As a sports fan, there's nothing more frustrating when your team, seeming to have all the pieces together, can't seem to do anything. What's even worse, is when the opposition utilizes this to their advantage. Very often, it takes a big play to wake things up.
What happened in Massachusetts is just that big play. I can imagine there's a lot of panic on both the progressive and Democratic side, and that panic is just what Beck, Limbaugh, FOX News(?), and the teabaggers and town hall mobs are hoping for.
But it's still early, and there's no need to panic. Instead, all that I see necessary is to regroup a bit.
To start with, Obama needs to get back to basics a bit. Even those who rely on AM-Radio and it's cable affiliate for news and opinion realize that the 2008 election was a referendum on the economy. Making job creation and economic growth key points of the agenda for 2010 could go a long way in getting a few small victories for Obama as well as showing how the GOP continues to let corporations and CEOs set their agenda.
Next, Obama needs to get his "ground game" going. Somehow, the young volunteers, who put tireless effort into getting him elected, need to be reactivated to help advance his agenda. The GOP, since they lack any new ideas, will likely make any legislation seem like a campaign. These activists could provide a strong counter to the AM-Radio and FOX News nation that works at the bidding of the GOP and their handlers.
Which brings up the need for communication. The GOP has Beck, Limbaugh and FOX News to tell their followers what and how to think. What Obama needs to do is tap into the web as a way to get the truth to his supporters and point out the lies and fear that have been the tools of the right. Also the web, much as it was during the election, can be a way to co-ordinate activism.
There also may be a need to make some changes at the party leadership. Bring people in who are closer to the model that won the Democrats Congress in 06, and the White House in 2008. Would Howard Dean accept his old job back? Would Obama be willing to look to MoveOn or United For Peace and Justice for party leaders.
Finally, sometimes you gotta take what you can get. On the Health Reform bill, as controversial and as distasteful as it may be, it may be better to reconcile the bill and sign it. As most of us remember what happened after the last attempt to reform Health Care failed.
Wednesday, January 20, 2010
Tuesday, June 9, 2009
Israel and Palestine
There's a thread on the board in which some members are making (I hope) facetious suggestions about solutions to the problems in Israel and Palestine. (Why is it that 'Mideast' has become shorthand for this tiny area?) I understand the frustration and impatience of those who are thoroughly sick of the seeming inability of the governments and people there to act like reasonable adults. What Genesis sang in "Blood on the Rooftops" three decades ago is still true for many of us:
Chili chocolate tea--pretty good. Okay, the "mideast":
1) Security is a perfectly reasonable concern of the Israelis, and it's not negotiable. They're surrounded by hostile Arab nations. Yes, yes, I understand the hostility, but there is no way the Israelis will or should rely on the good will of their neighbors. Their neighbors hate their guts. The US has to formalize the implied security guarantee of our patronage with a treaty that obligates us to come to the defense of Israel if attacked. It's the only guarantee strong enough to induce them to make the concessions I'll describe below which are a necessary part of the deal. The UN should make similar guarantees, but that may take a while and is less important anyway, the UN being what it is.
2) Israel has to give up its nuclear weapons. There is no way we have the standing to demand that Iran or anyone else stop trying to get the bomb while Israel has over a hundred warheads and the capability to deliver them as far as Teheran. Obama was brilliant to have brought this up in Cairo. It's a key point that has repercussions all over the world.
3) Justice for the Palestinians has finally got to happen. The past can't be erased. Reparations are not going to be paid. But the occupation must end, and the settlements be dismantled or Palestine be adequately compensated for them, in the judgment of the Palestinians. Any settlements over the 1967 border are illegal. The Washington Post ran an editorial recently advocating for "natural growth" for established settlements. That's bullshit. Say your neighbor, at gunpoint, appropriated part of your yard for a shed. He keeps expanding his shed--"natural growth"--to accommodate more lawn equipment. When the subject of compensation comes up, he talks about giving you part of his yard. If you would rather have that land than the land he stole, then fine. But if you don't like that deal, and he isn't willing to accept any alternatives you propose, then he needs to give you back all your land, however uncomfortable it is for the thief. It's not as though the "settlers" didn't know they were moving into stolen land. That was the whole point for most of them--they figured it was their duty to take the land away from its legal owners for the higher purpose of reclaiming the promised land. But their continued presence can only be allowed if the Palestinians agree to adequate compensation in land and perhaps money. If they don't agree, the settlers have to go, or no treaty and no deal. I would hope that an arrangement could be made for some of the more populous settlements, but there are no guarantees and the Israelis need to accept that.
