Those who are familiar with the Democratic Presidential Primary campaign of 2008 (which wrapped up one year ago this week with Hillary Clinton's concession speech) will remember one of the most odd personalities of now Secretary Clinton's old campaign team was former DNC chairman and Clinton family friend Terry Mcauliffe. He was the one in the Hawaiian shirts on CNN talking about his "optimism" for Clinton's campaign when it was way past it's last throes, and frequently introduced her as "the next President of the United States," even after it was clear she could no longer win the delegates neccesary to carry the nomination at the party's convention in Denver.
Last year Mcauliffe announced that he would run for governor of Virginia, despite that besides being chairman of the Democratic National Committee from 2001-2005 and a national co-chair for Hillary Clinton's failed presidential run, he hadn't had any other political experience-- a fact that the other candidates in the race, Creigh Deeds and Brian Moran, -- would capitalize on.
State Senator Creigh Deeds ended up winning the primary handily by almost 2-1, taking over 50% of the vote in the 3 way race (less than 5% of the states eligible voters turned out for the election). McAuliffe had been the early favorite, with most of the states party establishment behind him, as well as having raised the most money. Deeds saw a late surge in his numbers, however, with both a Washington Post endorsement, and a slew of ads against McAuliffe that tarred him as an out of touch carpetbagger who had not paid his dues and would be unelectable against the Republican opponent, State Attorney General Bob McDonnell.
Deeds and McDonnell have squared off before, actually, in a race for state Attorney General 4 years ago that saw Deeds lose by only 323 votes. Deeds is a moderate rural Democrat (he has a donkey named Harry S Truman), and his pro-gun, pro-business stances may make it harder for Republicans to tar him as out of step with Virginia's generally more conservative voters. Especially since the state GOP had expected to run against McAuliffe
The Virginia governor's race will be heavily scrutinized this year, a red-turning-purplish state, it has sent two Democrats to the US Senate in as many years and has also elected two Democratic governors in their last cycles, as well as supporting President Obama in the 2008 election. Both parties will see it as a bellweather as to what their chances may be in the 2010 midterm elections and whether there will be a strong backlash against the Obama Administrations new spending policies and domestic agenda.
Wednesday, June 10, 2009
Tuesday, June 9, 2009
Economy criticism creeping up on Obama?
The Obama administration is facing some criticism lately over the number of jobs the Labor and Treasury Departments claim to have created or saved by way of the federal stimulus plan. The Labor Department is trying to account for a job creation ripple effect that boils down to the idea that one new job created can also create or save several other jobs... but in an only semi-measurable way.
In the WSJ article cited above, the author calls out the media in particular for not scrutinizing these claims further. While Obama's administration certainly isn't the first to trot out the fuzzy math in a tough situation, it does seem like the press is accepting these statistics without a lot of questions. However, if Obama's public approval rating on his handling of the economy continues to decline I would expect to see more news coverage criticizing these job statistics.
In a similar vein of criticism, the GOP seems to be formulating a strategy to leverage the national deficit against Obama and democrats during the 2010 and 2012 elections. In an article today published in Politico, some GOP leaders are pointing to the idea that the deficit could be Obama's achilles heel. If the stimulus package fails to deliver, they might have a pretty clear line of attack here.
In the WSJ article cited above, the author calls out the media in particular for not scrutinizing these claims further. While Obama's administration certainly isn't the first to trot out the fuzzy math in a tough situation, it does seem like the press is accepting these statistics without a lot of questions. However, if Obama's public approval rating on his handling of the economy continues to decline I would expect to see more news coverage criticizing these job statistics.
In a similar vein of criticism, the GOP seems to be formulating a strategy to leverage the national deficit against Obama and democrats during the 2010 and 2012 elections. In an article today published in Politico, some GOP leaders are pointing to the idea that the deficit could be Obama's achilles heel. If the stimulus package fails to deliver, they might have a pretty clear line of attack here.
Health Care debate rages on
Democrats have been dreaming of universal health care since Truman, and they're now entering a critical phase of what is largely believed to be a one-shot opportunity to make it happen.
Unfortunately for Democrats, their chief champion of reform, as well as universal coverage, Ted Kennedy, has yet to reach full strength and is still absent from key Washington debates. Also, Robert Byrd, the aging senior senator from West Virginia, is also incapacitated with a staph infection. Then there's also of course, the Minnesota recount court trial going on right now, which is keeping Al Franken off the floor. 57 may seem like a pretty robust number for a Senate majority, but with a public health care option being seriously discussed, Republicans (who are not really at the table for this discussion anyway) are fleeing en masse and the shaky relationship that has been built with private health care companies recently is in jeopardy of falling apart.
