books about "The Greatest Generation". I mean, sure, they did a lot of great things, but his completely positive portrayal of them struck me as a blatant attempt to make money off of nostalgia. Tim Russert tried the same thing with "Big Russ and Me". So watch for the next book to offer a collective blow job to the people who gave us Nixon and Reagan, from new MtP host David Gregory!
Wednesday, December 3, 2008
Obama's Ridiculously Strong Cabinet
It's safe to say that Obama is pulling out all the stops when it comes to assembling his Cabinet. On Monday Obama announced his national security team, which includes, among others, Bush's Defense Secretary, Robert Gates, and John McCain's former foreign policy advisor, James Jones, as Obama's National Security Advisor. Arizona Gov. Janet Napolitano for Homeland Security, and, of course, New York Sen. and former Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State. He will also nominate New Mexico Gov. and former Presidential candidate Bill Richardson as Commmerce Secretary. Former Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle will be Secretary of Health and Human Services. He recruited Rahm Emanuel, a rising Dem star in the House and who was well-known to have aspirations to be Speaker of the House, to serve as his Chief of Staff.
Choosing people from Bush's Cabinet and the McCain campaign demonstrates Obama's supreme confidence in his management abilities. He said when introducing Gates that "I will make policy" and "the buck stops with me," even though he has selected a man who very publicly disagreed with him on Iraq, the central issue which will be run by Gates' department in Obama's administration. Cabinet Secretaries, particularly those Obama has selected, are not politically powerless, and they tend to be protective of their power and influence. But Obama, choosing Gates, believes that he can keep Gates in line on this very important issue.
There are two reasons why I'm potentially thrilled about the selection of Gates, assuming Obama indeed will be able to set Pentagon policy, which I trust he will be. One is that Gates has already been running the Defense Department for years, so he figuratively (and, sadly, literally) knows where the bodies are buried. It's also fabulous that Gates, and Jones as well, will provide opposing viewpoints. One of the biggest factors that lead to the problems during the run-up to Iraq was that pretty much everyone around the President was a neocon who thought the war was a good idea. Wall Street is in such deep doggy-do because just about every financial CEO had an Ivy League MBA and thought CDO's were the bee's knees. When it comes to foreign policy, Obama will have within his own Cabinet viewpoints from men who disagree.
Having two former Democratic primary opponents in his Cabinet, as well as another as his VP, raises the risk of Secretaries looking after their own political interests before the Administration's. I don't think you'll find many people who would argue with Clinton and Richardson being the best-qualified Democrats to hold a Cabinet-level position, so there is also a significant benefit to these selections. It will be up to Obama's management skill, as well as his political muscle, to keep these two in line and put their massive qualifications to good use. Same goes for Emanuel, though it's pretty hard to score political points for yourself when you're Chief of Staff. Actually, I'm convinced Obama picked Emanuel only because in Hebrew "Rahm" and "Barack" translate to "thunder" and "lightning".
Selecting Napolitano also is not without negatives because, according to Arizona law, she will be replaced by the current Arizona Secretary of State, who is a Republican. It also robs the Democrats of a very strong chance to defeat John McCain in 2010 when he runs for another Senate term; Napolitano is the strongest Democrat in the slightly red state and the only Dem with a good chance of taking McCain's seat, so it's no coincidence that McCain spoke publicly and strongly in support of Napolitano's nomination. Just because they didn't get to 60 Senate seats this time doesn't mean they wouldn't have a chance next time around. Choosing Napolitano makes it significantly less likely. Clearly, Obama is aware of this implication of her nomination, so he must really think she's gonna be a great Homeland Security Secretary.
By assembling such a strong Cabinet, in name, stature, and diversity of opinion, Obama is raising expectations for his Administration. With such power in the Executive branch, as well as near-dominance of the Legislative, Obama is setting the table for a strong government. It'll be pretty much make-or-break time for the Democratic Party. They've got their all-star team in the Executive branch, so they have no excuses if they fail.
