Politico has the scoop.
Like it's counterparts in the DNC, the Republican National Committee does not neccessarily dictate policy, but instead hones the message of the parties senior leadership and collects money for field operations and is basically the apparatus of the Republican movement on it's most public scale.
The Chairman is an important position, besides carrying water for senior leaders, the chairman makes key decisions of where to appropriate funds, and communicates the central message of the party to the Republican grassroots and works with state and local party leaders to register voters, fundraise, and collectively organize within all units of the party to oppose the Democrats and inform voters through mail, the web, phonebanking and advertising.
Mike Duncan, the current chair of the RNC, is still the favorite to win, despite losing both a higher margin in congress as well the white house last year, a lot of his supporters think that, without an unpopular president and wide voter disapproval, they can begin to rebrand the party in a way that will be more appealing to voters and hopefully restructure their new message around central Republican values such as lower taxes and smaller government in the face of a massive federal spending measure that was just passed by Democrats in congress last night.
Voting for Committee chair is a very political process, more similar to a caucus or a convention rather than a secret ballot, and the results are only official after a candidate receives a plurality of 85 votes, which means that there are often more than one, perhaps as many as a dozen ballots. The voting also usually has a lot more to do with favors owed and promises made then actual policy positions.
The GOP is badly in need of an overhaul right now if it plans on staying relevent, and whoever wins tomorrow will have a large responsibility to lead them out of the wilderness and also have a focused agenda to give them a more powerful voice in Washington once again.
Thursday, January 29, 2009
Illionois senate votes unanimously to remove Rod Blagojevich
59-0. . .Ouch.
Looks like that last minute charm tour and that oh so adorable View appearance, not to mention his long winded and rambling defense of himself before the state senate today couldn't save him, or his hair, from being the first governor in Illinois history to be removed from office.
Let the speaking tours commence!!
Looks like that last minute charm tour and that oh so adorable View appearance, not to mention his long winded and rambling defense of himself before the state senate today couldn't save him, or his hair, from being the first governor in Illinois history to be removed from office.
Let the speaking tours commence!!
Are Republicans now politically invested in economic failure?
In 2006-2007 when the Iraq war was grim and being used by Democrats as a political football, Republicans cried "foul" saying that the Democratic Party was politically invested in the failure of the war and John McCain said that they were "cheering for defeat," and "celebrating surrender." Sen. Majority Leader Harry Reid's comments that the "war is lost" inflamed The Bush Administration and bitterly divided congress over funding for the war. The Democrats saw this opportunity as a useful tool to impress on the public their ideas against "wasteful spending," which the war was equated to at the time. The ill fortunes of the war, and the declining popularity of both the war and President Bush, created a friendly political climate for the Democrats, who gained considerable seats in the house and senate in 2006 and 2008 mainly on this declining popularity.
What a difference two years makes.
The universal Republican rejection of yesterday's house bill on the stimulus was seen as a victory by both parties. Democrats were able to get their bill passed, even with 11 defectors, and Republican house leadership retained control over their caucus, despite heavy courting by President Obama in the days leading up to the vote.
If the Republicans accused the Democrats of using the war to political advantage and "cheering on surrender," then they may find themselves in tricky territory now as their rejection of the bill is total, if the economic news grows worse and worse over the coming months then their reserve will harden and it will be the democrats navigating tricky territory.
Former Clinton aide Phil singer had this to say, which sums it up perfectly. "Many will see that the GOP can't be seen as rooting for failure - presumably Republicans won't be dumb enough to be overt about it. But rest assured, there won't be too many profiles in courage emerging from the red side of the aisle to work with Obama if the economic news continues."
You could've said the same thing about Democrats two years ago, although conditions drastically improved in Iraq, it wasn't enough to soften the views of the general public against the incumbent party's control of the white house, and the democrats may be on that same road this time around.
No one ever said Washington was fair, although it is a city known for it's ironic sense of humor.
What a difference two years makes.
The universal Republican rejection of yesterday's house bill on the stimulus was seen as a victory by both parties. Democrats were able to get their bill passed, even with 11 defectors, and Republican house leadership retained control over their caucus, despite heavy courting by President Obama in the days leading up to the vote.
If the Republicans accused the Democrats of using the war to political advantage and "cheering on surrender," then they may find themselves in tricky territory now as their rejection of the bill is total, if the economic news grows worse and worse over the coming months then their reserve will harden and it will be the democrats navigating tricky territory.
Former Clinton aide Phil singer had this to say, which sums it up perfectly. "Many will see that the GOP can't be seen as rooting for failure - presumably Republicans won't be dumb enough to be overt about it. But rest assured, there won't be too many profiles in courage emerging from the red side of the aisle to work with Obama if the economic news continues."
You could've said the same thing about Democrats two years ago, although conditions drastically improved in Iraq, it wasn't enough to soften the views of the general public against the incumbent party's control of the white house, and the democrats may be on that same road this time around.
No one ever said Washington was fair, although it is a city known for it's ironic sense of humor.
Wednesday, January 28, 2009
Obama's stimulus package passes in the house, but how exactly will the economy get back on track?
The NYTimes published a magazine article today addressing just that issue, entitled The Big Fix. In the article, author David Leonhardt argues why the current economic crisis is an opportunity for Obama to tackle big issues like healthcare, energy, and infrastructure. It isn't new news, but these kinds of major long-term investments are what will keep the United States ahead of countries.
One aspect of the article that received special emphasis was the topic of education. If the United States really wants to stay on top, we need to make strides in education. Leonhardt cites a study that argues that the high school movement to educate the masses that began in the 1930's and continued through the 1960's is what put America ahead of European nations, who were still focusing on apprenticeships and dismissed the value of comprehensive, general education. Since the 1960's, the US hasn't made much progress and now we are falling behind other nations.
