"As President, I will need the help of all Americans to meet the challenges that lie ahead. That's why I'm asking people like you who fought for change during the campaign to continue fighting for change in your communities. Since the election hundreds of thousands of you have shared your ideas about how this movement should move forward..."
It is time to bring our Army to Washington, and demand the change we voted for.
Saturday, January 17, 2009
Sullivan: Taibbi vs. Friedman...
This originally comes from Andrew Sullivan. It's Matt Taibbi being Matt Taibbi, but since's absolutely obliterating Thomas Friedman, it's all so especially enjoyable:
And, according to Sullivan, that was one of the nicer paragraphs.
To review quickly, the “Long Bomb” Iraq war plan [Tom] Friedman supported as a means of transforming the Middle East blew up in his and everyone else’s face; the “Electronic Herd” of highly volatile international capital markets he once touted as an economic cure-all not only didn’t pan out, but led the world into a terrifying chasm of seemingly irreversible economic catastrophe; his beloved “Golden Straitjacket” of American-style global development (forced on the world by the “hidden fist” of American military power) turned out to be the vehicle for the very energy/ecological crisis Friedman himself warns about in his new book; and, most humorously, the “Flat World” consumer economics Friedman marveled at so voluminously turned out to be grounded in such total unreality that even his wife’s once-mighty shopping mall empire, General Growth Properties, has lost 99 percent of its value in this year alone. So, yes, Friedman is suddenly an environmentalist of sorts.What the fuck else is he going to be?
And, according to Sullivan, that was one of the nicer paragraphs.
Friday, January 16, 2009
FiveThirtyEight: Is Nate becoming the Anti-Sirota??
Sirota blasts Obama. I'd rip him, but since I didn't bother to read his piece, that'd be unfair. Instead, I'll just ignore him.
Still, Nate Silver steps up. He doesn't blast Sirota, but he does refute him, and the knee-jerk anti-Bailout mania that seems to be sweeping the country...
The reason, of course, that Coburn and the other 18 senators changed their stance on the bailout is not because of any underlying change in philosophy but because of political opportunism. The Obama administration has now inherited the burden of the bailout package from the Bush administration; as such, it is easier for Republicans to oppose it. Likewise, it is harder for Democrats like Jeff Merkely and the Udall Cousins, who railed against the bailout on the campaign trail, to vote to oppose it.
The bailout, undoubtedly, is highly unpopular. Getting to run a commercial that accuses your opponent of having voted for "a $700 billion giveaway to Wall Street" is the sort of stuff that can win you an election.
But does the fact that the optics of the bailout are poor mean that it is poor policy? Does it mean, moreover, that opposing the bailout is the right "progressive" policy stance?
On the contrary, the fact that the Republican and Democratic positions on the bailout appear to be so fluid would seem to indicate that it not an issue particularly well described by traditional ideological frameworks like liberal versus conservative. Either the bailout is a necessary evil to get the economy moving again -- a goal that benefits progressives and conservatives alike -- or it isn't. This is largely an empirical question rather than an ideological one.
Thursday, January 15, 2009
WaPo: Spare me the sanctimony...
I love hearing such moral certainty out of blank Newspaper Editorial pages: "The attorney general nominee must explain his role," the Washington Post demands.
Must, explain his role.
So...people should be held accountable for the crap they've committed in the past?
People like...the Washington Post Editorial Board who cheerleaded us into the Iraq War.
Courtesy Think Progress:
Must, explain his role.
So...people should be held accountable for the crap they've committed in the past?
People like...the Washington Post Editorial Board who cheerleaded us into the Iraq War.
Courtesy Think Progress:
After Secretary of State Colin L. Powell’s presentation to the United Nations Security Council yesterday, it is hard to imagine how anyone could doubt that Iraq possesses weapons of mass destruction. [2/6/03]
The Perils of Passivity [2/13/03]
But the United States cannot again join the Security Council in backing down from a confrontation with the Iraqi dictator, as it did repeatedly during the 1990s, also under pressure from France and Russia. [2/16/03]
In the case of Iraq, the functioning of American democracy has been pretty straightforward. President Bush has been respectful of opponents, at least at home, as he should be on such a momentous issue. [2/23/03]
Raw Story: That's NOT what he said...
The Raw Story headline says it up front: "Obama: Killing bin Laden may not be essential".
Problem, that's not what he said.
You be the judge.
The quote-misquote is taken from a leaked CBS Interview. Here's what the President-Elect said.
When you lead with a headline that says Killing bin Laden may not be essential, A) you've made it sound like that's a direct quote, when it's not. B) It further makes it sound like Obama's taking the Bush cue of "I don't think about him very much." It suggests a lackadaiscial attitude toward pursuing Bin Laden.
Was there anything lackadaiscial in that statement?
I'm sorry, but what part of "my preference obviously would be to capture or kill him" didn't Raw Story understand??
The word "essential" appears once in the Raw Story story...in the headline, odds are written by someone else.
UPDATE (12:02pm): To clarify, a far more accurate, and simpler, take on what Obama said, is "We don't have to kill him to neutralize him as a threat."
But by saying what they said, how they said it, they're making it sound like Obama said "Killing Osama? We can take it or leave it". It's a subtle change, but it changes the meaning of the quote.
Problem, that's not what he said.
You be the judge.
The quote-misquote is taken from a leaked CBS Interview. Here's what the President-Elect said.
"I think that we have to so weaken his infrastructure that, whether he is technically alive or not, he is so pinned down that he cannot function," Obama said.
"My preference obviously would be to capture or kill him. But if we have so tightened the noose that he's in a cave somewhere and can't even communicate with his operatives, then we will meet our goal of protecting America."
When you lead with a headline that says Killing bin Laden may not be essential, A) you've made it sound like that's a direct quote, when it's not. B) It further makes it sound like Obama's taking the Bush cue of "I don't think about him very much." It suggests a lackadaiscial attitude toward pursuing Bin Laden.
Was there anything lackadaiscial in that statement?
I'm sorry, but what part of "my preference obviously would be to capture or kill him" didn't Raw Story understand??
The word "essential" appears once in the Raw Story story...in the headline, odds are written by someone else.
UPDATE (12:02pm): To clarify, a far more accurate, and simpler, take on what Obama said, is "We don't have to kill him to neutralize him as a threat."
But by saying what they said, how they said it, they're making it sound like Obama said "Killing Osama? We can take it or leave it". It's a subtle change, but it changes the meaning of the quote.
Wednesday, January 14, 2009
Obama at Harvard. Obama Now.
The story of the President-Elect's rise to become the first African-American to be the Editor of the Harvard Law Review is pretty well known.
But consider the parallels of those heady days, and compare them to now:
But as an editorial point, remember this story for future days...
When he's ready to strike, he will strike.
But consider the parallels of those heady days, and compare them to now:
Ideological battles raged at the law school. Students clashed over faculty diversity and political correctness. Some even booed and hissed one another in class.
Obama, though liberal, was elected with help from conservatives. He prompted criticism from more liberal classmates by putting conservatives in key editorial positions. Some of his toughest critics were black students who complained that he didn't appoint more African Americans to top posts.
“That was the first time I had to deal with something that I suspect I'll have to deal with in the future, which is balancing a broader constituency with the specific expectations of being an African American in a position of influence,” he would later tell biographer David Mendell. “As for the criticism, I'm not sure there was anything all that surprising about that.”
The controversy mirrors the backlash from liberals today who fault some of his early appointments as well as his choice of evangelical pastor Rick Warren to deliver the inaugural invocation.
“He struck me as moderate in the context of campus politics,” says classmate Adam Charnes, a Republican who would work in the Bush Justice Department and now practices in Winston-Salem. “His cabinet appointments are consistent with the Barack that I knew, someone who doesn't take a hard and fast ideological position on things.”