President Obama sent a letter to key Democratic senators outlining exactly what he wanted without boxing them or himself in. He reiterated his goals not to have this issue slow-walked in the Senate, let it be known that the public option is on the table, and that there has to be a way to pay for this without deepening the deficit.
Obama and top Democrats have said that "the stars are aligned" to get health care reform passed this year, and are doing anything within their power not to fall into the same pitfalls that derailed Bill Clinton's attempts at health care reform in 1993. Including letting loose a legislative army from the White House and making sure that the popular new president is out and visible, taking the lead, so that Republicans can't hang the health care albatross -- should it fail -- around the necks of rank and file dems in the House and Senate next year when the midterm elections come.
Unfortunately for Democrats, their chief champion of reform, as well as universal coverage, Ted Kennedy, has yet to reach full strength and is still absent from key Washington debates. Also, Robert Byrd, the aging senior senator from West Virginia, is also incapacitated with a staph infection. Then there's also of course, the Minnesota recount court trial going on right now, which is keeping Al Franken off the floor. 57 may seem like a pretty robust number for a Senate majority, but with a public health care option being seriously discussed, Republicans (who are not really at the table for this discussion anyway) are fleeing en masse and the shaky relationship that has been built with private health care companies recently is in jeopardy of falling apart.
President Obama sent a letter to key Democratic senators outlining exactly what he wanted without boxing them or himself in. He reiterated his goals not to have this issue slow-walked in the Senate, let it be known that the public option is on the table, and that there has to be a way to pay for this without deepening the deficit.
Obama and top Democrats have said that "the stars are aligned" to get health care reform passed this year, and are doing anything within their power not to fall into the same pitfalls that derailed Bill Clinton's attempts at health care reform in 1993. Including letting loose a legislative army from the White House and making sure that the popular new president is out and visible, taking the lead, so that Republicans can't hang the health care albatross -- should it fail -- around the necks of rank and file dems in the House and Senate next year when the midterm elections come.
Wednesday, June 3, 2009
Obama's Middle East Tour
President Obama began his 5 day tour of the Middle East today. Right now the president is in Saudi Arabia and tomorrow he is set to give a major speech from Cairo, Egypt to address the Muslim World. The tour is intended as a way for Obama to push for progress on the longstanding Arab-Israeli conflict and also as an opportunity for the president to try to repair the United States' image in the Middle East.
Although the president has barely arrived in Saudi Arabia, the op-ed mill has been abuzz with what Obama should say and do (including these 7 opinions published today in the NYTimes). Also just in time for Obama's steps off the plane, a new audio message attributed to Osama bin Laden was broadcast on Al-Jazeera. The message focused mainly on Obama's increased effort to go after the Taliban forces in Pakistan, but also criticized the president for following in the footsteps of George Bush and increasing international animosity towards muslims.
In the wake of a new president and what many people across the globe perceive as a new era in american politics, I wonder how bin Laden's view of Obama will be perceived? George Bush was notoriously unpopular throughout the world, which was a boon to terrorist recruiters like the Taliban, but will bin Laden's criticism of Obama just come across as terribly off-base?
Although the president has barely arrived in Saudi Arabia, the op-ed mill has been abuzz with what Obama should say and do (including these 7 opinions published today in the NYTimes). Also just in time for Obama's steps off the plane, a new audio message attributed to Osama bin Laden was broadcast on Al-Jazeera. The message focused mainly on Obama's increased effort to go after the Taliban forces in Pakistan, but also criticized the president for following in the footsteps of George Bush and increasing international animosity towards muslims.
In the wake of a new president and what many people across the globe perceive as a new era in american politics, I wonder how bin Laden's view of Obama will be perceived? George Bush was notoriously unpopular throughout the world, which was a boon to terrorist recruiters like the Taliban, but will bin Laden's criticism of Obama just come across as terribly off-base?
Tuesday, June 2, 2009
GM Bankruptcy fallout
The fallout from the announced bankruptcy of GM and a plan by the federal government to take up to a 60% ownership stake, as well as funnel as much as 50 billion additional dollars into the struggling automaker has received very dismal reviews from an American Public tired of government intervention. However, just like the wall street and bank bailouts, as well as the original auto company infusions last year, the newest act has been defended by the administration as neccessary to stave off a complete breakdown in the American economy.
In addition to the thousands of jobs at General Motors itself there are also many other tens of thousands of jobs all over the country that depend on the faltering auto giant such as suppliers, vendors, and dealers who are mercilessly tied to whatever decisions are made in regards to the company.