So what is Obama going to do about it? I hope to see higher standards and a greater focus on math and science, and not just for exceptional students but for everybody. We also need to initiate a cultural shift to get more people to place a higher value on their own education and the education of their children. Otherwise, the next 30 years of advances in technology are going to be occurring outside of the United States.
Jeez, I loved that article. Thank you NYTimes!
One aspect of the article that received special emphasis was the topic of education. If the United States really wants to stay on top, we need to make strides in education. Leonhardt cites a study that argues that the high school movement to educate the masses that began in the 1930's and continued through the 1960's is what put America ahead of European nations, who were still focusing on apprenticeships and dismissed the value of comprehensive, general education. Since the 1960's, the US hasn't made much progress and now we are falling behind other nations.
So what is Obama going to do about it? I hope to see higher standards and a greater focus on math and science, and not just for exceptional students but for everybody. We also need to initiate a cultural shift to get more people to place a higher value on their own education and the education of their children. Otherwise, the next 30 years of advances in technology are going to be occurring outside of the United States.
Jeez, I loved that article. Thank you NYTimes!
Tuesday, January 27, 2009
Obama on the hill
Politico has the conventional wisdom on today's visit by President Obama to capital hill to meet with congressional Republicans in both the House and The Senate.
It's really good politics by Obama, who continues to push the Republican minority out of the mainstream in terms of approval by the public and more into the wilderness by equating them with the far-right Limbaugh wing of he party for being opposed just for the sake of being opposed.
Just by showing up, he's showing that he's not afraid of arguments, and also that, although it's only been seven days, will continue his campaign pledge of acting in a more bipartisan manner towards congress. Something his predecessor rarely displayed, even in the early days of his administration.
Him showing up also forces congressional republicans to blame their democratic counterparts for the failed legislation more so than the president who said he does not "claim ownership" for the bill and was even quietly encouraging Democratic lawmakers to remove some of the family spending elements of the bill, most noticeably the $200 million that was set aside in the bill for contraceptives and birth control funding in impoverished areas, a provision in the bill that was shown as "wasteful" by Republicans, and was their main talking point against the legislation in many of the weekend talk shows.
All in all, I think the GOP have trapped themselves on this bill, and since their minority has shrunk and many of the more moderate members of their party were voted out in '06 and '08, it creates a more conservative minority from safe districts that don't neccessarily need to foster cooperation with The president or the majority congress to ensure re-election.
Many of them may also see this bill as the equivelent of the Iraq War vote in 2002, a vote that came back to haunt many congressional democrats as the war became unpopular and they hope that if the bill doesn't make any or all of the sweeping changes it promises for the economy then the Republicans will have given themselves precious political capital to take the fight straight to Democrats in 2010 and 2012.
It's really good politics by Obama, who continues to push the Republican minority out of the mainstream in terms of approval by the public and more into the wilderness by equating them with the far-right Limbaugh wing of he party for being opposed just for the sake of being opposed.
Just by showing up, he's showing that he's not afraid of arguments, and also that, although it's only been seven days, will continue his campaign pledge of acting in a more bipartisan manner towards congress. Something his predecessor rarely displayed, even in the early days of his administration.
Him showing up also forces congressional republicans to blame their democratic counterparts for the failed legislation more so than the president who said he does not "claim ownership" for the bill and was even quietly encouraging Democratic lawmakers to remove some of the family spending elements of the bill, most noticeably the $200 million that was set aside in the bill for contraceptives and birth control funding in impoverished areas, a provision in the bill that was shown as "wasteful" by Republicans, and was their main talking point against the legislation in many of the weekend talk shows.
All in all, I think the GOP have trapped themselves on this bill, and since their minority has shrunk and many of the more moderate members of their party were voted out in '06 and '08, it creates a more conservative minority from safe districts that don't neccessarily need to foster cooperation with The president or the majority congress to ensure re-election.
Many of them may also see this bill as the equivelent of the Iraq War vote in 2002, a vote that came back to haunt many congressional democrats as the war became unpopular and they hope that if the bill doesn't make any or all of the sweeping changes it promises for the economy then the Republicans will have given themselves precious political capital to take the fight straight to Democrats in 2010 and 2012.
Monday, January 26, 2009
2012 and 2016, hey why not?
Well I know it's only 6 days into Obama's first term as president, but let's, just for fun go over the most likely GOP and Dem. likely primary-ers in 2012 and 2016.
For the Democrats, most are crossing their fingers for 2016, hoping that Obama's popularity holds and, like Clinton in 2000 and Reagan in 1988 would produce a favorable climate for the incumbent, especially since there are many up and coming stars within the party that have their sights set on the White House. Historically the public has been less than sympathetic to failed Democratic presidents (after Johnson, The Republicans controlled the white house for 20 of 24 years until Bill Clinton's election in 1992) and George Bush's two terms in office show that the public is still quicker to elect Republicans for nationwide office than Democrats. Be that as it may, the future of the Democratic Party's image lies solely on the success of Obama's presidency. If he is able to succeed, then any of the figures listed below would have a much better chance of getting elected than any of their Republican opponents.
Secretary Of State Hillary Clinton -- Probably the inevitable front runner for president in 2016. Any doubts about her experience and judgment will be placated by her current position, she is careful and calculating and will do whatever it takes to succeed in her new position, if anything to give her more national prominence for a possible Presidential run. Any peace agreements or relations that she fosters will be valuable both for political capital, and a lasting legacy. She will be 68 in 2016, but I think that many of her supporters, instead of possibly seeing her as too old for President, may instead see her as vetted, battle hardened, and ready.