But as an editorial point, remember this story for future days...
[Sarah] Higgins [one of the lead interview subjects of the McClatchy Story] recalls Obama walking in during another argument.
He summoned one editor to a meeting and began climbing the stairs to his cramped second-floor office. The editor made no move to follow and kept arguing. Obama paused.
“Upstairs, now,” he said firmly. He kept walking. The editor sheepishly followed.
When he's ready to strike, he will strike.
Obama to America: Stay Home!! (VIDEO)
Okay, just kidding. He doesn't say that...
...exactly.
Obama's given an pre-Inaugural Video about what he expects (crowds, difficulty getting around) and what events are out there (plenty), and what he'd like us all to do on MLK Day.
...exactly.
Obama's given an pre-Inaugural Video about what he expects (crowds, difficulty getting around) and what events are out there (plenty), and what he'd like us all to do on MLK Day.
TPM: Even Josh is starting to annoy me...
First it was, Obama's not being aggressive enough to beat Hillary in the Primary. Then, it's he's not doing enough in the General to take down McCain. Now, he's not being ambitious enough in pursuit of the stimulus.
I'm sorry, but when is Josh going to get it through his head that Obama moves at a different clip than he's used to. Josh has been massively wrong about Obama in the past, and frankly I could give a rat's ass if he's got a problem with the pace Obama's moving at. He's smarter than you are. Get used to it, or don't. I could care less one way or the other.
He pulls back. He plans. He strikes. That's pretty much the basic Obama modus-operandi.
Last I checked, we're in planning mode for another 5 days.
January 20th, 12:00pm Eastern Standard Time, I think we'll see some action.
I'm sorry, but when is Josh going to get it through his head that Obama moves at a different clip than he's used to. Josh has been massively wrong about Obama in the past, and frankly I could give a rat's ass if he's got a problem with the pace Obama's moving at. He's smarter than you are. Get used to it, or don't. I could care less one way or the other.
He pulls back. He plans. He strikes. That's pretty much the basic Obama modus-operandi.
Last I checked, we're in planning mode for another 5 days.
January 20th, 12:00pm Eastern Standard Time, I think we'll see some action.
Tuesday, January 13, 2009
Making the headline bigger doesn't make the news bigger...
Now, I love big, macho headlines as much as the next guy, but c'mon Huffington Post. "Obama Issues First Veto Threat"??
Seriously?
Through the Bush Administration, the President-Elect's made a request for the second half of the TARP (Troubled Assets Relief Program). This would be part of the $700 Billion Dollars Congress allocated to help...you know...stop the Western world from imploding.
Our outgoing Treasury Secretary Andrew Mell--eerrr, sorry. I'm thinking of Herbert Hoover's waste of space Treasury Secretary. I should be thinking of Bush's waste of space Henry Paulson (every bit as dim as the Wikipedia picture implies), who at first promised to spend the first part of the $350 Billion dollars on helping homeowners stay in their homes...
...but then he saw that a bunch of his Wall Street buddies (remember, Paulson was working at Goldman Sachs before being pinched by the Bushies) need--...err, sorry wanted money, he went back on his word to Congress, gave the money to his pals, figuring that once Wall Street had money to lend, the homeowners would be just fine.
Two months later. Wall Street has its money. We don't know who got what because Paulson ain't saying, at least not to us. Homeowners are still going broke, and nobody's lendin' nothin'...
Needless to say, Congress is feeling a wee-bit burned by the experience.
So the President-Elect wants to use the second half of this $700 Million Appropriation for (hopefully) the purpose for which it was intended. Congress wants strict oversight of the disbursment of these monies, unlike last time.
Now, the trick is the GOP is already thumping their chest, saying that they'll stop the bill.
Having lost still more seats in both Houses in the last election, good luck with that.
The odds of this bill passing are distant and remote. There's a stimulus train comin' down the tracks, and only a few want to get in its way.
I expect a small number of Democrats to defect and vote with the GOP, but probably in similiar numbers to the amount of Republicans who will vote for the second half, especially if the words "helps Homeowners" and "Oversight" are used.
So, if by some miracle Eric Cantor (not worth linking, but expect to see his name a lot in the next four years) and the other House and Senate Republicans pass this bill to stop Obama from getting the second half, Obama has threatened to...gasp, shock and horror...veto the legislation.
To me the bigger story would come in the GOP actually making it that far.
Memo to Huffington Post, Charles Foster Kane was wrong. Making the headline bigger doesn't make the news bigger...
UPDATE (3:35 Pacific): CNN now has the story, thus raising the temperature a little bit. But the fundamentals haven't changed.
Seriously?
Through the Bush Administration, the President-Elect's made a request for the second half of the TARP (Troubled Assets Relief Program). This would be part of the $700 Billion Dollars Congress allocated to help...you know...stop the Western world from imploding.
Our outgoing Treasury Secretary Andrew Mell--eerrr, sorry. I'm thinking of Herbert Hoover's waste of space Treasury Secretary. I should be thinking of Bush's waste of space Henry Paulson (every bit as dim as the Wikipedia picture implies), who at first promised to spend the first part of the $350 Billion dollars on helping homeowners stay in their homes...
...but then he saw that a bunch of his Wall Street buddies (remember, Paulson was working at Goldman Sachs before being pinched by the Bushies) need--...err, sorry wanted money, he went back on his word to Congress, gave the money to his pals, figuring that once Wall Street had money to lend, the homeowners would be just fine.
Two months later. Wall Street has its money. We don't know who got what because Paulson ain't saying, at least not to us. Homeowners are still going broke, and nobody's lendin' nothin'...
Needless to say, Congress is feeling a wee-bit burned by the experience.
So the President-Elect wants to use the second half of this $700 Million Appropriation for (hopefully) the purpose for which it was intended. Congress wants strict oversight of the disbursment of these monies, unlike last time.
Now, the trick is the GOP is already thumping their chest, saying that they'll stop the bill.
Having lost still more seats in both Houses in the last election, good luck with that.
The odds of this bill passing are distant and remote. There's a stimulus train comin' down the tracks, and only a few want to get in its way.
I expect a small number of Democrats to defect and vote with the GOP, but probably in similiar numbers to the amount of Republicans who will vote for the second half, especially if the words "helps Homeowners" and "Oversight" are used.
So, if by some miracle Eric Cantor (not worth linking, but expect to see his name a lot in the next four years) and the other House and Senate Republicans pass this bill to stop Obama from getting the second half, Obama has threatened to...gasp, shock and horror...veto the legislation.
To me the bigger story would come in the GOP actually making it that far.
Memo to Huffington Post, Charles Foster Kane was wrong. Making the headline bigger doesn't make the news bigger...
UPDATE (3:35 Pacific): CNN now has the story, thus raising the temperature a little bit. But the fundamentals haven't changed.
WSJ: Is Timothy Geithner in trouble??
Facing the most severe economic catastrophe in...literally...decades, what are we going to talk about? Another Nanny of suspect immigration status.
You have got to be freakin' kidding me...
But apparently, scumbag Senator Chuck Grassley (R-IA) brought the subject up today, and now Max Baucus (D-MO), according to Politico (no link because it's on the Politico 44 site), has called committee members to his office this afternoon to discuss the issue ahead of Geithner’s confirmation hearing.
Again, you have got to be freakin' kidding me...
We're doing this?? We're going there???
Why is it that the most landbound, border-locked states always getting their knickers in a twist about the immigration status of...well, whoever??
I hold the Senator from Iowa, right now, beneath contempt. If this is the kind of crap he wants to pull, then the sooner he retires the better.
Oh, and the Wall Street Journal has it too. (I thought they'd championed Geithner's appointment like a month ago??).
A reading of the article in Murdoch seems to tamp down some of the smoke coming from the headlines at TPM and Politico:
But wait, Murdoch continues:
You have got to be freakin' kidding me...
