The Fireside chat for January 3, 2009

Back from vacation, fired up, ready to go...

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.

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."

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.

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?

A Chirstmastime Fireside for December 24, 2008

Merry Christmas, from the President-Elect...



Is it just me, or do you think the President-Elect shot this one and last week's back to back?

Time: Does Labor still support Obama?

From the current Time Magazine:

In the seven weeks since Obama's victory, the President-elect has proven to be more of a pragmatist than labor envisioned. From his podium in Chicago during the debate over whether to bail out the Big Three automakers, Obama has been critical of the United Auto Workers, arguing that the union must be willing to grant concessions on its workers' hard-fought wages and benefits. Labor has also been disappointed by some of Obama's initial appointments. Rep. Xavier Becerra of California turned down the job of U.S. Trade Representative because, he told a radio station, he felt overhauling trade agreements would not be a top priority of the incoming Obama administration. Obama's eventual pick, former Dallas Mayor Ron Kirk, has a record of supporting free trade deals, anathema to labor. And some progressives were disappointed that Obama passed over labor activist Mary Beth Maxwell and instead chose Rep. Hilda Solis of California as Secretary of Labor. "Labor has every good reason to be wary since they've been disappointed by Dems before, such as Presidents Clinton and Carter," says Robert Borosage, co-director of the progressive advocacy group Campaign for America's Future.

Hmmm. Progressives are disappointed.  Progressives are always disappointed, at least that's the meme nowadays.

Did anyone at Time bother to ask the Unions?

From the SEIU Blog: "A Labor Secretary Working Families Can Count On"

Solis has proven her unwavering commitment to putting workers first by supporting fair wages, recognizing the importance of unions, enforcing workplace safety and wage protections. If picked, she will be the third Hispanic nominee in Obama's Cabinet, along with Obama's choice for secretary of commerce, New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson and his pick for secretary of the interior, Colorado Sen. Ken Salazar.

"It's extraordinary," SEIU President Andy Stern said in an interview yesterday with Talking Points Memo (TPM). "On every issue that's important to us, she has stood up for an America where everyone's hard work is valued and rewarded." Stern also issued a statement yesterday hailing Solis's nomination.

From the AFL-CIO Blog: "White House Task Force to Focus on America’s Working Families"

For the first time in eight years, working families have a place in the White House. Yesterday, President-elect Barack Obama said he will establish a White House Task Force on Working Families. Vice President-elect Joe Biden will head the task force.

The task force will be a major initiative from the Obama administration targeted at raising the living standards of middle-class, working families. Along with Biden, it will include top-level administration policymakers. The task force will conduct outreach sessions with representatives of labor, business and the advocacy communities.

And: "Sweeney Praises Nomination of Solis"

We’re confident that she will return to the Labor Department one of its core missions—to defend workers’ basic rights in our nation’s workplaces.

She’s proven to be a passionate leader and advocate for all working families. In fact, she’s voted with working men and women 97 percent of the time.

The Blagojevich Report...one more thing.

One, the report confirms that everyone's talked to the U.S. Attorney, and that was the reason for the delay in the report:

These accounts were communicated to the Office of the United States Attorney in interviews that were conducted last week. At the request of the Office, we delayed the release of this report until such time as the interviews could be completed. The interviews took place over a period of three days: Thursday, December 18, 2008 (the President-Elect); December 19, 2008 (Valerie Jarrett); and December 20, 2008 (Rahm Emanuel).

Two, will this satisfy Politico? (My bet is no, but...what else is there to reveal?)

The Blagojevich Report...

The complete report can be found at the Transition Website. It's a bit of a snoozer, which is what you should be hoping for if you're rooting for Obama. The key paragraphs, to me, are as follows, and lay out the basic spine of the story:

Barack Obama:

The President-Elect had no contact or communication with Governor Blagojevich or members of his staff about the Senate seat. In various conversations with transition staff and others, the President-Elect expressed his preference that Valerie Jarrett work with him in the White House. He also stated that he would neither stand in her way if she wanted to pursue the Senate seat nor actively seek to have her or any other particular candidate appointed to the vacancy.

Rahm Emanuel:

Mr. Emanuel had one or two telephone calls with Governor Blagojevich. Those conversations occurred between November 6 and November 8, 2008. Soon after he decided to accept the President-Elect's offer to serve as Chief of Staff in the White House, Mr. Emanuel placed a call to the Governor to give him a heads up that he was taking the Chief of Staff's position in the White House, and to advise him that he would be resigning his seat in the House of Representatives. They spoke about Mr. Emanuel's House seat, when he would be resigning and potential candidates to replace him. He also had a brief discussion with the Governor about the Senate seat and the merits of various people whom the Governor might consider. Mr. Emanuel and the Governor did not discuss a cabinet position, 501c(4), a private sector position for the Governor or any other personal benefit for the Governor.