Senator Mark Warner (D-VA) -- The popular former governor of Virginia, Warner turned down a possible presidential run in 2008 to instead run for Senate, in 2016 he will have 4 years experience as governor and 8 years in the Senate, a very decent resume these days, and he could be a very formidable opponent to any Democratic primary challenger. He's an adept fundraiser and won his Senate election 3 months ago with almost 70% of the vote. Look for him to craft his image over the next 8 years as a good negotiator, and for him to tout his bipartisan credentials as popular amongst many Repubicans in his home state, but even more beloved by Democrats that credit him with building the foundations there that turned Virginia blue this presidential election and is now also solidly Democratic statewide.
Governor Brian Schweitzer (D-MT) -- Gov. Schweitzer's electrifying speech at the convention this year gave many democrats a "who's that guy!" Reaction that he could nurture for many years, he currently holds very high approval ratings in a state that is moving slowly from red to blue, and he will most likely face nominal resistance for re-election in 2010. He's likeable, he's charming; liberals love him, conservatives love him and he is very folksy, yet highly intelligent, a combination that kills at the national level.
Senator Russ Feingold (D-WI) -- Maybe more of a dark horse, but Feingold has been at the forefront of a lot of high publicity bills in the Senate, and continues his reputation as a tough, ethics minded reformer that made headlines today by calling for a Constitutional amendment that will bar the antiquated law that put's Governors in charge of selecting senate replacements, he's popular amongst Republicans, has a history of reaching across the aisle, and would perform very strongly in the Midwest and Great Lakes region. It's unknown whether he has presidential ambitions or not, but he's a friend of Obama's and his fortunes may lie with The President.
Governor Martin O'Malley (D-MD) -- the former mayor of Baltimore and current governor of Maryland Gov. O'Malley may be best known for being the basis for Tommy Carcetti, the former mayor of Baltimore and current governor of Maryland on the underground TV show "The Wire," he's an ambitious politician and holds clout within the Democratic Governor's Association and is pretty popular, as well as well-liked within the party. He could be more of a dark horse, but whether he puts his name in the ring depends a lot on whether Hillary Clinton runs and also what he does after his second term expires in 2014.
Also, one thing to keep in mind is whether Joe Biden will be Obama's running mate in 2012, he's currently 68, and will be 72 in 2012. It will be interesting to see how many times his mouth get's him into trouble and how popular he will be with the Democratic Party then, if he does get booted from the 2012 ticket. . .Hillary for VP? If Obama is running into trouble in 2012, you can bet he would shore up a lot of support by adding her as his running mate.
As for the Republicans, their fortunes are also tied to Obama's success or failures, and also to their party's leadership providing good natured competitiveness and opposition without seeming overly obstructionist or petty, if the economy improves under the watch of Democrats it would be very hard for them to gain a leg up unless there is a massive National Security breach or the Democrats fumble the ball pretty hard, if so, their return from the wilderness could come as early as 2010 with the congressional midterms. Here are some to watch out for in 2012.
Governor Mitt Romney -- Like Hillary Clinton, he is probably the front runner for 2012, and will probably be spending the next four years fundraising and gaining support for a likely run. If the economy doesn't recover he can probably run a very strong and formidable "I told you so!" Campaign that would probably get him some solid steam, if the economy does recover, or if National Security is the topic of the day, then his lacking of national security credentials maight burden his chances.
Governor Bobby Jindal (R-LA) -- Currently the darling of the conservative movement within the party, his ability to turn around Louisiana's devastated economy using simple conservative principles after Hurricane Katrina raised a lot of eyebrows within the GOP and he gained a lot of mainstream media attention last year as a possible VP pick, he's probably the best example of fresh blood in the party, and would be a good face for a new generation of leadership inside the Republican leadership circle. in 2012, he'll be 42, which would put him up there with John F. Kennedy, as a young, dynamic leader for a new generation, qualities that Republicans need now more than ever.
Governor Sarah Palin (R-AK) -- We'll see how this one goes, don't forget that conservatives still ADORE her, and she would probably do quite well in the primaries depending on base turnout and if she limits her embarrassing TV moments and becomes more focused and mature over the next four years.
Speaker Of The House Newt Gingrich -- Hey, you heard it here first.
Who knows what 2012, or 2016 will look like, there is SO MUCH that can happen within 4 or 8 years (who would've predicted Obama 4 years ago?) But it's always fun to think about, and it will be interesting to see who distinguishes themselves in both parties throughout the Obama administration.
For the Democrats, most are crossing their fingers for 2016, hoping that Obama's popularity holds and, like Clinton in 2000 and Reagan in 1988 would produce a favorable climate for the incumbent, especially since there are many up and coming stars within the party that have their sights set on the White House. Historically the public has been less than sympathetic to failed Democratic presidents (after Johnson, The Republicans controlled the white house for 20 of 24 years until Bill Clinton's election in 1992) and George Bush's two terms in office show that the public is still quicker to elect Republicans for nationwide office than Democrats. Be that as it may, the future of the Democratic Party's image lies solely on the success of Obama's presidency. If he is able to succeed, then any of the figures listed below would have a much better chance of getting elected than any of their Republican opponents.
Secretary Of State Hillary Clinton -- Probably the inevitable front runner for president in 2016. Any doubts about her experience and judgment will be placated by her current position, she is careful and calculating and will do whatever it takes to succeed in her new position, if anything to give her more national prominence for a possible Presidential run. Any peace agreements or relations that she fosters will be valuable both for political capital, and a lasting legacy. She will be 68 in 2016, but I think that many of her supporters, instead of possibly seeing her as too old for President, may instead see her as vetted, battle hardened, and ready.