But apparently, scumbag Senator Chuck Grassley (R-IA) brought the subject up today, and now Max Baucus (D-MO), according to Politico (no link because it's on the Politico 44 site), has called committee members to his office this afternoon to discuss the issue ahead of Geithner’s confirmation hearing.
Again, you have got to be freakin' kidding me...
We're doing this?? We're going there???
Why is it that the most landbound, border-locked states always getting their knickers in a twist about the immigration status of...well, whoever??
I hold the Senator from Iowa, right now, beneath contempt. If this is the kind of crap he wants to pull, then the sooner he retires the better.
Oh, and the Wall Street Journal has it too. (I thought they'd championed Geithner's appointment like a month ago??).
A reading of the article in Murdoch seems to tamp down some of the smoke coming from the headlines at TPM and Politico:
According to people familiar with the matter, Mr. Geithner employed a housekeeper whose immigration papers expired during her tenure with Mr. Geithner, currently president of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. The woman went on to get a green card to work legally in the country and federal immigration authorities didn't press charges against her, these people said.
The second issue involved taxes due while Mr. Geithner worked for the International Monetary Fund between 2001 and 2004. As an employee, Mr. Geithner was technically considered self-employed and was required to pay Social Security and Medicare taxes for himself as both an employer and an employee.
He apparently failed to do so, resulting in Internal Revenue Service audits his last two years at the IMF. As soon as the IRS brought the issue to his attention, he paid the taxes with interest, these people said.
It's unclear how much of an impediment these issues will be to Mr. Geithner's nomination. On its merits, his ascension has been widely praised. Mr. Geithner spent most of his career managing government responses to financial crises, from the 1990s bailouts of Mexico, Indonesia and Korea, to the market meltdown that has brought Wall Street to its knees.
But wait, Murdoch continues:
Obama aides said they didn't believe these issues would present a problem, given the minor nature of the infractions and the gravity of the role he has been nominated to take.
On the tax front, Mr. Geithner's oversight is not uncommon. The IRS has mandated loose rules for U.S.-born IMF employees unaware of their obligations to pay payroll taxes.
Sen. Baucus nonetheless decided to hold a closed-door meeting to allow the two matters to be aired before Mr. Geithner's public confirmation hearing.
"It's important that I talk to senators, which I'm going to be doing," Sen. Baucus said as he went into the meeting.
Democratic senators plan to defend Mr. Geithner, saying that the nature of the complaints pale in comparison to the gravity of the crises he has been asked to face, a severe economic recession, turmoil in the financial markets and the collapse of the U.S. auto industry.
Monday, January 12, 2009
The Left starts pushing back...
Just watching the blogs tick by on Huffington Post, you see the following headlines:
Jane Hamsher bleating on again. Here's my question, let's say there was an ethically challenged Administration leaving office, with a lot of questions that opposing party wanted answered (perhaps even legitimately), and a hardcore base demanded prosecutions.
Now shift the year to 2001.
Now what do you say to the idea of prosecuting the last administration?
This last one is from John Cusack, star of stage and screen. While he asks a question I'd like to see answered myself, what if the answer doesn't meet with his approval? Does he suggest dumping the first black Attorney General? He doesn't seem to have an answer for this one.
But the good news is that I'm finally seeing some pushback from my fellow lefties against my fellow lefties...
Maybe, Going Forward, We Should Just Let Bernie Madoff Off?
I understand it's smart for Obama to hold his cards close on torture and war crimes prosecutions, but the reason that's being given for not pursuing them makes little sense.
Jane Hamsher bleating on again. Here's my question, let's say there was an ethically challenged Administration leaving office, with a lot of questions that opposing party wanted answered (perhaps even legitimately), and a hardcore base demanded prosecutions.
Now shift the year to 2001.
Now what do you say to the idea of prosecuting the last administration?
Obama on Torture: Don't Stop Thinking About Tomorrow
This answer tracks the language of many torture apologists (and advocates) in Washington, who posit a choice between protecting the country today and second-guessing the past.
Two Questions
Two questions we should demand Congress ask of Eric Holder before confirming him. The same two questions Mukasey refused to answer.
This last one is from John Cusack, star of stage and screen. While he asks a question I'd like to see answered myself, what if the answer doesn't meet with his approval? Does he suggest dumping the first black Attorney General? He doesn't seem to have an answer for this one.
But the good news is that I'm finally seeing some pushback from my fellow lefties against my fellow lefties...
Who Needs the Right When the Left Has Itself?
This is the nub of it for me with the Lefties: they do not truly understand who they are, nor what they are motivated by. The slightest bump in the road leads to anarchy or dissent.
Barack Obama and Ernie Shore
Barack Obama is like a relief pitcher who was brought in to pitch with his team down by about ten runs and is somehow expected to lead them to victory.
Why Aren't Democrats Supporting Obama?
This is nuts. No doubt Democrats have a tradition of tearing down their own presidents, but usually it takes a few years. Not now. The GOP must be chortling.
Saturday, January 10, 2009
Wednesday, January 7, 2009
Nate Silver: "How many of you saw his dilemma coming?"
Nate Silver, who by the way is up for a 2008 Weblog Award for Best Political Coverage (vote for him here), puts up the most reasoned taken on the whole Burris mess:
Sure, Harry Reid has managed to trap himself now on the subject of Roland Burris, and is getting a lot of criticism for it. But how many of you saw his dilemma coming? At the time the Blagojevich scandal broke, did Reid and the Democrats really have any choice but to distance themselves as much as possible, and assert flatly that they wouldn't seat anyone that he nominated? Did they really have any reason to expect that a quasi-credible candidate like Roland Burris would actually accept Blagojevich's nomination (as opposed to someone like, say, Patti Blagojevich?)
I think Reid can be criticized for one thing -- for failing to advocate for a special election. But even if the Democrats had made a more earnest push to hold a special election, that would still have provided for the possibility that Blagojevich would attempt to nominate someone in the meantime. What were they supposed to have said? "You know Rod, we really have no legal grounds to block your nominee, so please pretty please with a cherry on top don't do it?"
WSJ: Bair to stay on at FDIC...
Obama Intends to Keep FDIC's Bair at Agency:
WASHINGTON -- The Obama administration intends to keep Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. Chairman Sheila Bair in her post, Democrat officials said Wednesday.
Ms. Bair, a Republican who is one of the most influential figures in the government's response to the financial crisis, was nominated to run the FDIC by President George W. Bush in 2006. She has won praise from congressional Democrats for her aggressive push to help homeowners avoid foreclosure. But she has emerged as a controversial figure during the banking crisis, occasionally clashing with the White House, Treasury Department, and Federal Reserve over the government's response.
She has criticized the Bush administration's management of the $700 billion financial rescue package because she has said it doesn't do enough to keep people in their homes. There had been speculation that President-elect Barack Obama would ask Ms. Bair to leave and would appoint his own person.
WASHINGTON -- The Obama administration intends to keep Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. Chairman Sheila Bair in her post, Democrat officials said Wednesday.
Ms. Bair, a Republican who is one of the most influential figures in the government's response to the financial crisis, was nominated to run the FDIC by President George W. Bush in 2006. She has won praise from congressional Democrats for her aggressive push to help homeowners avoid foreclosure. But she has emerged as a controversial figure during the banking crisis, occasionally clashing with the White House, Treasury Department, and Federal Reserve over the government's response.
She has criticized the Bush administration's management of the $700 billion financial rescue package because she has said it doesn't do enough to keep people in their homes. There had been speculation that President-elect Barack Obama would ask Ms. Bair to leave and would appoint his own person.
SF Chron: Black support for Prop 8 Exaggerated...
Gay/Lesbian Community, I'm waiting for my apology...