David Brooks, a long skeptic of government intervention in the private sector, and who has written extensively on the subject of Detroit's money woes, penned a scathing op-ed in today's New York times that wacks the company from the top down. Most of the points made show a company that has an embedded and doomed corporate culture blind to ever changing consumer demands and a fraternal pecking order that squelches quality talent. He also criticizes the politically powerful UAW, the bloated workers union that now also owns a stake in the company and who's past and present practices are not representative of the fundamental change needed to get the company back on it's feet.
One point that's also been brought up in opposition is that it may be difficult for the company to succeed if it is serving two masters. One being it's new majority shareholder, the US government, which has just laid down new tough rules on emissions, rules that could hamstring the company as it struggles to rebrand itself. The other being the market itself, which needs to be convinced their cars are of better quality than the smaller, more affordable Japanese and German cars that have dominated the market over the past few years, all at the same time meeting the environmental standards of it's new boss.
The GM issue could also become political poison for Democrats as Republicans will be poised next year to point to the GM example as just more and more out of control spending that yields no new jobs, lethargic economic growth, and more and more debt for future generations to pay for.
Other comparisons have also been made to GM as a model of where the US itself may be heading. As more and more debt piles on, and more and more companies are labeled as "too big to fail," where will the US government itself go when the burden of propping up these companies becomes too much?
In addition to the thousands of jobs at General Motors itself there are also many other tens of thousands of jobs all over the country that depend on the faltering auto giant such as suppliers, vendors, and dealers who are mercilessly tied to whatever decisions are made in regards to the company.
David Brooks, a long skeptic of government intervention in the private sector, and who has written extensively on the subject of Detroit's money woes, penned a scathing op-ed in today's New York times that wacks the company from the top down. Most of the points made show a company that has an embedded and doomed corporate culture blind to ever changing consumer demands and a fraternal pecking order that squelches quality talent. He also criticizes the politically powerful UAW, the bloated workers union that now also owns a stake in the company and who's past and present practices are not representative of the fundamental change needed to get the company back on it's feet.
One point that's also been brought up in opposition is that it may be difficult for the company to succeed if it is serving two masters. One being it's new majority shareholder, the US government, which has just laid down new tough rules on emissions, rules that could hamstring the company as it struggles to rebrand itself. The other being the market itself, which needs to be convinced their cars are of better quality than the smaller, more affordable Japanese and German cars that have dominated the market over the past few years, all at the same time meeting the environmental standards of it's new boss.
The GM issue could also become political poison for Democrats as Republicans will be poised next year to point to the GM example as just more and more out of control spending that yields no new jobs, lethargic economic growth, and more and more debt for future generations to pay for.
Other comparisons have also been made to GM as a model of where the US itself may be heading. As more and more debt piles on, and more and more companies are labeled as "too big to fail," where will the US government itself go when the burden of propping up these companies becomes too much?
Friday, May 29, 2009
Democrats vs. Identity politics
Historically, Democrats have condemned Republicans for using wedge issues like gun control, abortion, and gay marriage to try and rig elections in their favor, but Republicans have their own issue in which to cry 'no fair:' Identity Politics.
During the '60's and '70's, many liberal groups pandered to minority organizations, hoping to empower them to articulate their oppression in terms of their own experience -- a definition of identity politics -- and form a more cohesive bloc against the largely white male majority that forms the more conservative Republican Party. However, after the 'affirmative action' arguments of the 80's and 90's burned out a lot of the political capital to be gained from implementing identity politics, the GOP has oftentimes succesfully pigeonholed Democrats as promoting policies that focus more on group marginalization, and less on full integration and acceptance.
President Obama largely won the 2008 election by carefully rejecting many aspects of identity politics and by doing so was able to garner a diverse coalition that helped give him the majority of the votes and the election.
Lately, however, Republicans are accusing him of not quite practicing what he has preached by nominating Sonia Sotomayor as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court.
Some are saying that he has used her for nomination for shear political purposes, naming a Hispanic judge to the highest court in the land to shore up his own Hispanic Base (which gave him 67% of their vote), and basically dare conservatives to take the bait and attack Sotomayor more as a Latina woman, and less as a qualified or not qualified judge.
In part, the white house pushing Sotomayor's personal narrative as a poor-minority-from-the-projects-that-pulled-herself-up-by-her-own-bootstraps story has semi perpetuated this, and more and more people are becoming drawn to her biography more than they are her judicial achievements.