Senator Mark Warner (D-VA) -- The popular former governor of Virginia, Warner turned down a possible presidential run in 2008 to instead run for Senate, in 2016 he will have 4 years experience as governor and 8 years in the Senate, a very decent resume these days, and he could be a very formidable opponent to any Democratic primary challenger. He's an adept fundraiser and won his Senate election 3 months ago with almost 70% of the vote. Look for him to craft his image over the next 8 years as a good negotiator, and for him to tout his bipartisan credentials as popular amongst many Repubicans in his home state, but even more beloved by Democrats that credit him with building the foundations there that turned Virginia blue this presidential election and is now also solidly Democratic statewide.
Governor Brian Schweitzer (D-MT) -- Gov. Schweitzer's electrifying speech at the convention this year gave many democrats a "who's that guy!" Reaction that he could nurture for many years, he currently holds very high approval ratings in a state that is moving slowly from red to blue, and he will most likely face nominal resistance for re-election in 2010. He's likeable, he's charming; liberals love him, conservatives love him and he is very folksy, yet highly intelligent, a combination that kills at the national level.
Senator Russ Feingold (D-WI) -- Maybe more of a dark horse, but Feingold has been at the forefront of a lot of high publicity bills in the Senate, and continues his reputation as a tough, ethics minded reformer that made headlines today by calling for a Constitutional amendment that will bar the antiquated law that put's Governors in charge of selecting senate replacements, he's popular amongst Republicans, has a history of reaching across the aisle, and would perform very strongly in the Midwest and Great Lakes region. It's unknown whether he has presidential ambitions or not, but he's a friend of Obama's and his fortunes may lie with The President.
Governor Martin O'Malley (D-MD) -- the former mayor of Baltimore and current governor of Maryland Gov. O'Malley may be best known for being the basis for Tommy Carcetti, the former mayor of Baltimore and current governor of Maryland on the underground TV show "The Wire," he's an ambitious politician and holds clout within the Democratic Governor's Association and is pretty popular, as well as well-liked within the party. He could be more of a dark horse, but whether he puts his name in the ring depends a lot on whether Hillary Clinton runs and also what he does after his second term expires in 2014.
Also, one thing to keep in mind is whether Joe Biden will be Obama's running mate in 2012, he's currently 68, and will be 72 in 2012. It will be interesting to see how many times his mouth get's him into trouble and how popular he will be with the Democratic Party then, if he does get booted from the 2012 ticket. . .Hillary for VP? If Obama is running into trouble in 2012, you can bet he would shore up a lot of support by adding her as his running mate.
As for the Republicans, their fortunes are also tied to Obama's success or failures, and also to their party's leadership providing good natured competitiveness and opposition without seeming overly obstructionist or petty, if the economy improves under the watch of Democrats it would be very hard for them to gain a leg up unless there is a massive National Security breach or the Democrats fumble the ball pretty hard, if so, their return from the wilderness could come as early as 2010 with the congressional midterms. Here are some to watch out for in 2012.
Governor Mitt Romney -- Like Hillary Clinton, he is probably the front runner for 2012, and will probably be spending the next four years fundraising and gaining support for a likely run. If the economy doesn't recover he can probably run a very strong and formidable "I told you so!" Campaign that would probably get him some solid steam, if the economy does recover, or if National Security is the topic of the day, then his lacking of national security credentials maight burden his chances.
Governor Bobby Jindal (R-LA) -- Currently the darling of the conservative movement within the party, his ability to turn around Louisiana's devastated economy using simple conservative principles after Hurricane Katrina raised a lot of eyebrows within the GOP and he gained a lot of mainstream media attention last year as a possible VP pick, he's probably the best example of fresh blood in the party, and would be a good face for a new generation of leadership inside the Republican leadership circle. in 2012, he'll be 42, which would put him up there with John F. Kennedy, as a young, dynamic leader for a new generation, qualities that Republicans need now more than ever.
Governor Sarah Palin (R-AK) -- We'll see how this one goes, don't forget that conservatives still ADORE her, and she would probably do quite well in the primaries depending on base turnout and if she limits her embarrassing TV moments and becomes more focused and mature over the next four years.
Speaker Of The House Newt Gingrich -- Hey, you heard it here first.
Who knows what 2012, or 2016 will look like, there is SO MUCH that can happen within 4 or 8 years (who would've predicted Obama 4 years ago?) But it's always fun to think about, and it will be interesting to see who distinguishes themselves in both parties throughout the Obama administration.
Sunday, January 25, 2009
The inauguration
I know that it's old news now, but I just got back from DC a couple of days ago and thought I'd share my experiences.
I was staying in Virginia Beach, which was about 3 hours south of Washington, and although we had a rental car, all of the roads going into town were closed, and the only way to get into the city was to take the Metro, which opened at 3AM, so we left around 12AM so that we would be able to find parking, when we reached the Metro station around 3:30 there was already a line, and it took us about two hours to board the train.
Here's the line as it was around 4AM:
The train ride was about an hour long and was incredibly crowded and uncomfortable, but everyone was in good spirits and although it was early and we were short on sleep, there was a palpable excitement in everyone's attitude.
There was quite a walk to the mall from the station, but even at 5AM the streets were crowded with people and the mall had already started to fill up with people.
There were a lot of people hocking Obama gear and there were volunteers everywhere, singing songs and helping to direct people that had questions, I don't think I'd ever seen people that excited about anything that early in the morning.
Security was also extremely tight, there were national guard, city police, and secret service probably about every 30 feet and only certain streets had access to the national mall.