Exit polls found that 70 percent of black voters backed Prop. 8 on Nov. 4, even as they overwhelmingly supported Democratic Sen. Barack Obama, who opposed the same-sex marriage ban.Reports of overwhelming African American support for Proposition 8's ban on same-sex marriage were exaggerated in exit polls, a new look at the November election results has found.
"Party identification, age, religiosity and political view had much bigger effects than race, gender or having gay and lesbian family and friends," said Patrick Egan of New York University, who wrote the report with Kenneth Sherrill of Hunter College of New York for the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force.
But an analysis of precinct-level voting data on Prop. 8 from Alameda, Los Angeles, Sacramento, San Diego and San Francisco counties, which are home to nearly two-thirds of California's black voters, suggested that African American support for Prop. 8 was more likely about 58 percent.
Burris Burris Burris...
Okay, from what I can tell, the President-Elect has told folks that it's okay to seat Burris.
In truth, this is a softening of his stance. He's still saying "if he gets seated", but c'mon, we all know what's happening here...
So Burris meets with Dick Durbin (D-IL) and Harry Reid (D-NV). And while the meeting is going on, the Associated Press reports that Burris's seating was about to happen.
Problem. Harry Reid came out of the meeting, and promptly says that no decision's been made yet.
And a reporter from Politico:
He also managed to throw a brushback pitch to Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), in regards to her pro-Burris statement from yesterday.
And that AP story? Well, Harry Reid's spokesperson, Jim Manley, emailed Talking Points Memo and said simply:
During his presser, Harry managed to clarify his official legal position on Burris matter:
The first part, the ruling from the Illinois State Supreme Court is getting a fair bit of play. Fair enough that the Illinois Secretary of State, Jesse White, came out and said:
Otherwise, the Secretary of State and not the Governor would be the most powerful person in any state. White also let go this particular nugget...
So now, I think we're all pre-positioned for Burris's seating...
Except...
...the last part, that Harry is also waiting Burris' testimony in the Illinois House Impeachment Committee. That's interesting. Perhaps Harry is waiting to hear how hard Burris slams Blago during it before giving him the green light.
That is a Senate matter. But I know Roland Burris, obviously he is from my home state. He is a fine public servant, if he gets seated then I am going to work with Roland Burris like all other senators to make sure that the people if Illinois and the people across the country are served.
In truth, this is a softening of his stance. He's still saying "if he gets seated", but c'mon, we all know what's happening here...
So Burris meets with Dick Durbin (D-IL) and Harry Reid (D-NV). And while the meeting is going on, the Associated Press reports that Burris's seating was about to happen.
Senate Democrats plan to accept Roland Burris for President-elect Barack Obama's vacant seat.
Problem. Harry Reid came out of the meeting, and promptly says that no decision's been made yet.
There's going to come a time when the entire Senate is going to have to act on this. And that day I hope would come sooner rather than later.And to further clarify his ongoing position in regards to this new President, especially in context of the first quote I gave, Harry Reid told an Interviewer from the Hill:
I don't believe in the executive power trumping everything... I believe in our Constitution, three separate but equal branches of government. If Obama steps over the bounds, I will tell him. ... I do not work for Barack Obama. I work with him.
And a reporter from Politico:
I like Barack Obama very much. He won a classic election, never have we had a better one. But I don't work for him, I work with him.
He also managed to throw a brushback pitch to Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), in regards to her pro-Burris statement from yesterday.
That’s not valid, her statement. I told her that. OK?
And that AP story? Well, Harry Reid's spokesperson, Jim Manley, emailed Talking Points Memo and said simply:
It is wrong.
During his presser, Harry managed to clarify his official legal position on Burris matter:
Reid and Durbin both went to great lengths to say how much they like and respect Burris, and how constructive the meeting they just had with him was. But for now, they're waiting on two things: A ruling from the state Supreme Court on whether the missing signature of Illinois Secretary of State Jesse White is required for the appointment to be valid, and for Burris' testimony tomorrow before the Illinois House impeachment committee.
The first part, the ruling from the Illinois State Supreme Court is getting a fair bit of play. Fair enough that the Illinois Secretary of State, Jesse White, came out and said:
They could have seated him without my signature; my signature is not required.
Otherwise, the Secretary of State and not the Governor would be the most powerful person in any state. White also let go this particular nugget...
Asked by [WGN-AM 720's John] Williams if he had been made "the fall guy," White said, "You're absolutely correct."
So now, I think we're all pre-positioned for Burris's seating...
Except...
...the last part, that Harry is also waiting Burris' testimony in the Illinois House Impeachment Committee. That's interesting. Perhaps Harry is waiting to hear how hard Burris slams Blago during it before giving him the green light.
Tuesday, January 6, 2009
TPM: Feinstein says seat Burris!
Not helping.
This from the lady who defended the FISA Legislation...
This from the lady who thought Iraq was a good idea...
This from the lady who voted for Leslie Southwick...
This from the lady who said "Go ahead, Michael Mukasey will be a total departure in the Attorney General's Office."
In my world, because Feinstein's for it, is a good enough reason to be against it.
"I can't imagine the secretary of state countermanding a gubernatorial appointment," Feinstein said. "The question, really, is one in my view of law. And that is, does the governor have the power to make the appointment? And the answer is yes. Is the governor discredited? And the answer is yes. Does that affect his appointment power? And the answer is no until certain things happen."
This from the lady who defended the FISA Legislation...
This from the lady who thought Iraq was a good idea...
This from the lady who voted for Leslie Southwick...
This from the lady who said "Go ahead, Michael Mukasey will be a total departure in the Attorney General's Office."
In my world, because Feinstein's for it, is a good enough reason to be against it.
Slate: Why It's Going to take so long..
According to John Dickerson, because this is how the sausage is made:
Much of the time between now and when Obama signs the bill will be spent acting out the new era of politics he has promised. Much of Obama's popularity is based on his promises to build bridges with Republicans and change the way Washington works. Obama "really does want this to be bipartisan," said one veteran Democratic Senate aide when I asked why Senate Democrats couldn't just push through the Obama program quickly with their new massive majority. According to one participant in Obama's Monday meetings with Republican leaders, he stressed that he wanted "substantial Republican votes" in support of the bill. He promised that while he wouldn't agree with every idea, he would listen.
Republicans will have to get comfortable with the stimulus bill's contents and find plausible explanations to offer their constituents for their yes vote. (In meetings with Obama, congressional Republican leaders said his proposal for $300 billion in tax cuts will help them make the case.) Unlike recent unpopular recent bailouts, this one is targeted toward regular people, which should make it easier for Republicans to explain. But GOP legislators don't want to look like they're just writing a blank check to a government that President Bush has already put into historic bloat. (Some Republican strategists argue that a symbolic fight over spending would be a useful way for Republicans to show that the party had broken with the Bush era.)
The process of winning over members in the minority party—or at least making it look like they were given a fair role in the process—will require patient negotiations and perhaps committee hearings during which Republicans are given sufficient time to ask questions and perhaps even call witnesses. If Obama wants to embrace their contributions to the bill—one of the biggest signs he's making good on his bridge-building promises—he'll then have to make sure he shows the same concern for the views of his fellow Democrats, like the deficit-conscious Blue Dog Democrats who want rules written into the bill that link future spending to corresponding budget cuts.
One way Obama could grease the legislation would be to allow members to fund pet projects through earmarks. But he's said he doesn't want to do that. Obama has promised the bill will include no earmarks. That's an honorable position, but it creates a second problem. He's raised the bar on the kinds of programs that will be funded by the legislation. Some of the infrastructure programs governors and mayors have suggested are "shovel ready"—meaning they have all the permits they need and are best prepared to take advantage of immediate federal dollars—aren't technically earmarks but can sound like pork. "Part of the charge of … our budget team is to make sure that we are proceeding on projects and investments based on national priorities and not based on politics," he said last year describing his "new way of doing business." Figuring out how to move quickly while retaining some level of federal oversight will be complicated.