Choosing people from Bush's Cabinet and the McCain campaign demonstrates Obama's supreme confidence in his management abilities. He said when introducing Gates that "I will make policy" and "the buck stops with me," even though he has selected a man who very publicly disagreed with him on Iraq, the central issue which will be run by Gates' department in Obama's administration. Cabinet Secretaries, particularly those Obama has selected, are not politically powerless, and they tend to be protective of their power and influence. But Obama, choosing Gates, believes that he can keep Gates in line on this very important issue.
There are two reasons why I'm potentially thrilled about the selection of Gates, assuming Obama indeed will be able to set Pentagon policy, which I trust he will be. One is that Gates has already been running the Defense Department for years, so he figuratively (and, sadly, literally) knows where the bodies are buried. It's also fabulous that Gates, and Jones as well, will provide opposing viewpoints. One of the biggest factors that lead to the problems during the run-up to Iraq was that pretty much everyone around the President was a neocon who thought the war was a good idea. Wall Street is in such deep doggy-do because just about every financial CEO had an Ivy League MBA and thought CDO's were the bee's knees. When it comes to foreign policy, Obama will have within his own Cabinet viewpoints from men who disagree.
Having two former Democratic primary opponents in his Cabinet, as well as another as his VP, raises the risk of Secretaries looking after their own political interests before the Administration's. I don't think you'll find many people who would argue with Clinton and Richardson being the best-qualified Democrats to hold a Cabinet-level position, so there is also a significant benefit to these selections. It will be up to Obama's management skill, as well as his political muscle, to keep these two in line and put their massive qualifications to good use. Same goes for Emanuel, though it's pretty hard to score political points for yourself when you're Chief of Staff. Actually, I'm convinced Obama picked Emanuel only because in Hebrew "Rahm" and "Barack" translate to "thunder" and "lightning".
Selecting Napolitano also is not without negatives because, according to Arizona law, she will be replaced by the current Arizona Secretary of State, who is a Republican. It also robs the Democrats of a very strong chance to defeat John McCain in 2010 when he runs for another Senate term; Napolitano is the strongest Democrat in the slightly red state and the only Dem with a good chance of taking McCain's seat, so it's no coincidence that McCain spoke publicly and strongly in support of Napolitano's nomination. Just because they didn't get to 60 Senate seats this time doesn't mean they wouldn't have a chance next time around. Choosing Napolitano makes it significantly less likely. Clearly, Obama is aware of this implication of her nomination, so he must really think she's gonna be a great Homeland Security Secretary.
By assembling such a strong Cabinet, in name, stature, and diversity of opinion, Obama is raising expectations for his Administration. With such power in the Executive branch, as well as near-dominance of the Legislative, Obama is setting the table for a strong government. It'll be pretty much make-or-break time for the Democratic Party. They've got their all-star team in the Executive branch, so they have no excuses if they fail.
OK, 60's Not That Important Anyway
With yesterday's Georgia runoff victory by Republican Sen. Saxby Chambliss (who, to remind you, first earned his seat in 2002 by attacking the patriotism of Max Cleland, a veteran who lost both legs and an arm in Vietnam. Chambliss stayed out of Vietnam by receiving 5 student deferments and then a medical deferment for knee problems. You know, Sen. Chambliss, Max Cleland has knee problems too; his knees are still in Vietnam!), the Democrats lost the last faint glimmer of hope that they'd reach a filibuster-proof 60 Senate seats. To review, it takes 60 votes to invoke cloture and stop debate to call for a vote on a bill; without 60 votes, one Senator can talk and talk and talk, keeping a bill from being passed. So it looks like the Democrats will wind up with 58, or possibly 59, if Franken wins in Minnesota, where the recount is finishing up. Even though they'll need to find a couple GOP cloture votes, along with unanimous support from within their own party, in order to pass a bill, they have several very good GOP targets to find a few more votes.
Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA) is up for re-election in 2010, and he's in the unenviable position of being a Republican in a state that has voted for a Democrat for President every year since 1988, including a huge 11% victory by Obama. It will be very difficult for Specter to resist a President so popular among his constituents. It also helps that Specter is about the most liberal GOP Senator.
His competition for that title include Sens Olympia Snow and Susan Collins of Maine, which went for Obama by 18%. So there's two more pickups that should be pretty easy for one bill or another.
Richard Burr (R-NC), Norm Coleman (R-MN, assuming he beats Franken), John Ensign (R-NV), Chuck Grassley (R-IA), Judd Gregg (R-NH), Richard Lugar (R-IN), and George Voinovich (R-OH) are all Republicans from states which made significant shifts toward the Democrats/Obama in '08. They'll no doubt be more persuadable than they might have been in the past when it comes to voting for cloture on a Democratic bill
As long as Obama remains popular and politically strong, it shouldn't be too difficult to find some Republican votes. So screw Georgia! They can keep their stupid Republican Senator,
Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA) is up for re-election in 2010, and he's in the unenviable position of being a Republican in a state that has voted for a Democrat for President every year since 1988, including a huge 11% victory by Obama. It will be very difficult for Specter to resist a President so popular among his constituents. It also helps that Specter is about the most liberal GOP Senator.
His competition for that title include Sens Olympia Snow and Susan Collins of Maine, which went for Obama by 18%. So there's two more pickups that should be pretty easy for one bill or another.
Richard Burr (R-NC), Norm Coleman (R-MN, assuming he beats Franken), John Ensign (R-NV), Chuck Grassley (R-IA), Judd Gregg (R-NH), Richard Lugar (R-IN), and George Voinovich (R-OH) are all Republicans from states which made significant shifts toward the Democrats/Obama in '08. They'll no doubt be more persuadable than they might have been in the past when it comes to voting for cloture on a Democratic bill
As long as Obama remains popular and politically strong, it shouldn't be too difficult to find some Republican votes. So screw Georgia! They can keep their stupid Republican Senator,
Monday, December 1, 2008
Wall Street Optimistic About Obama
Our old friend Rush Limbaugh, two days after the election, proclaimed that "the Obama recession is in full swing." Parroting time-honored GOP talking points, he claimed that Wall Street was reacting to Obama's plans for increased taxes on rich folks by selling their assets before the Dems had a chance to gouge them.
This past week's action on Wall Street have greatly refuted the idea that stockholders are scared of Obama. On Friday, November 21st, Obama announced that New York Fed chair Timothy Geithner would be his pick to be Treasury Secretary, which, to remind you, has become an absurdly powerful position lately. The Dow responded to Geithner's nomination, which NBC News reported at 2:59pm Friday, by skyrocketing 500 points in the hour before the stock market closed. Take a look at that last link. It's obvious that Wall Street loved Obama's choice.
But maybe this was a one-time fluke. Obama has been pressing his luck by holding daily press conferences the three days before Thanksgiving. The Dow has gone up each of those days, plus this past Friday. It should go without saying that a 5 day winning streak on the Dow, in this economy, is nothing short of remarkable. The last time the Dow Jones Industrial Average went up this much, percentage-wise, five days in a row was 75 years ago.
Screw the "one President at a time" line that Obama's been spouting. Time to take over, Barry!
UPDATE: Today, the Dow went down 680 points. Obama, instead of holding another economics press conference, decided to announce his national security team today, including Hillary as his Secretary of State (more on this later). It's official; he's not allowed to talk about anything other than the economy.
This past week's action on Wall Street have greatly refuted the idea that stockholders are scared of Obama. On Friday, November 21st, Obama announced that New York Fed chair Timothy Geithner would be his pick to be Treasury Secretary, which, to remind you, has become an absurdly powerful position lately. The Dow responded to Geithner's nomination, which NBC News reported at 2:59pm Friday, by skyrocketing 500 points in the hour before the stock market closed. Take a look at that last link. It's obvious that Wall Street loved Obama's choice.