In those early conversations with the Governor, Mr. Emanuel recommended Valarie Jarrett because he knew she was interested in the seat. He did so before learning -- in further conversations with the President-Elect -- that the President-Elect had ruled out communicating a preference for any one candidate. As noted above, the President-Elect believed it appropriate to provide the names of multiple candidates to be considered, along with others, who were qualified to hold the seat and able to retain it in a future election. The following week, Mr. Emanuel learned that the President-Elect and Ms. Jarrett with the President's strong encouragement had decided that she would take a position in the White House.

TPM: The Neverending Story...

Election 2008!, still, because we just can't get enough...

Yes, the Minnesota recount is going on...and on...and on...and on...

Currently, Democratic-Farm-Labor candidate Al Franken holds a massive 48 vote lead (and in this particular election, 48 votes is massive)...

...but stormin' Normie is up to old (as in Florida 2000 old) tricks.

Courtesy of Talking Point Memo's Eric Kleefield:

Coleman's lawyer Tony Trimble said the campaign wanted to re-argue 16 decisions on disputed ballots that the board had ruled on last week, plus they alleged that 34 ballots for which the challenges had been withdrawn were then wrongly allocated, giving an illegitimate boost to Franken. Note that 16 plus 34 equals 50 -- so if they were to somehow sweep this whole set of arguments, they would just manage to undo Franken's current 48-vote edge.

Well, the decision came in, and:

And it didn't work. The board just looked at all 16 ballots, and in all 16 cases declined to take any further action like the Coleman camp wanted. So don't expect the Franken camp to fire back, as lead attorney Marc Elias indicated they didn't want to do so but were prepared to compete. Just to make sure, Dem Sec. of State Mark Ritchie said on the board's behalf that they're not interested in this coming up again.

So, it's these 16 Votes...

...plus the 130 or so "duplicate" ballots Norm said were cast (though his proof of this is debatable)

...and the 1500-1600 inappropriately invalidated Absentee Ballots that were tossed out on Election day.

Maybe we'll have this resolved by the time Al needs to run for re-election in 2014.

WaPo: Richard Cohen. "Mr. Tolerance"

Anyone else find it ironic, that Richard Cohen is lecturing Obama about intolerance??

Anyone else find it ironic that Richard Cohen is lecturing Obama about anything?

Politico: Yeah, but he COULD be up to something...

From the Politico:

Barack Obama is promising that next week he’ll disclose contacts between his staff and disgraced Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich’s office, but he’s stopped short of pledging to release e-mails or other records that could be key to understanding those contacts.

Whatever such records exist may never see the light of day, thanks to a gap in government records disclosure laws that allows presidential transition teams to keep their documents — even those prepared using taxpayer dollars — out of the public record.

But, wait a second, the very article Politico mentions (from December 11, 2008):

President-elect Barack Obama said Thursday morning that he is “confident” no one representing him took part in any pay-to-play dealings with Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich over filling Obama’s U.S. Senate seat, and pledged to release details of contacts between his team and the governor’s office in the next few days.

“I have never spoken to the governor on this subject. I am confident that no representatives of mine would have any part of any deals related to this seat. I think the materials released by the U.S. attorney reflect that fact,” Obama said at a Chicago news conference. “I’ve asked my team to gather the facts of any contacts with the governor’s office about this vacancy so that we can share them with you over the next few days.”

I guess it's all going to boil down to what your definition of "details" is. Obama could very well provide a report, but my guess is that the Reporters of the world want to double check the facts themselves. When he does so, they got another two days of stories. When he does, they got another two days of stories proclaiming how much his promises of transparency were false.

All mind you, when he's not the one under arrest, or under possible indictment.

Newsweek: Who's Under Arrest Here??

There's a tone to Michael Isikoff's latest piece in Newsweek that I find both offensive and troubling.  Why is the onus is being put on Barack Obama tell what did he know and when did he know it?  

Not the guy who was actually arrested, all the spotlight is shining on the President-Elect. Arguably the victim of said crime.

Isikoff's one of the good guy's, normally, but ain't nobody above an ass whoopin'.

Yeah, yeah, I know.  "Obama's the higher profile guy right now," the Press bleats.  "He's the sexier story, plus Blagojevich's Lawyer won't give us anything on him, so we have to turn to Obama."

Which is why people don't trust the Press anymore.

I understand the journalist's viewpoint in that, we have to clear the decks just in case Obama did something untoward...but no one seems to be asking the question, what if he's done nothing wrong??

The Journalists response would be that no one should fear having to answer a few question, but they, you and I all know that's now how the game works. We're watching it right now. The Journalists of the world are playing their typical, lazy-ass game of drama-inflation. They get to sell a few more papers, put a few more eyeballs in front of the screen, yet we get no closer to what actually happened. But what actually happened doesn't matter in journalism anymore. It's just about hitting that number...

Look at Mr. Isikoff's very first question: "Define "inappropriate," make good on your pledge of transparency and show us the internal report. All of it."