WaPo: Sanjay Gupta, your new Surgeon General...
Michael Moore's gonna be pissed.
But Obama's made the offer, and Dr. Sanjay Gupta apparently wants the job.
But Obama's made the offer, and Dr. Sanjay Gupta apparently wants the job.
TPM: Feinstein's okay with Panetta now...
Because the Senator got a call from the President-Elect and the Vice President-Elect, everything's just fine now.
Apparently, she needed her ring kissed...and her No. 1 choice appointed No. 2, so it's smooth sailing. Mr. Leon Panetta, your Head of the C.I.A.!
"I understand their thinking" in choosing Panetta, Feinstein explained, describing herself as "very respectful of the president's authority ... this is the man [Obama has chosen]."
I asked Feinstein whether her reticence about Panetta's lack of ties to the CIA would be mitigated by having Steven Kappes, her preferred choice for CIA director, stay on as the agency's No 2. "I believe very strongly" that Kappes should stay, Feinstein said, adding that Panetta's standing would be "very much enhanced" were Kappes to stay his deputy.
Apparently, she needed her ring kissed...and her No. 1 choice appointed No. 2, so it's smooth sailing. Mr. Leon Panetta, your Head of the C.I.A.!
Taxes...Part 2
In furtherance to blogosphere paranoia, ace numbers man Nate Silver has jumped into the Taxes stuff:
And Richard Wolffe talks up the fact that whatever Stimulus passes by Valentine's Day (the first Congressional Break), is merely Part 1. Part 2 is coming in the fall. (Richard's part begins about 2:47 into the piece, but his part about there being a second stimulus begins about 5:58 into the piece).
What this analysis seems to be taking for granted is that the tax cuts are something the Obama administration does not want on their own merits. This, however, is far from self-evident. Obama's economic team is fairly centrist, number one. Obama campaigned on a tax cut, number two (albeit a tax cut paired with a tax hike for the wealthy). And number three, even most liberal economists seem to think that some measure of tax cuts are a decent idea, although there are questions about which taxes should be cut and in what amounts. (Likewise, most conservative economists seem to think that some measure of spending increases are a good idea -- it's just a question of how much).
Basically, I would resist the temptation on either side to see the stimulus in too overtly ideological terms. The ordinary rules are suspended during a severe recession: what matters is -- emperically, theoretically -- What Works. Instead, I would encourage everyone to cut down on their consumption of political blogs for the next few weeks and instead read more of Brad DeLong and Greg Mankiw and Paul Krugman and Tyler Cohen. Those are the sorts of people I'm interested in listening to on this; all others must bring data.
And Richard Wolffe talks up the fact that whatever Stimulus passes by Valentine's Day (the first Congressional Break), is merely Part 1. Part 2 is coming in the fall. (Richard's part begins about 2:47 into the piece, but his part about there being a second stimulus begins about 5:58 into the piece).
Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy
Monday, January 5, 2009
I'm not alone...
Turns out...I'm not alone.
I used to do a lot of intelligence reporting. But I haven't really done any to speak of in a few years. So I'm coming at this cold. But I feel instinctively suspicious of the congressional reaction to this appointment. Rockefeller is saying he's not happy. But he was a very poor ranking member and then chairman of the senate committee. So I don't think that means much. If the Obama team really didn't make a courtesy call to Feinstein, who's taking over the overseeing committee, that was a goof -- just because there's enough hard slogging getting this kind of stuff done that you don't get people ticked over stupid things. But let's not let that distract from the substance of the issue. I'm not certain what I think about this appointment yet. But on first blush, the nature of the opposition makes me more inclined to support it.
Next Joan Walsh of Salon.com:
I wasn't sure what to make of the appointment of Leon Panetta as CIA director -- until I heard that Sens. Dianne Feinstein and Jay Rockefeller opposed it. That's not entirely true: I thought the competent and popular Panetta, who came out strongly against Bush administration torture, detention and interrogation policies, was a clear message that Obama wants to change the way our intelligence agencies do business. The two Democrats' pique -- they say Obama didn't vet Panetta with them -- is a good sign that Panetta's not viewed as an insider who will simply roll over for what the intelligence establishment wants, since Feinstein and Rockefeller did little or nothing to stand up against Bush policies (and Glenn Greenwald agrees with me.)
On MSNBC's "1600 Pennsylvania Avenue," I said I trust Obama and Panetta on these issues far more than Feinstein and Rockefeller. Pat Buchanan and David Shuster predicted the opposition of Feinstein and Rockefeller would liberate congressional Republicans to savage Panetta in confirmation hearings; I trust he'll make it through, with Obama's strong backing.
Spencer Ackerman reports that Sen. Dianne Feinstein is upset with the selection of Panetta, petulantly complaining that she wasn't consulted in advance and that it would be best to have an "intelligence professional" in that position. CQ's Tim Starks reports that Sen. Jay Rockefeller is making very similar noises about this selection. Few things could reflect better on Panetta's selection than the fact that Feinstein and Rockefeller -- two of the most Bush-enabling Senators -- are unhappy with it.
Even a Conservative, Michael Ledeen of NRO, that I've never heard of (courtesy Andrew Sullivan - a conservative I have heard of):
I always liked Panetta. He served in the Army and is openly proud of it. He seems to be a good lawyer (oxymoronic though it may seem). He's a good manager. And he's going to watch Obama's back at a place that's full of stilettos and a track record for attempted presidential assassination second to none. But Italians know all about political assassination; you may remember Julius Caesar. Or Aldo Moro. The self-proclaimed cognoscenti will deride his lack of "spycraft," and he's never worked in the intel bureaucracy or, for that matter, in foreign policy or national security. But he's been chief of staff, which involved all that stuff. I think it's a smart move.
And of course, Andrew Sullivan himself:
Others, like Goldberg and York [note: and Joe Klein], peddle the line that no one who has operated in the "real world" of intelligence could agree with Obama's attempt to move the US past the torture era. No: a huge majority of intelligence professionals agree with Obama on effective interrogation. But after eight years of a CIA tainted with torture and presidentially-sanctioned lawlessness, drawing a bright line under the recent past is critical.
That's why the Panetta pick is inspired. The more I think about it, the more that seems true. This is change we can believe in. And in this necessarily secret area, public trust is vital. For the first time in a long dark patch, we will regain it.
I was hoping for more, but I'll take five. I bet Kos and Jed chime in tomorrow.
TPM: Taxes...(VIDEO)
It started with Josh saying this:
Okay, what did that mean?
Apparently, the Murdoch Street Journal had a story saying that there was going to be a lot of tax cuts in the stimulus plan.
Liberals everywhere, freaked...because if the Wall St. Journal's happy, it can't be a good thing. Normally, I'd agree, but it was hard to put a pin in this since I hadn't (at the time) heard from the President-Elect.
Paul Krugman chimed in on his blog on Friday:
Realizing that his first post was a little...arch, and now armed with Krugman's pushback, Josh went on to explain what he meant:
And then Krugman chimed in again, once he had details...and still wasn't happy.
In contrast, former Labor Secretary, and Obama Economic Adviser Robert Reich was on board:
For the record, Reich is part of the transition team. He's probably got more insight than he's letting on, so I don't know what he's talking about.
At the same time, when Josh writes of Reich's comments that: "He was very positive on the tax cuts, which is a key tell", I have no idea what that means. I assumed it meant that the Rubinomics folks were on board, which to Josh and Krugman is a bad thing.
Then Jed, over at the Jed Report, also tried to calm folks down.
I'm not sure it worked, though.