But maybe this was a one-time fluke. Obama has been pressing his luck by holding daily press conferences the three days before Thanksgiving. The Dow has gone up each of those days, plus this past Friday. It should go without saying that a 5 day winning streak on the Dow, in this economy, is nothing short of remarkable. The last time the Dow Jones Industrial Average went up this much, percentage-wise, five days in a row was 75 years ago.
Screw the "one President at a time" line that Obama's been spouting. Time to take over, Barry!
UPDATE: Today, the Dow went down 680 points. Obama, instead of holding another economics press conference, decided to announce his national security team today, including Hillary as his Secretary of State (more on this later). It's official; he's not allowed to talk about anything other than the economy.
Friday, November 7, 2008
You Can't Boot Lieberman Now
Let's review the story of Joe Lieberman. He lost the 2006 Connecticut Democratic Senate primary to Ned Lamont and then beat Lamont and an irrelevant Republican in the general election while running as an independent and being supported almost entirely by Republicans despite stating publicly that he would caucus with the Democrats (i.e., vote for Harry Reid for Majority Leader). This was a very important vote, because with the Senate having 49 Dems, 49 Republicans and 2 independents (Lieberman and Vermont's Bernie Sanders, who also caucuses w/ the Dems) meant that the Dems controlled the Senate and all the committee chairs. If Lieberman had caucused with the Republicans and voted for Mitch McConnell for Majority Leader, then it would've been a 50-50 split which would have been broken by Dick Cheney.
Then, as you might be aware, despite being a pretty standard, down-the-line Democrat on all issues outside of Iraq, he decided to publicly (very publicly, it must be said) support McCain for President, going so far as to speak at the Republican convention in September. Democrats were pissed, but, because Democratic Senate leadership and committee chairmen needed Lieberman's vote in order to remain Senate leadership and committee chairmen.
Now, with the new Senate based on Election Day looking like 55 Dems, 2 Independents, 40 Republicans and 3 still undecided (though all leaning, to varying degrees, toward the Republicans), it looks unlikely that Lieberman's caucus vote will matter very much. Being the 51st vote in a 100-vote body is a much stronger position than being the 57th, so now Harry Reid is ratcheting up the pressure on Lieberman to give up his committee chairmanship; he currently leads the Homeland Security committee. The likely outcome of stripping Lieberman of his chairmanship would be that he would caucus with the Republicans, making it 56-44 (assuming Franken, Begich and Martin fail to come from behind in any of their undecided races).
There are two reasons why stripping Lieberman of his position, effectively kicking him out of the caucus, is a terrible idea. The most obvious is that it's still possible that the Democrats will reach a filibuster-proof 60 seats, if they should manage to run the table in the three undecided races. It's also possible that, with 19 Republican seats and 15 Democratic seats up for election in 2010, that the Democrats will pick up the three needed seats in that election. Booting Lieberman out would mean they'd have to win 4.
But more importantly, it is utterly ridiculous for them to boot him out now, as opposed to the day after he spoke at the Republican convention. Stripping him only after his vote is no longer necessary to keep you in power is spineless, and far from a new sort of politics that President-elect Obama campaigned on. One of the few things that would make me respect him even more than I already do would be if he were to, as a matter of principle, instruct Reid to back off of Lieberman.
Then, as you might be aware, despite being a pretty standard, down-the-line Democrat on all issues outside of Iraq, he decided to publicly (very publicly, it must be said) support McCain for President, going so far as to speak at the Republican convention in September. Democrats were pissed, but, because Democratic Senate leadership and committee chairmen needed Lieberman's vote in order to remain Senate leadership and committee chairmen.
Now, with the new Senate based on Election Day looking like 55 Dems, 2 Independents, 40 Republicans and 3 still undecided (though all leaning, to varying degrees, toward the Republicans), it looks unlikely that Lieberman's caucus vote will matter very much. Being the 51st vote in a 100-vote body is a much stronger position than being the 57th, so now Harry Reid is ratcheting up the pressure on Lieberman to give up his committee chairmanship; he currently leads the Homeland Security committee. The likely outcome of stripping Lieberman of his chairmanship would be that he would caucus with the Republicans, making it 56-44 (assuming Franken, Begich and Martin fail to come from behind in any of their undecided races).