There were also monitors every 100 feet or so, that turned out to be a very good idea, as the mall was almost full and we were about 2 miles from the capital.
It was also extremely cold, and people were noticeably uncomfortable, but again, no one complained and everyone seemed to have planned ahead and was very warm, there were also "warming stations" along the mall that were crowded with people trying to get warm, the reflecting pool was also frozen, (the reflecting pool below the Washington Monument is probably the most disgusting cesspool ever)
The festivities started around 11:30, the crowd was pretty much worked into a frenzy at this point, booing and cheering at all the predictable places (Bill and Hillary Clinton got the biggest cheers besides Obama.)
Joe Biden got pretty warm cheers as well, especially at his swearing in:
There was a lot of electricity when Obama came on the screen, Michelle as well, even the shots on the monitors of Obama back stage got the crowd worked up. And even though there was the now infamous judicial ad-lib at the actual oath-taking, you couldn't help but see the the visible emotion in the crowd, it was truly breathtaking, and despite your political affiliations, there is no doubt that history was made.
Good luck Mr. President!
I was staying in Virginia Beach, which was about 3 hours south of Washington, and although we had a rental car, all of the roads going into town were closed, and the only way to get into the city was to take the Metro, which opened at 3AM, so we left around 12AM so that we would be able to find parking, when we reached the Metro station around 3:30 there was already a line, and it took us about two hours to board the train.
Here's the line as it was around 4AM:
The train ride was about an hour long and was incredibly crowded and uncomfortable, but everyone was in good spirits and although it was early and we were short on sleep, there was a palpable excitement in everyone's attitude.
There was quite a walk to the mall from the station, but even at 5AM the streets were crowded with people and the mall had already started to fill up with people.
There were a lot of people hocking Obama gear and there were volunteers everywhere, singing songs and helping to direct people that had questions, I don't think I'd ever seen people that excited about anything that early in the morning.
Security was also extremely tight, there were national guard, city police, and secret service probably about every 30 feet and only certain streets had access to the national mall.
There were also monitors every 100 feet or so, that turned out to be a very good idea, as the mall was almost full and we were about 2 miles from the capital.
It was also extremely cold, and people were noticeably uncomfortable, but again, no one complained and everyone seemed to have planned ahead and was very warm, there were also "warming stations" along the mall that were crowded with people trying to get warm, the reflecting pool was also frozen, (the reflecting pool below the Washington Monument is probably the most disgusting cesspool ever)
The festivities started around 11:30, the crowd was pretty much worked into a frenzy at this point, booing and cheering at all the predictable places (Bill and Hillary Clinton got the biggest cheers besides Obama.)
Joe Biden got pretty warm cheers as well, especially at his swearing in:
There was a lot of electricity when Obama came on the screen, Michelle as well, even the shots on the monitors of Obama back stage got the crowd worked up. And even though there was the now infamous judicial ad-lib at the actual oath-taking, you couldn't help but see the the visible emotion in the crowd, it was truly breathtaking, and despite your political affiliations, there is no doubt that history was made.
Good luck Mr. President!
Saturday, January 24, 2009
Yes We Can...Really?
As Barack Obama begins his first full week as president, the question looming overhead seems to be, can he really do what he said he wanted to do during his campaign? Whether it's strengthening the economy, creating a more transparent federal governement, or ending the bitter bipartisan battles of the past, there seems to be wait-and-see with a skeptical eye attitude looming around the media.
Is the end of America's honeymoon period with Obama coming closer? It's only been 4 days, should we give him at least another week?
Is the end of America's honeymoon period with Obama coming closer? It's only been 4 days, should we give him at least another week?
Wednesday, January 21, 2009
Caroline Kennedy drops bid for senate seat
Two months after making her bid for HRC's senate seat public, Caroline Kennedy withdrew her name for consideration, citing personal reasons as her reason for dropping out.
Surely much speculation will follow...
Surely much speculation will follow...
Tuesday, January 20, 2009
Inauguration Day!
Barack Obama took the oath of office as the 44th president of the United States today in front of a crowd of nearly two million people and a worldwide television audience that is speculated to be the most widely seen televised event of all time.
His inaugural speech (see text here) hit on a wide range of topics, and while short on some of the soaring rhetoric that make his speeches so well-loved, Obama sent a strong message to Americans and to the entire world.
It's hard to express the feeling of this day in words. Today I feel like the nation let out a collective sigh and eagerly turned to a new chapter in American history.
Tomorrow is Day One of Obama's presidential term. He's expected to immediately sign a number of executive orders, including the closing of Guantanamo Bay. I'm looking forward to seeing what he can achieve. Hats off to the new president!
His inaugural speech (see text here) hit on a wide range of topics, and while short on some of the soaring rhetoric that make his speeches so well-loved, Obama sent a strong message to Americans and to the entire world.
It's hard to express the feeling of this day in words. Today I feel like the nation let out a collective sigh and eagerly turned to a new chapter in American history.
Tomorrow is Day One of Obama's presidential term. He's expected to immediately sign a number of executive orders, including the closing of Guantanamo Bay. I'm looking forward to seeing what he can achieve. Hats off to the new president!
Monday, January 19, 2009
Obama's Day of Service continues to inspire
I volunteered today at a food bank for the first time as part of Barack Obama's call for a day of service on MLK Day. In the past, the food bank's largest volunteer turn out had been about 60 people on the United Way volunteer day. Today at this food bank alone, 135 volunteers showed up at a small suburb outside of Seattle, all Obama supporters. It will be interesting to see the reports come in later this week regarding the success of this day, it seemed pretty successful to me.
Can't wait for tomorrow!
Can't wait for tomorrow!