Now, imagine the President-Elect's confusion in all this. In his mind (and mine as well) this is what he's been promising all along:
I'm having a hard time understanding the anger coming from Krugman and Josh, and thus am having a hard time determining if it's misplaced or right on the money. I seem to remember a combination of Tax Cuts for the Middle Class, Tax freezes on salaries between $150,000 and $250,000 and a Tax hike on anyone making over $250,000 as part of the plan. I also remember Obama wanting to get help for Small Businesses as well.
So, what's the problem here?
Can someone help me come up with an argument for why the Obama stimulus plan isn't turning out to be a painful joke?
Thanks in advance.
Okay, what did that mean?
Apparently, the Murdoch Street Journal had a story saying that there was going to be a lot of tax cuts in the stimulus plan.
Liberals everywhere, freaked...because if the Wall St. Journal's happy, it can't be a good thing. Normally, I'd agree, but it was hard to put a pin in this since I hadn't (at the time) heard from the President-Elect.
Paul Krugman chimed in on his blog on Friday:
There’s a reasonable economic case for including a significant amount of tax cuts in the package, mainly in year one.
But the numbers being reported — 40 percent of the whole, two-year plan — sound high. And all the news reports say that the high tax-cut share is intended to assuage Republicans; what this presumably means is that this was the message the off-the-record Obamanauts were told to convey.
And that’s bad news.
Realizing that his first post was a little...arch, and now armed with Krugman's pushback, Josh went on to explain what he meant:
Since my earlier post was more arch and cryptic, I wanted to expand on what seems to be the problem with the Obama stimulus plan, as revealed in the current round of leaks. I would point to three key issues. And I'm going to base these three on the premise -- which is by no means clear -- that the business tax cuts included in the bill aren't particularly egregious on their own terms but rather ones that make some economic sense in the situation we find ourselves in.
So with that, the three.
First, there seems to be a decent consensus that the tax rebates from last year had little stimulative effect on the economy. So while it's a good thing for families on the margin to get another $500 or $1,000, it's not clear how much bang for the buck you'll get for the money spent in terms of creating demand/consumer spending in the economy.
Second, the amount of the bill that comes in tax cuts leaves the spending side of the bill really small -- judged by the standards of what most economists seem to think is necessary, like $400 billion over two years. So it's not just the logic of the tax cuts on their own merits but the degree they're beggaring the spending side of the ledger. (A lot of this just comes down to whether or not you buy into the Keynesian premise of the whole exercise, of course. But let me note for the record that there does seem to be a decent rationale for significant tax cuts in year one of the bill, since you need to get money into the economy rapidly and there may not be enough projects that can be started quickly. That leaves the question of why so much of it is also included in year two. I fear that may be the 'tell'.)
Third, and in some ways this is the most troubling. It would be far better on many counts to bring in substantial Republican support for this bill. And I don't just mean that in the BS sense in which President Bush usually meant it, which was to say essentially, 'Of course we'd like you to vote for exactly what we want. More the merrier. But if you don't want to vote for our ideal bill, tough luck.' No, I think there's a real logic in not going the 51 votes model President Bush followed. But Obama seems to be telegraphing that to a significant degree the fundamental structure of the legislation is being built around accommodating the concerns of Republicans -- members of a political party that are about as unpopular and weak as you can get at the moment. And that sounds a lot like he's negotiating with himself, something that will embolden opposition and invite Republicans to up the ante even further.
These are just leaks. We don't have details. Some are speculating that this is part of some global head fake by the Obama folks. I hope so. But put me down as very skeptical.
And then Krugman chimed in again, once he had details...and still wasn't happy.
A few more details are emerging: $140 billion for Obama’s tax break for workers, which gives most workers $500. But it sounds as if the rest is mainly, perhaps almost entirely, tax cuts for business. Not very New Dealish.
In contrast, former Labor Secretary, and Obama Economic Adviser Robert Reich was on board:
For the record, Reich is part of the transition team. He's probably got more insight than he's letting on, so I don't know what he's talking about.
At the same time, when Josh writes of Reich's comments that: "He was very positive on the tax cuts, which is a key tell", I have no idea what that means. I assumed it meant that the Rubinomics folks were on board, which to Josh and Krugman is a bad thing.
Then Jed, over at the Jed Report, also tried to calm folks down.
Overall, the package will cover a two-year period with a price-tag of $675 billion to $775 billion, $270 billion to $310 billion of which would be spent on tax cuts. The balance — $405 billion to $465 billion — would be spent on infrastracture, health care, and other programs.
One thing to keep in mind is that in early 2008 Congress passed a $131 billion tax cut stimulus plan covering one year. Therefore, while $300 billion over two years might seem like a lot, it’s actually the same level of spending as we saw in 2008.
I'm not sure it worked, though.
Now, imagine the President-Elect's confusion in all this. In his mind (and mine as well) this is what he's been promising all along:
I'm having a hard time understanding the anger coming from Krugman and Josh, and thus am having a hard time determining if it's misplaced or right on the money. I seem to remember a combination of Tax Cuts for the Middle Class, Tax freezes on salaries between $150,000 and $250,000 and a Tax hike on anyone making over $250,000 as part of the plan. I also remember Obama wanting to get help for Small Businesses as well.
So, what's the problem here?
Feinstein's not happy...
Let me say that as a resident of California, I was a little nervous about Leon Panetta being named DCI of the Central Intelligence Agency.
But now that I've heard that one of my Senator's, Dianne Feinstein, doesn't seem to like the pick, what I can say? I feel a hell of a lot better about it.
This is what her office sent TPM Alum, Spencer Ackerman over at the Washington Independent.
Oooh, icy.
David Corn, of Mother Jones, was just a little warmer:
But now that I've heard that one of my Senator's, Dianne Feinstein, doesn't seem to like the pick, what I can say? I feel a hell of a lot better about it.
This is what her office sent TPM Alum, Spencer Ackerman over at the Washington Independent.
“I was not informed about the selection of Leon Panetta to be the CIA Director. I know nothing about this, other than what I’ve read,” said Senator Feinstein, who will chair the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence in the 111th Congress.
“My position has consistently been that I believe the Agency is best-served by having an intelligence professional in charge at this time.”
Oooh, icy.
David Corn, of Mother Jones, was just a little warmer:
Panetta is an even-tempered and highly regarded Washington player--kind of a Mr. Fixit in a nice suit. He is also a zero-tolerance critic of the use of torture, and he considers waterboarding--a tactic used by the CIA--to be torture. A year ago, he wrote in The Washington Monthly:
According to the latest polls, two-thirds of the American public believes that torturing suspected terrorists to gain important information is justified in some circumstances. How did we transform from champions of human dignity and individual rights into a nation of armchair torturers? One word: fear.Fear is blinding, hateful, and vengeful. It makes the end justify the means. And why not? If torture can stop the next terrorist attack, the next suicide bomber, then what's wrong with a little waterboarding or electric shock?The simple answer is the rule of law....Those who support torture may believe that we can abuse captives in certain select circumstances and still be true to our values. But that is a false compromise. We either believe in the dignity of the individual, the rule of law, and the prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment, or we don't. There is no middle ground.We cannot and we must not use torture under any circumstances..It doesn't get much clearer than this. (Take that, Jack Bauer!) By picking Panetta, Obama is repudiating the waterboarding ways of the Bush-Cheney administration.
As a member of the Iraq Study Group, Panetta joined with other Establishment poohbahs to criticize George W. Bush's prosecution of the Iraq war. And in a newspaper op-ed, he noted that the Iraq war "could give al-Qaeda a base for terrorism throughout this critical region."
NYT: Publishing a piece by right wing morons Bolton and Yoo...
Lemme get this straight, the Bush Administration, had John Bolton and John Yoo doing everything in their power to circumvent the Congress in virtually all areas, much less when it comes to Treaties. Now Obama is about to be sworn in, these same two bozos feel now's the time for the Senate to reassert its Treaty power??