There are two reasons why stripping Lieberman of his position, effectively kicking him out of the caucus, is a terrible idea. The most obvious is that it's still possible that the Democrats will reach a filibuster-proof 60 seats, if they should manage to run the table in the three undecided races. It's also possible that, with 19 Republican seats and 15 Democratic seats up for election in 2010, that the Democrats will pick up the three needed seats in that election. Booting Lieberman out would mean they'd have to win 4.
But more importantly, it is utterly ridiculous for them to boot him out now, as opposed to the day after he spoke at the Republican convention. Stripping him only after his vote is no longer necessary to keep you in power is spineless, and far from a new sort of politics that President-elect Obama campaigned on. One of the few things that would make me respect him even more than I already do would be if he were to, as a matter of principle, instruct Reid to back off of Lieberman.
Monday, November 3, 2008
Expectation as Motivation
In watching this long campaign, it is clear that one's performance is much less important than one's performance relative to expectations. Obama's victories in VA, DC, WI and others in the primaries, while huge, did not change the tone of the campaign because his big victories were expected. Hillary's HUGE victories in WV and KY were similarly meaningless. Sarah Palin "won" the debate with Biden by not crapping all over herself in a fit of panic.
If Barack Obama is going to do any of the things he's campaigned on, whether specific policy proposals or changing the tone in Washington, he will need to put up a big win. 270 is of course the magic number, but if he only wins, say, Kerry plus VA, IA, CO and NM, for a total of 286, many will interpret his victory as a squeaker, a failure of Obama to close the deal, and a reaction to all the "socialist" talk in the last weeks of the campaign. Even with 56-59 Dem Senators and a majority in the House, it will be difficult to reform health care, expand education funding, or anything else without an obvious mandate.
So this is why, despite my 100% confidence that Obama will win tomorrow, I will be out knocking on doors for Obama in Pittsburgh all day tomorrow (pushing the start of the liveblog back to 8ish). And to all my readers in Ohio, that's a vital 20 EVs. Anything with a 3 in front of it is immeasurably better than anything with a 2, and Ohio could very well be the difference. Obama wins in Ohio and Florida pushes McCain perilously close to something starting with a 1. In the perception game, that's a big deal. So get out and vote, and when you're done with that, call all your friends. Maybe knock on some doors. It's important.
If Barack Obama is going to do any of the things he's campaigned on, whether specific policy proposals or changing the tone in Washington, he will need to put up a big win. 270 is of course the magic number, but if he only wins, say, Kerry plus VA, IA, CO and NM, for a total of 286, many will interpret his victory as a squeaker, a failure of Obama to close the deal, and a reaction to all the "socialist" talk in the last weeks of the campaign. Even with 56-59 Dem Senators and a majority in the House, it will be difficult to reform health care, expand education funding, or anything else without an obvious mandate.
So this is why, despite my 100% confidence that Obama will win tomorrow, I will be out knocking on doors for Obama in Pittsburgh all day tomorrow (pushing the start of the liveblog back to 8ish). And to all my readers in Ohio, that's a vital 20 EVs. Anything with a 3 in front of it is immeasurably better than anything with a 2, and Ohio could very well be the difference. Obama wins in Ohio and Florida pushes McCain perilously close to something starting with a 1. In the perception game, that's a big deal. So get out and vote, and when you're done with that, call all your friends. Maybe knock on some doors. It's important.
Does Obama Want to Bankrupt Coal?
At the hospital tonight, people are freaking out about a quote from Obama that was released today:
West Virginia (along with, more important in electoral terms, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Montana, among others) depends on the coal industry. 40,000 jobs in the state are directly in the industry. So even at a hospital in a non-coal region of the state, people are pissed.