Tuesday, January 13, 2009
Another one in trouble
2009 is not Obama's year so far. First it was the Blago fiasco and Roland Burris, then it was Bill Richardson withdrawing himself from the commerce secretary position after allegations of federal pay-to-play scandals and a pending FBI investigation, then it was his stimulus bill facing a lukewarm reaction from congress, and now it's Timothy Geithner, Obama's selection for Treasury Secretary, who the Wall Street Journal reports is facing allegations for not paying payroll taxes and having a housekeeper who's permit to work in the US expired before Geithner let her go.
Ouch.
Obama's selection of Timothy Geithner as his Secretary Of The Treasury was one of his earliest, and seen as most important, picks. It reassured Wall Street and was met with praise on both sides of the aisle, it was actually Larry Summers, the former Treasury Secretary under Bill Clinton, and another on the short list for the post that was seen as a more polarizing figure.
It goes without saying that having a Treasury Secretary that failed to pay taxes could lead for a rough confirmation process and would give Republicans, as well as the media, a reason to howl, and would continue to give leverage to a storyline that has been developing recently that says Obama and his team may run a fancy campaign, but his transition has been less than smart at times and downright embarrassing at others. (To be fair the transition has been MOSTLY smooth, but these things that keep happening are not flattering.)
The Obama team did not throw Geithner under the bus and released this statement of support through incoming press secretary Robert Gibbs:
"The President-elect chose Tim Geithner to be his Treasury Secretary because he's the right person to help lead our economic recovery during these challenging times He's dedicated his career to our country and served with honor, intelligence and distinction. That service should not be tarnished by honest mistakes, which, upon learning of them, he quickly addressed. He made a common mistake on his taxes, and was unaware that his part-time housekeeper's work authorization expired for the last three months of her employment. We hope that the Senate will confirm him with strong bipartisan support so that he can begin the important work of the country.”
If the beginning of 2009 is any indication as to what Obama will face this year, then it might be a pretty uphill climb from here on out.
Ouch.
Obama's selection of Timothy Geithner as his Secretary Of The Treasury was one of his earliest, and seen as most important, picks. It reassured Wall Street and was met with praise on both sides of the aisle, it was actually Larry Summers, the former Treasury Secretary under Bill Clinton, and another on the short list for the post that was seen as a more polarizing figure.
It goes without saying that having a Treasury Secretary that failed to pay taxes could lead for a rough confirmation process and would give Republicans, as well as the media, a reason to howl, and would continue to give leverage to a storyline that has been developing recently that says Obama and his team may run a fancy campaign, but his transition has been less than smart at times and downright embarrassing at others. (To be fair the transition has been MOSTLY smooth, but these things that keep happening are not flattering.)
The Obama team did not throw Geithner under the bus and released this statement of support through incoming press secretary Robert Gibbs:
"The President-elect chose Tim Geithner to be his Treasury Secretary because he's the right person to help lead our economic recovery during these challenging times He's dedicated his career to our country and served with honor, intelligence and distinction. That service should not be tarnished by honest mistakes, which, upon learning of them, he quickly addressed. He made a common mistake on his taxes, and was unaware that his part-time housekeeper's work authorization expired for the last three months of her employment. We hope that the Senate will confirm him with strong bipartisan support so that he can begin the important work of the country.”
If the beginning of 2009 is any indication as to what Obama will face this year, then it might be a pretty uphill climb from here on out.
Monday, January 12, 2009
More on bidding farewell to G.W.
One thing I did like that Bush talked about in his press conference is the tone in Washington DC. He's right that there was a level of name calling and a lack of professional tone that existed during his presidency that he did not engage in even when others were attacking him with genuine animosity. I wonder how much could have been accomplished if the energy spent venting about what a clueless idiot the president is was focused on actually debating his policies, or (gasp) coming up with alternatives. I think the nation will actual be in agreeance (j/k) with GW for the first time in a long time when he said that he hopes that tone goes away with Obama.
On a similar note, there was an AP story that ran yesterday about the end of the baby boom generation: http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/1131ap_obama_bye_bye_boomers.html
Maybe an end to the scrapping among idealogues that seemed to mark the boomer generation will lead to a more cooperative attitude during the Obama presidency? I don't know, if this is truly the end of the baby boom generation, I'd probably be satisfied enough if I didn't ever have to see or hear another tribute to the 1960's...
On a similar note, there was an AP story that ran yesterday about the end of the baby boom generation: http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/1131ap_obama_bye_bye_boomers.html
Maybe an end to the scrapping among idealogues that seemed to mark the boomer generation will lead to a more cooperative attitude during the Obama presidency? I don't know, if this is truly the end of the baby boom generation, I'd probably be satisfied enough if I didn't ever have to see or hear another tribute to the 1960's...
Bush + Obama = <3
I'd like to comment on something I defintely would not have predicted two months ago, the Obama transition team and Bush administration have gotten along smashingly, it's all smiles and love from both camps whenever the press is involved and the cooperation between the two camps, ideologically very different, has been lauded by the press on what a textbook transition should be.
Bill Clinton seemed to have wanted to burn down the white house rather then let George W. Bush move in it seemed from what I can remember, but that was also during a highly polarizing and contentious legal war that kept the presidency in limbo for almost a month.
Even today, at Bush's last press conference he had nothing but warm praise and encouragement for Obama, who spent pretty much all of his campaign shoveling dirt on Bush's "failed" presidency, and using his name as a four letter word to equate nearly everything that is wrong with America to Bush himself; much to the chagrin of a desperate Republican Party, that was unable to make any headway in the face of Bush's dismal approval rating.