Past Presidents, like YOUR BOSS?!?!?
Like past presidents, Mr. Obama will likely be tempted to avoid the requirement that treaties must be approved by two-thirds of the Senate.
Past Presidents, like YOUR BOSS?!?!?
Newsweek: Why do they let Samuelson keep bleating on??
Post Columnist, Robert Samuelson has already dismissed Barack Obama as a candidate.
Robert Samuelson has already dismissed the idea of a Stimulus Package as having a positive effect on the Economy.
Yet here is Robert Samuelson being allowed to ask: Obama's Stimulus Plan, will it really work??
My question is...if the guy's already made a predetermination as the value of Obama and his plans, what's the point of allowing him to bleat on, about the same points?
Robert Samuelson has already dismissed the idea of a Stimulus Package as having a positive effect on the Economy.
Yet here is Robert Samuelson being allowed to ask: Obama's Stimulus Plan, will it really work??
My question is...if the guy's already made a predetermination as the value of Obama and his plans, what's the point of allowing him to bleat on, about the same points?
Salon: Shock of shocks. Greenwald approves of something Obama does...
Even Glenn Greenwald likes Obama's appointments to the Office of Legal Counsel.
The Office of Legal Counsel, inside the Justice Department, is probably the most consequential federal government office that remains relatively obscure. The legal opinions which it issues become, more or less automatically, the official legal position of the Executive Branch. It was from that office that John Yoo, Jay Bybee and others did so much damage, issuing now-infamous memoranda that established the regime of lawlessness that has dominated our political institutions over the last eight years. Other than Attorney General-designate Eric Holder and Obama himself, there is probably no official who will have a more significant role in determining the extent to which the Obama administration really does reverse the lawlessness and legal radicalism of the Bush years.
Today, as The Boston Globe just reported, Barack Obama announced several new appointments to key DOJ posts, including Dawn Johnsen to head the OLC. Johnsen is a Professor of Law at Indiana University, a former OLC official in the Clinton administration (as well as a former ACLU counsel), and a graduate of Yale Law School. She's become a true expert on executive power and, specifically, the role and obligation of the OLC in restricting presidential decisions to their lawful scope.
There are several striking pieces of evidence that suggest this appointment may be Obama's best yet, perhaps by far. Consider, first, this rather emphatic Slate article authored by Johnsen in the wake of the disclosure, last April, of the 81-page John Yoo Memo which declared that the President's power to torture detainees is virtually limitless.
Why David Sirota is and always will be an idiot...
From his latest posting:
Harry Reid's Views on Race
It kinda makes you wonder if Reid would have told Illinois Democratic leaders back in 2004 not to back Obama for Senate because he was supposedly "unelectable."
Uh-huh.
Jermaine Dupri knows what he's talking about??
Jermaine Dupri has it more on the ball than a lot of bloggers?
Jermaine Dupri???
A.K.A. Gollum?? The guy who's jedi-mind tricked Janet Jackson into dating him whatever some reason??
Yet, I have a newfound respect for the man, listen to this:
Jermaine Dupri???
A.K.A. Gollum?? The guy who's jedi-mind tricked Janet Jackson into dating him whatever some reason??
Yet, I have a newfound respect for the man, listen to this:
Obama hasn't even been sworn in yet and he's being pushed and pulled in all the different directions everyone else thinks he's supposed to go. Everywhere I look people are trying to steer Obama one-way or the other. Usually, into whatever lane suits them best. And it isn't just the Republicans who are doing the complaining. If anything, they seem the most happy with Obama's decisions - maybe because they didn't expect much. It's his own party that's pulling the guy every which way, like some whacked out back seat driver. "Turn left! No! Go straight ahead! What are you doing?!? You were supposed to make a right! Go back!" Everybody thinks he owes them and they're hell bent on trying to collect.
My God. The very theme of this blog, expressed eloquently by...Jermaine Dupri.
I will never speak ill of the man again.
Sunday, January 4, 2009
They're gonna cave...
Jed Levinson at his blog the Jed Report came up with this way first. Even though it's at his own blog, I took a cue from my Dad the mathematician, and re-do the math.
Yep, comes out the same. We're gonna let him in.
I think Burris is a cheap hack, and I think that we should go through fire to make sure he's not seated...
That being said, Harry Reid is gonna cave. First off, it's in his nature. Second off, the mathematics play to the Democrats.
From Nate Silver:
Now, I got this transcript of this (Sunday) Morning's Meet The Press from the Jed Report:
Sigh.
The only thing that annoys me is that there are some Liberal blogs that are going to be celebrating this.
I think Burris is a cheap hack, and I think that we should go through fire to make sure he's not seated...
That being said, Harry Reid is gonna cave. First off, it's in his nature. Second off, the mathematics play to the Democrats.
From Nate Silver:
Presently the Democrats have a 57-member caucus, counting neither Burris nor Franken. However, because there are currently only 98 senators, this reduces the number of votes required to break a filibuster from 60 to 59. (Vacancies are not counted when calculating the number of votes needed to break a filibuster; three-fifths of 98 is 58.8, which rounds up to 59). Therefore, the Democrats would need two crossover votes to pass a cloture resolution.
But now, suppose that Franken gets seated but Burris doesn't. The Democrats add a member to their caucus, brining them to 58 members. However, with 99 senators rather than 98, the filibuster threshold goes back up to 60 votes (three-fifths of 99 is 59.4, but the rule in this instance requires rounding up). Thus, the Democrats remain two votes shy of breaking a filibuster.
Once the Democrats get senators seated in both Illinois and Minnesota, however, they'll have 59 votes out of the 60 they need, leaving them just one vote shy -- and Sens. Specter, Snowe, et. al. ripe for the picking.
Now, I got this transcript of this (Sunday) Morning's Meet The Press from the Jed Report:
MR. GREGORY: But are you willing to go to the mat on this to deny Roland Burris, if it requires going to the Supreme Court? Is it worth that effort?
SEN. REID: The state of Illinois deserves a vote in the United States Senate, and the people of the state of Illinois, the fifth most populous state in the union, deserve that vote. It’s too bad Blagojevich has diverted attention from the real issue. And we’ll—we’re—as I’ve indicated, we’re going to come—I’m going to meet with Senator McConnell, my Republican counterpart. I hope to do that Monday evening. I think it’s around 6:00 or something like that. We’ll talk about this. I hope we can solve this issue on a bipartisan basis.
MR. GREGORY: But there sounds to me like there may be some room here to negotiate and actually seat Burris?
SEN. REID: Hey, listen, David, I’m an old trial lawyer. There’s always room to negotiate.
MR. GREGORY: All right, so you’re not saying no completely that he won’t serve?
SEN. REID: That’s right.
Sigh.
The only thing that annoys me is that there are some Liberal blogs that are going to be celebrating this.
NBC: Richardson...out??
Yeah, according to Andrea Mitchell.
New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson, tapped in December by President-elect Barack Obama to serve as secretary of Commerce, has withdrawn his name for the position, citing a pending investigation into a company that has done business with his state.
"Let me say unequivocally that I and my Administration have acted properly in all matters and that this investigation will bear out that fact," he said Sunday in a report by NBC News' Andrea Mitchell. "But I have concluded that the ongoing investigation also would have forced an untenable delay in the confirmation process."
I'm not happy about this. Richardson was someone I wanted for State, much less Commerce. I was overjoyed at the number of Latinos in Obama's cabinet.
At the same time, memo to Blagojevich and Burris. This is how it's done. This is what honor and integrity look like.
Saturday, January 3, 2009
Wednesday, December 31, 2008
Prince reasserts that he did not vote for Prop 8 here in California...
...of course, it should be said, the Purple One's got three albums coming out this year, so...be your own judge.