So I've spent most of the past 6 hours or so trying to talk NICU nurses out of burning Obama in effigy. It's important, like with many political "gaffes", to look at the complete context of the quote. It's long, so I'll just post a link.
In short, Obama is talking about charging electric companies for the damage to the environment that pollution from their plants does. A traditional coal plant that pumps tons and tons of CO2 into the air would contribute to global warming. Obama wants to use a cap and trade system, under which companies are taxed based on how polluting their plants are, to encourage cleaner techniques, such as trapping CO2 instead of emitting it. So what he meant in the bad-sounding quote was if someone wanted to build a traditional, high-polluting coal plant, they can; it's just that it would bankrupt them..."
Obama is not suggesting ending the use of coal for electricity; he's just saying that consumers and producers should pay its true cost, instead of just releasing pollution for all of us to deal with.
So if somebody wants to build a coal-powered plant, they can; it's just that it
will bankrupt them because they're going to be charged a huge sum for all
that greenhouse gas that's being emitted
West Virginia (along with, more important in electoral terms, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Montana, among others) depends on the coal industry. 40,000 jobs in the state are directly in the industry. So even at a hospital in a non-coal region of the state, people are pissed.
So I've spent most of the past 6 hours or so trying to talk NICU nurses out of burning Obama in effigy. It's important, like with many political "gaffes", to look at the complete context of the quote. It's long, so I'll just post a link.
In short, Obama is talking about charging electric companies for the damage to the environment that pollution from their plants does. A traditional coal plant that pumps tons and tons of CO2 into the air would contribute to global warming. Obama wants to use a cap and trade system, under which companies are taxed based on how polluting their plants are, to encourage cleaner techniques, such as trapping CO2 instead of emitting it. So what he meant in the bad-sounding quote was if someone wanted to build a traditional, high-polluting coal plant, they can; it's just that it would bankrupt them..."
Obama is not suggesting ending the use of coal for electricity; he's just saying that consumers and producers should pay its true cost, instead of just releasing pollution for all of us to deal with.
Saturday, November 1, 2008
Thanks, Bravo...
I was pleased to discover this morning that Bravo was having a mini West Wing marathon this morning; few things get the Democrat heart pumping three days before an election like some good liberal Presidential porn. They even included an episode featuring a wonderful soliloquy by Toby about not jinxing fate by celebrating before an expected outcome is final. But it ended on an awful note. The last scene in the marathon was of the President being shot by racially-motivated attackers.
I am absolutely terrified that Obama is going to be killed at some point during his (still-potential) Presidency. He is the first leader with both the ability and the (still-potential) political mandate to do all the things progressives want government to do. And it seems, I know this is crazy, like he actually believes in the issues he advocates. Like, Mrs. Doctor and I were discussing our federal student loans vis-a-vis the credit crisis the other day, and we wondered if it were possible that student loan programs might be cut. But then we realized that if Obama were elected, aid for higher education would be just about the last thing to be cut. How great is that? We're looking at the possibility of a talented leader fighting for a liberal agenda he truly believes in!
Which, if history is any guide, means that he's going to be assassinated. If there's any doubt that some Americans want to see it happen, check out a McCain/Palin rally.
I am absolutely terrified that Obama is going to be killed at some point during his (still-potential) Presidency. He is the first leader with both the ability and the (still-potential) political mandate to do all the things progressives want government to do. And it seems, I know this is crazy, like he actually believes in the issues he advocates. Like, Mrs. Doctor and I were discussing our federal student loans vis-a-vis the credit crisis the other day, and we wondered if it were possible that student loan programs might be cut. But then we realized that if Obama were elected, aid for higher education would be just about the last thing to be cut. How great is that? We're looking at the possibility of a talented leader fighting for a liberal agenda he truly believes in!
Which, if history is any guide, means that he's going to be assassinated. If there's any doubt that some Americans want to see it happen, check out a McCain/Palin rally.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)