Obama seems to have turned a 180 after the election also and hasn't publicly disagreed with Bush once. The two have had 3 meetings together and announced again today they'll be continuing to work together on the remaining $350 Billion that congress approved as part of it's bailout package in September.
The two seem rather chummy also, all laughs and back touching at each of their meetings and there haven't been any press leaks about turf wars, dissension, and infighting that usually accompanies these things between either of the two camps.
So is Bush Obama's new BFF? Sleepovers at the white house? Pillow fights and spin the bottle with the white house staff?
We'll see.
Bill Clinton seemed to have wanted to burn down the white house rather then let George W. Bush move in it seemed from what I can remember, but that was also during a highly polarizing and contentious legal war that kept the presidency in limbo for almost a month.
Even today, at Bush's last press conference he had nothing but warm praise and encouragement for Obama, who spent pretty much all of his campaign shoveling dirt on Bush's "failed" presidency, and using his name as a four letter word to equate nearly everything that is wrong with America to Bush himself; much to the chagrin of a desperate Republican Party, that was unable to make any headway in the face of Bush's dismal approval rating.
Obama seems to have turned a 180 after the election also and hasn't publicly disagreed with Bush once. The two have had 3 meetings together and announced again today they'll be continuing to work together on the remaining $350 Billion that congress approved as part of it's bailout package in September.
The two seem rather chummy also, all laughs and back touching at each of their meetings and there haven't been any press leaks about turf wars, dissension, and infighting that usually accompanies these things between either of the two camps.
So is Bush Obama's new BFF? Sleepovers at the white house? Pillow fights and spin the bottle with the white house staff?
We'll see.
Rod Blagojevich 1, The United States Senate 0
So despite initial objections by President-elect Obama, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin and pretty much the entire leadership of the Democratic Party. Roland Burris has been accepted into the Senate.
Living proof that nothing is infallible in politics.
Living proof that nothing is infallible in politics.
Thursday, January 8, 2009
Obama's speech on the economy
Obama gave a speech today at George Mason University on the state of the economy (read text here). As he did during the election, Obama managed to balance a message of optimism with a more urgent message about the sad state of the economy.
In the speech, Obama basically says that he's got a plan and he's ready to take on the depression, but it's up to congress to get their act together and well, act. This speech got me thinking about the limitations of what Obama can actually achieve as president.
America may have voted in their first truly 21st century president, but considering how long many members of congress have been around, I think congress may end up ultimately weighing down the America's much needed attempt to leap into the future...
Then again, with what appears to be a growing lack of party unity in both the democratic and republican camps, some congressmen may be willing to start voting in the courageous way that they usually try to avoid.
Who knows? Stay tuned for the future...
In the speech, Obama basically says that he's got a plan and he's ready to take on the depression, but it's up to congress to get their act together and well, act. This speech got me thinking about the limitations of what Obama can actually achieve as president.
America may have voted in their first truly 21st century president, but considering how long many members of congress have been around, I think congress may end up ultimately weighing down the America's much needed attempt to leap into the future...
Then again, with what appears to be a growing lack of party unity in both the democratic and republican camps, some congressmen may be willing to start voting in the courageous way that they usually try to avoid.
Who knows? Stay tuned for the future...
Tuesday, January 6, 2009
The stimulus bill and political capital
John Dickerson from Slate has a great article talking about the crafting of the new stimulus bill and the pressures both publicly and politically that Obama faces on how the bill passes.
He raises some of the same points I had made in an earlier post, that Obama can't just be seen as jamming new spending bills through a majority congress much in the same way that LBJ or George Bush did, but that he is careful to include thoughtful discussion and opposition opinions.
He's treading dangerous political ground here, he could either spend vast amounts of political capital and be seen as bullying his agenda on congress, or he could gain even greater capital by treading cautiously and letting all sides put in their two cents.
The problem with option two is that consensus building takes time, and with the economy in the state that it is in, time, more than anything, is of the essence.
He raises some of the same points I had made in an earlier post, that Obama can't just be seen as jamming new spending bills through a majority congress much in the same way that LBJ or George Bush did, but that he is careful to include thoughtful discussion and opposition opinions.
He's treading dangerous political ground here, he could either spend vast amounts of political capital and be seen as bullying his agenda on congress, or he could gain even greater capital by treading cautiously and letting all sides put in their two cents.
The problem with option two is that consensus building takes time, and with the economy in the state that it is in, time, more than anything, is of the essence.
Richardson! Blago! Burris! Oh my. . .!
Chuck Todd this morning nailed it when he said that Obama's 2008 transition, which was lauded for it's efficiency, speed, and cerebral appointments, seems different from his transition going into 2009, which has seen nothing but headaches so far.
With Roland Burris, the appointed, but not certified replacement for Obama's senate seat being blocked today from joining his colleagues in the swearing in ceremony for the 111th congress, has started a media new cycle that Obama would surely have wished to avoid.
The news stories of kumbaya and harmony that permeated the majority of Obama's coverage in November and Decemeber has given way to more and more stories of disunity within the Democratic Party, even as the 111th congress begins with overwhelming majorities for them in both houses. Something they should be celebrating under normal circumstances.
But with 3(!) senate seats right now up in the air, all of them going to be Democratic seats and shrouded in negative press, it seems hard to picture a party that's ready to tip back the champagne.
Unless Obama can effictively tamp down this turmoil within his own party, it's hard to picture him being able to find more broad cooperation from Congressional Republicans, who are most likely waiting for any emminent signs of weakness to display more throated opposition at a time when it wouldn't seem purposefully obstructionist.