That's all I got for now. Jerusalem can be shared or split; I don't see it as the main issue. Palestine needs to be an independent state, presumably getting a big hand up from its Arab brethren who have been crying crocodile tears and using the Palestinian refugees as cheap expendable labor. I see no reason why it couldn't be at least as successful as the Arab autocracies in the area like Syria, Jordan, and Egypt.
Let's skip the news boy (I'll make some tea)But as Obama pointed out in his excellent Cairo speech last week, the road to good relations with nations dominated by Muslims runs through Israel and Palestine. So, I'll make some tea, but not skip the Arabs and Jews this time, and make some serious suggestions for going forward.
Arabs and Jews boy (too much for me)
They get me confused boy (puts me off to sleep)
And the thing I hate - Oh Lord!
Is staying up late, to watch some debate,
on some nation's fate
Chili chocolate tea--pretty good. Okay, the "mideast":
1) Security is a perfectly reasonable concern of the Israelis, and it's not negotiable. They're surrounded by hostile Arab nations. Yes, yes, I understand the hostility, but there is no way the Israelis will or should rely on the good will of their neighbors. Their neighbors hate their guts. The US has to formalize the implied security guarantee of our patronage with a treaty that obligates us to come to the defense of Israel if attacked. It's the only guarantee strong enough to induce them to make the concessions I'll describe below which are a necessary part of the deal. The UN should make similar guarantees, but that may take a while and is less important anyway, the UN being what it is.
2) Israel has to give up its nuclear weapons. There is no way we have the standing to demand that Iran or anyone else stop trying to get the bomb while Israel has over a hundred warheads and the capability to deliver them as far as Teheran. Obama was brilliant to have brought this up in Cairo. It's a key point that has repercussions all over the world.
3) Justice for the Palestinians has finally got to happen. The past can't be erased. Reparations are not going to be paid. But the occupation must end, and the settlements be dismantled or Palestine be adequately compensated for them, in the judgment of the Palestinians. Any settlements over the 1967 border are illegal. The Washington Post ran an editorial recently advocating for "natural growth" for established settlements. That's bullshit. Say your neighbor, at gunpoint, appropriated part of your yard for a shed. He keeps expanding his shed--"natural growth"--to accommodate more lawn equipment. When the subject of compensation comes up, he talks about giving you part of his yard. If you would rather have that land than the land he stole, then fine. But if you don't like that deal, and he isn't willing to accept any alternatives you propose, then he needs to give you back all your land, however uncomfortable it is for the thief. It's not as though the "settlers" didn't know they were moving into stolen land. That was the whole point for most of them--they figured it was their duty to take the land away from its legal owners for the higher purpose of reclaiming the promised land. But their continued presence can only be allowed if the Palestinians agree to adequate compensation in land and perhaps money. If they don't agree, the settlers have to go, or no treaty and no deal. I would hope that an arrangement could be made for some of the more populous settlements, but there are no guarantees and the Israelis need to accept that.
That's all I got for now. Jerusalem can be shared or split; I don't see it as the main issue. Palestine needs to be an independent state, presumably getting a big hand up from its Arab brethren who have been crying crocodile tears and using the Palestinian refugees as cheap expendable labor. I see no reason why it couldn't be at least as successful as the Arab autocracies in the area like Syria, Jordan, and Egypt.
Tuesday, April 14, 2009
The Best Never Rest
A recent thread on the notion of "American Exceptionalism" on the Turn Left Interactive forum got me to thinking about patriotism, nationalism and the need for nations to raise their game.
First, I think that the notion of nationalism is becoming an outmoded notion. The idea that any nation can exist above the rest of world is incompatible with a world that is more interconnected than ever before. In a world where economic crisis resonate across the globe, and people from any corner of the globe can communicate at a moments notice, the idea of any nation being above all seems like a relic of a past. Now the fact that that past is one of absolute rule may explain why this notion is so dear to the Right Wing of so many countries, including the US.