The only downside for Democrats to Sotomayor's nomination (who remains popular with a majority of Americans despite the revelation of inflammatory remarks she made in 2001,) has been that identity politics has once again forced Democrats to tread lightly, lest they fall into the same arguments over minority entitlement that have plagued them since the civil rights movements of the 60's. Despite the historic nomination, also, overplaying their hand could be used by Republicans to show that Democrats are once again pandering for votes from minority communities, instead of focusing on real issues and policy arguments.
Obama has promised that immigration reform is also on the table for this year, and how both sides deal with the Sotomayor nomination, will sadly draw the lines for how that debate proceeds.
During the '60's and '70's, many liberal groups pandered to minority organizations, hoping to empower them to articulate their oppression in terms of their own experience -- a definition of identity politics -- and form a more cohesive bloc against the largely white male majority that forms the more conservative Republican Party. However, after the 'affirmative action' arguments of the 80's and 90's burned out a lot of the political capital to be gained from implementing identity politics, the GOP has oftentimes succesfully pigeonholed Democrats as promoting policies that focus more on group marginalization, and less on full integration and acceptance.
President Obama largely won the 2008 election by carefully rejecting many aspects of identity politics and by doing so was able to garner a diverse coalition that helped give him the majority of the votes and the election.
Lately, however, Republicans are accusing him of not quite practicing what he has preached by nominating Sonia Sotomayor as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court.
Some are saying that he has used her for nomination for shear political purposes, naming a Hispanic judge to the highest court in the land to shore up his own Hispanic Base (which gave him 67% of their vote), and basically dare conservatives to take the bait and attack Sotomayor more as a Latina woman, and less as a qualified or not qualified judge.
In part, the white house pushing Sotomayor's personal narrative as a poor-minority-from-the-projects-that-pulled-herself-up-by-her-own-bootstraps story has semi perpetuated this, and more and more people are becoming drawn to her biography more than they are her judicial achievements.
The only downside for Democrats to Sotomayor's nomination (who remains popular with a majority of Americans despite the revelation of inflammatory remarks she made in 2001,) has been that identity politics has once again forced Democrats to tread lightly, lest they fall into the same arguments over minority entitlement that have plagued them since the civil rights movements of the 60's. Despite the historic nomination, also, overplaying their hand could be used by Republicans to show that Democrats are once again pandering for votes from minority communities, instead of focusing on real issues and policy arguments.
Obama has promised that immigration reform is also on the table for this year, and how both sides deal with the Sotomayor nomination, will sadly draw the lines for how that debate proceeds.
Bush defends interrogation policies
While giving a speech yesterday to the Economic Club of Southwest Michigan, former President Bush defended his decision to allow harsh interrogations of suspected terror suspects after the 9/11 attacks.
In his wide ranging remarks, which included a Q&A session, the statement most likely to pop out is: “I made a decision within the law to get information so I can say, I’ve done what it takes to do my duty to protect the American people. I can tell you, the information gained saved lives.”
Although these remarks are along the same lines as statements that his former Vice President, Dick Cheney, has made in recent weeks -- including a televised rebuttal last week to President Obama's own National Security speech -- Bush refused to criticize the current administration saying he had his opinions but “there are plenty of people who will wade in, trust me, [I've seen it] first hand.”
Although last week's national security debate -- with all it's tough talk on prisoner transfers, the gray area's forming around the torture discussion, and whether or not the country is safe under the new administration -- have largely moved to the background in the face of a looming Supreme Court confirmation. One thing is for sure: the debate may be tabled for now, but it is not over.
More speculation will arise, especially in the wake of the current tensions in North Korea, when President Bush's memoirs are published and more data becomes available, and whether the current administrations policies fail or succeed.
In his wide ranging remarks, which included a Q&A session, the statement most likely to pop out is: “I made a decision within the law to get information so I can say, I’ve done what it takes to do my duty to protect the American people. I can tell you, the information gained saved lives.”
Although these remarks are along the same lines as statements that his former Vice President, Dick Cheney, has made in recent weeks -- including a televised rebuttal last week to President Obama's own National Security speech -- Bush refused to criticize the current administration saying he had his opinions but “there are plenty of people who will wade in, trust me, [I've seen it] first hand.”
Although last week's national security debate -- with all it's tough talk on prisoner transfers, the gray area's forming around the torture discussion, and whether or not the country is safe under the new administration -- have largely moved to the background in the face of a looming Supreme Court confirmation. One thing is for sure: the debate may be tabled for now, but it is not over.
More speculation will arise, especially in the wake of the current tensions in North Korea, when President Bush's memoirs are published and more data becomes available, and whether the current administrations policies fail or succeed.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