With Roland Burris, the appointed, but not certified replacement for Obama's senate seat being blocked today from joining his colleagues in the swearing in ceremony for the 111th congress, has started a media new cycle that Obama would surely have wished to avoid.
The news stories of kumbaya and harmony that permeated the majority of Obama's coverage in November and Decemeber has given way to more and more stories of disunity within the Democratic Party, even as the 111th congress begins with overwhelming majorities for them in both houses. Something they should be celebrating under normal circumstances.
But with 3(!) senate seats right now up in the air, all of them going to be Democratic seats and shrouded in negative press, it seems hard to picture a party that's ready to tip back the champagne.
Unless Obama can effictively tamp down this turmoil within his own party, it's hard to picture him being able to find more broad cooperation from Congressional Republicans, who are most likely waiting for any emminent signs of weakness to display more throated opposition at a time when it wouldn't seem purposefully obstructionist.
Sunday, January 4, 2009
Richardson drops bid for commerce secretary
Bill Richardson withdrew his nomination for commerce secretary today due to an ongoing federal investigation into whether the New Mexico governor awarded government contracts in exchange for contributions to a number of his political committees.
Friday, January 2, 2009
Obama and LBJ cont.
Adding on to Laura's post below, I think it would be very curious to go over some of the other similarities/complications that Obama has with LBJ, who achieved the zenith of liberalism in 1965 with his "Great Society" federal spending programs.
Obama has also announced his plans for an ambitious stimulus bill that he wants congress to have drafted and "on his desk" when he assumes office on January 20th. The roughly $750 Billion bill is focused on creating new jobs, improving infrastructure, and providing relief for state governments, three things that Obama hopes will revitalize the flailing economy.
Johnson wasn't dealing with a sputtering economy, but instead spent billions on education, urban development, and federal assistance to the poor in his "war on poverty," but after the riots that plagued the country during the mid to late 60's there was a general backlash against his spending, the new scope of the federal government and the effectiveness of his programs.
Although Obama is unlikely to see such a vast backlash towards any of his programs, and will not inherit as tumultous of a country as Johnson did, he must be careful to ensure his popular support by including Republicans and Conservative Democrats in crafting his agenda, keeping this in mind he could leave the White House with an impressive legislative legacy that would both cripple Republican opposition as well as create a better playing field for Democrats in the midterm elections as well as a possible successor in 2016.
Obama also has to deal with the wars in both Iraq and Afghanistan, these two wars plagued the Bush Administration and the Vietnam War plagued Johnson's administration, careful oversight of both of these conflicts as well as a feeling towards de-escalation could keep Obama from falling into the same traps that Johnson fell into, and Obama can learn from the mistakes of LBJ by maintaining a sense of transparency on how the war is handled and not downplaying any mistakes the government may have made. Johnson also fell out of favor with the press, who wrote about the "credibility gap" that he had made for himself and he faced widespread criticism on how honest he was in detailing the progress of the war in Vietnam.
Obama can also learn a lot from Johnson's successes as well as his failures, and should spend a good amount of time studying the LBJ administration and what worked, and what didn't.
Obama has also announced his plans for an ambitious stimulus bill that he wants congress to have drafted and "on his desk" when he assumes office on January 20th. The roughly $750 Billion bill is focused on creating new jobs, improving infrastructure, and providing relief for state governments, three things that Obama hopes will revitalize the flailing economy.
Johnson wasn't dealing with a sputtering economy, but instead spent billions on education, urban development, and federal assistance to the poor in his "war on poverty," but after the riots that plagued the country during the mid to late 60's there was a general backlash against his spending, the new scope of the federal government and the effectiveness of his programs.
Although Obama is unlikely to see such a vast backlash towards any of his programs, and will not inherit as tumultous of a country as Johnson did, he must be careful to ensure his popular support by including Republicans and Conservative Democrats in crafting his agenda, keeping this in mind he could leave the White House with an impressive legislative legacy that would both cripple Republican opposition as well as create a better playing field for Democrats in the midterm elections as well as a possible successor in 2016.
Obama also has to deal with the wars in both Iraq and Afghanistan, these two wars plagued the Bush Administration and the Vietnam War plagued Johnson's administration, careful oversight of both of these conflicts as well as a feeling towards de-escalation could keep Obama from falling into the same traps that Johnson fell into, and Obama can learn from the mistakes of LBJ by maintaining a sense of transparency on how the war is handled and not downplaying any mistakes the government may have made. Johnson also fell out of favor with the press, who wrote about the "credibility gap" that he had made for himself and he faced widespread criticism on how honest he was in detailing the progress of the war in Vietnam.
Obama can also learn a lot from Johnson's successes as well as his failures, and should spend a good amount of time studying the LBJ administration and what worked, and what didn't.
Inauguration Days
The Boston Globe ran an interesting piece today comparing Obama's inauguration to that of LBJ.
While the whole, pessimist, look-on-the-bad-side attitude typical of liberals is so 2008, this piece has me wondering whether Obama's inauguration will be the pinnacle of civic enthusiasm before a long decline into a state of public disappointment. I hope that Obama's presidency doesn't go the way of LBJ. I think Obama has done a decent job of trying to manage the public's expectations since he won the election, but there's no doubt that there will be bloc of Obama voters who feel let down by what he's actually able to accomplish.
While the whole, pessimist, look-on-the-bad-side attitude typical of liberals is so 2008, this piece has me wondering whether Obama's inauguration will be the pinnacle of civic enthusiasm before a long decline into a state of public disappointment. I hope that Obama's presidency doesn't go the way of LBJ. I think Obama has done a decent job of trying to manage the public's expectations since he won the election, but there's no doubt that there will be bloc of Obama voters who feel let down by what he's actually able to accomplish.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