"I didn't vote for Obama either," [Prince] explained. "Jehovah's Witnesses haven't voted for their whole inception." The controversy over a recent New Yorker "Talk of the Town" item, which Prince feels implied he supported the gay-marriage ban, has upset him. It's the first thing he wanted to discuss when the Web geeks had gone and we were alone. "I have friends that are gay and we study the Bible together," he said. He added that two sides fighting "only benefit the third person" who instigated the fight.
Slate.com: The Powell Case does not apply...
From Slate.com's article: "How the Senate Can Stop Blagojevich":
In short, easily.
And in case you were wondering about the Adam Clayton Powell case a lot of Legal Pundits have been bleating on about:
Following English parliamentary tradition and early Colonial and state practice, the framers made the Senate its own gatekeeper and guardian. Each house of Congress is "the Judge of the Elections, Returns, and Qualifications of its own members," according to Article 1, Section 5 of the Constitution. At the founding, Senators were elected by state legislatures. If the Senate believed that legislators in a given state had been bribed into voting for a particular candidate, the Senate could refuse to seat him.
And in case you were wondering about the Adam Clayton Powell case a lot of Legal Pundits have been bleating on about:
In the 1969 case of Powell v. McCormack, the Supreme Court properly held that the Constitution imposes limits on the power of the Senate and the House to exclude members. Some legal commentators say this decision trumps the Senate's power to exclude Burris. But the letter and spirit of Powell actually cut against him. The case involved an elected congressman, Adam Clayton Powell, whom the voters had clearly chosen in a fair election and whom the House nevertheless excluded—wrongly, the court held. The key fact is that there was no doubt whatsoever that Powell was the people's choice, and in issuing its ruling, the Warren Court repeatedly stressed this. The justices insisted that their ruling was aimed at protecting the people's right to vote. None of that spirit applies here. And that's why the case doesn't stand in the Senate's way now.
Powell also said that each house could "judge" the qualifications laid out in the Constitution (such as age) but could not make up new qualifications. Thus, if the Senate were to plausibly decide in good faith that a candidate failed to meet the Constitution's age requirement, Powell nowhere suggests that this senatorial determination should be set aside by ordinary federal courts. For similar reasons, federal courts should not interfere when the Senate plausibly and in good faith decides an election or return to be improper or corrupt. The critical point here is that the Constitution itself sets up the Senate as the highest court of Senate elections. When the Senate speaks as this court, its adjudications are legal judgments that no other court may properly reopen. If the Senate convicts a federal judge in an impeachment court, no other federal court may properly interfere. So, too, for Senate elections and returns.
Sun Times: Integrity.
From the Chicago Sun Times:
Rep. Danny K. Davis (D-Ill.) would like to replace President-elect Barack Obama in the Senate. The appointment was dangled before him last Wednesday. He turned it down.
...
"I indicated I came to the conclusion there was too much discomfort on my part and the part of my family," Davis said. Anyway, he could not see how the governor could name anyone and make it stick.
But most important, Davis said he realized that if he took the job, "It would be difficult to generate the trust level people would have to have in me. I just decided there was too much turmoil, too much disagreement. It was something I wanted to do, but I said I would not take an appointment from the governor."
Tuesday, December 30, 2008
MSNBC: Rachel Interviews Burris (VIDEO) UPDATED
I just saw Roland Burris being interviewed on the Rachel Maddow Show, and...frankly I can barely hold down my lunch.
I just posted a comment on the Jed Report, and I want to generally repeat what I said there here.
If Gov. Rod Blagojevich were accused of trying of stealing a car, and then after his arrest, trying to turn around and sell that car, what would we call that? I think we could call it obstruction of justice. It's a blatant attempt to get away with what he was accused of doing in the first place.
Granted, Blagojevich did not steal a car, and the controversy surrounding the Illinois Junior Senate Seat should not be compared to grand theft auto. But let's be clear, Blagojevich is on tape, saying that he's not going to give away Obama's Senate seat for nothing, and resenting the Obama Team's "appreciation". He's now turned around and given the appointment to a man who's given him $14,000 in Campaign Contributions. How does anything about this not stink?
I speak as an African-American, with a distinct affinity for African-American Politicians. I want to see them protected. I want to see them do well. I had never heard of Roland Burris until this day, and frankly I hope I never hear from him again.
Burris is a weasel of a man. He has decided he wants this seat, and is willing to do or say anything to get it. One second, he's condemning Blagojevich's conduct, he's supporting the decision to have him summarily removed from office. The next second he's saying that he has no comment about the Governor's actions.
In our parlance, that translates to "Yassah, Massuh."
$14,000 Dollars in Campaign Cash, plus a sudden silence on Blagojevich's Innocence or guilt. Let's add on the fact that when pressed on whether this is a quid pro quo, all they'll say is "trust us, it ain't"???
How exactly are we supposed to trust a Governor under indictment for selling a Senate Seat, that his appointment to that Senate Seat is clean and legitimate?
I have been disappointed with Harry Reid in the past for some of his actions as Senate Majority Leader. If he lets Burris get seated, I have to say I will lose all respect for him.
The only way this man should see the Senate Floor is on the Tour, and maybe not even then.
Obama: Burris? Hell, no.
Okay, the President-Elect didn't quite go that far:
Roland Burris is a good man and a fine public servant, but the Senate Democrats made it clear weeks ago that they cannot accept an appointment made by a governor who is accused of selling this very Senate seat. I agree with their decision, and it is extremely disappointing that Governor Blagojevich has chosen to ignore it. I believe the best resolution would be for the Governor to resign his office and allow a lawful and appropriate process of succession to take place. While Governor Blagojevich is entitled to his day in court, the people of Illinois are entitled to a functioning government and major decisions free of taint and controversy," said President-elect Obama.
Harry Reid will not seat Roland Burris...
From his statement today:
"It is truly regrettable that despite requests from all 50 Democratic Senators and public officials throughout Illinois, Gov. Blagojevich would take the imprudent step of appointing someone to the United States Senate who would serve under a shadow and be plagued by questions of impropriety. We say this without prejudice toward Roland Burris's ability, and we respect his years of public service. But this is not about Mr. Burris; it is about the integrity of a governor accused of attempting to sell this United States Senate seat. Under these circumstances, anyone appointed by Gov. Blagojevich cannot be an effective representative of the people of Illinois and, as we have said, will not be seated by the Democratic Caucus.
"Next week we will start one of the most important debates of the year - outlining an economic recovery plan to create jobs and invest in America. And in the coming weeks, we will be working to protect homeowners and consumers, make America more energy independent, strengthen our national security, and improve health care and educational opportunities. There is much work to do and a lot at stake. It is thus critical that Illinois and every other state have two seated Senators without delay.
"We again urge Gov. Blagojevich to not make this appointment. It is unfair to Mr. Burris, it is unfair to the people of Illinois and it will ultimately not stand. The governor must put the interests of the people of Illinois and all Americans first by stepping aside now and letting his successor appoint someone who we will seat."
Senator Roland Burris of Illinois???
Merry Christmas...and Happy New Year.
Oh, and by the way, Gov. Rod Blagojevich is appointing Roland Burris to Obama's Senate Seat.
Roland Burris is the former Illinois Attorney General. He was waaaay down on the list for consideration for this seat.
Now, the only question is will the Senate seat him?
...oh, and if Burris is even remotely clean (indications are that he is), as TPM asks why would he take this job?
Oh, and by the way, Gov. Rod Blagojevich is appointing Roland Burris to Obama's Senate Seat.
Blago's certainly not going quietly, is he?
Roland Burris is the former Illinois Attorney General. He was waaaay down on the list for consideration for this seat.
Now, the only question is will the Senate seat him?
...oh, and if Burris is even remotely clean (indications are that he is), as TPM asks why would he take this job?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)