If there is a reason for the inherent hosility between Government officials and Journalists, it's because of questions like this. I'm also missing the part where the U.S. Attorney, Patrick Fitzgerald, asked the Office of the President-Elect to keep a lid of this stuff until December 22nd.

Second question "Explain what happened with Senate "Candidate 1."

Again, the onus being that Obama is actually the one under possible indictment.  Why not just ask "what did you do to make the guy actually under arrest so upset?"

The third question is actually the easiest to answer: "What did you know about Blago's exit strategy?"

Nothing, next question.

The fourth question is almost too insulting to repeat: "Have you shared everything you have on Rezko?"

My first answer would normally begin with a four-letter expletive. My problem with the word Rezko, it's become a short-hand, not for any actual corruption, but short-hand for possible corruption. It has been long known that Rezko was going to be a far bigger problem for other Illinois politicians not named Obama. Yet again, Obama is the one taking the heat.

And finally we come to "Will you promise to leave Fitzgerald alone?"

Of course, if Obama replaces Fitzgerald (which by the way, it's his right to do) Obama MUST be guilty of something.

I want Fitzgerald left alone. I actually think Fitzgerald will be left alone.  I think Blagojevich has a better chance at going to jail if Fitzgerald is left alone.  At the same time, what if he's let go...what does that prove exactly?  It's just one more story point that the press can hit and claim its doing its job.

The Fireside chat for December 20, 2008

President Bush, he's talkin' about you...

HuffPo: Liberals, stop worrying about little battles, you just won a war.

Frank Schaeffer is the author of Crazy For God-How I Grew Up As One Of The Elect, Helped Found The Religious Right, And Lived To Take All (Or Almost All) Of It Back, writes:

Here's the point for all you progressives that only talk to yourselves and haven't a clue about the "other" America: in a country where a national evangelical leader is fired for just voting for Obama, and thinking friendly thoughts about gays, the new progressive president has his work cut out!

If you all -- if we -- bitch each time Obama makes a strategic move, we are just shooting ourselves in the foot. Pipe down, and give him a chance. And by the way, America faces bigger problems right now than the window dressing at the inauguration.

Progressives are too used to failing. Stop worrying about little battles, you just won a war. It's all about real results now, not words, and not symbols. It is time to think like winners. The issue now is governance, not symbols.

Politico: Another in a long line of examples of Media B.S.

Here's the story from the Politico about Xavier Becerra turning down Barack Obama's job offer to be U.S. Trade Represenative:

With one decision last night, Rep. Xavier Becerra pulled a twofer: He rebuffed the Obama administration and dashed the hopes several young Democrats who covet Becerra’s House leadership slot.

The California Democrat – the first high-profile figure to reject an Obama job offer – says he turned down the U.S. trade representative gig because he was concerned that trade would not be a big priority in the new administration.

But the Obama team may have already soured on Becerra thanks to his hemming and hawing over the post, according to people close to the situation. And a report about Becerra’s support of clemency for a Los Angeles drug dealer wasn’t good PR.

“Delaying this decision for two or three weeks wasn’t helping him or anyone,” said a House Democratic aide. “He’s conflicted, we understand that, but he’s got to make a decision. A lot of people are waiting, including the president.”

In the end, even though Becerra made the decision to take himself out of the running, the move had a mutual breakup feel to it.

Becerra told the Spanish-language newspaper La Opinion he had concluded that trade “would not be priority number one, perhaps not even two or three,” according to a loose translation of his remarks, adding that, “To do this job well, it would be necessary to travel a lot ... and also I have a family.”

Yet, you look at the Los Angeles Times (granted a Hometown paper for Becerra), and you see a different take on the same damn story:

Rep. Xavier Becerra said Wednesday that he turned down the position of U.S. trade representative in the incoming administration because the job will not be at the center of the action during a time of more pressing economic concerns.

The highest-profile candidate to decline a job offer from President-elect Barack Obama, the Los Angeles Democrat said he thinks he can have more influence as a ranking member of Congress than as the lead advisor on trade agreements.

"I don't see how it can be the front-burner issue for him, nor should it be, quite honestly," Becerra said in an interview with Los Angeles public radio. "Clearly the priority for this president, and I think he said it very well, will be economic recovery and jobs."

Becerra's announcement that he wouldn't take the job, released Tuesday, ended several weeks of conversation between him and the Obama team about becoming the nation's chief trade negotiator.

Sources close to the talks say Becerra had been going back and forth over whether he wanted the job, and the talks were further complicated by news reports about Becerra's support of clemency for a convicted California drug dealer in 2001.

It's amazing what a subtle change a quote or two can do to a story...

In one Becerra is an egomanaic, whom even the President-Elect had wearied of...

In the other Becerrais a little more selfless. I can do a better job where I am now...

This is why you have to read more than one newspaper...more than one source for your information.

Lest ye forget...

On the Conservative side of things, two bit Catholic Huckster reminds me why I remain a grateful ex-Catholic...