So where does that leave patriotism? There's nothing at all wrong with having pride in ones country, but one also needs to be looking at ways that one's country can elevate its game.
Champion teams and athletes know this need; The Pittsburgh Steelers are scouting the players they wish to draft to fill gaps and prepare to defend their Super Bowl championship, North Carolina and UConn will be visiting camps and clinics in search of young men and women to set themselves up to retain their NCAA Basketball titles. A nation needs to do much the same.
But for those on the right, there doesn't seem to be a belief that anything needs to be done. They stand there and howl, "We're number 1" and pound their chests. Countries that question or criticize us are shouted down or made to be an enemy.
The left takes a different look at things. They look at where a country may lag behind it's neighbors and allies.
For me, the two areas I see the United States needing work are sustainability and secularity.
I look at America and I see a country that has created a culture of consumption. Much of the current economic crisis has possible roots in a notion that we Americans need to have more and more. This wasn't how our country was, generations ago, we lived more within our means and in communities that supported each other, we practiced thrift too. There are places in the world, especially in Scandinavia, that seem to still have this notion as part of their culture. Recent hard times in the US has seen a return to these values a bit, but I wonder what will happen where prosperity returns.
I also find it odd that a country that has been fighting religious fundamentalists seems to be in the grip of fundamentalists. The debates over gay marriage, stem cells and evolution all make us seem backwards to our fellow industrialized nations that have embraced science, tolerance and what Karen Armstrong calls 'Secular Modernity'.
But there is one thing that Americans truly can take pride in--our energy. This is a nation that was started by an act of dissent against the leading imperial power of its day. And we've kept that spirit alive; when a region of our country decided that keeping a race in bondage was an economic necessity, others rose up to abolish the practice, when many of those same people codified discrimination, those affected joined with others to gain rights to vote, among other rights, when one of our leaders and his cadre decided to use fear to justify empire, the people rebuilt a movement that has made strides to getting America back on the road to rejoining the world as a whole.
Is America the best country in the world? In some ways, yes, but we're a work in progress, and need to look to where we need to make that progress.
First, I think that the notion of nationalism is becoming an outmoded notion. The idea that any nation can exist above the rest of world is incompatible with a world that is more interconnected than ever before. In a world where economic crisis resonate across the globe, and people from any corner of the globe can communicate at a moments notice, the idea of any nation being above all seems like a relic of a past. Now the fact that that past is one of absolute rule may explain why this notion is so dear to the Right Wing of so many countries, including the US.
So where does that leave patriotism? There's nothing at all wrong with having pride in ones country, but one also needs to be looking at ways that one's country can elevate its game.
Champion teams and athletes know this need; The Pittsburgh Steelers are scouting the players they wish to draft to fill gaps and prepare to defend their Super Bowl championship, North Carolina and UConn will be visiting camps and clinics in search of young men and women to set themselves up to retain their NCAA Basketball titles. A nation needs to do much the same.
But for those on the right, there doesn't seem to be a belief that anything needs to be done. They stand there and howl, "We're number 1" and pound their chests. Countries that question or criticize us are shouted down or made to be an enemy.
The left takes a different look at things. They look at where a country may lag behind it's neighbors and allies.
For me, the two areas I see the United States needing work are sustainability and secularity.
I look at America and I see a country that has created a culture of consumption. Much of the current economic crisis has possible roots in a notion that we Americans need to have more and more. This wasn't how our country was, generations ago, we lived more within our means and in communities that supported each other, we practiced thrift too. There are places in the world, especially in Scandinavia, that seem to still have this notion as part of their culture. Recent hard times in the US has seen a return to these values a bit, but I wonder what will happen where prosperity returns.
I also find it odd that a country that has been fighting religious fundamentalists seems to be in the grip of fundamentalists. The debates over gay marriage, stem cells and evolution all make us seem backwards to our fellow industrialized nations that have embraced science, tolerance and what Karen Armstrong calls 'Secular Modernity'.
But there is one thing that Americans truly can take pride in--our energy. This is a nation that was started by an act of dissent against the leading imperial power of its day. And we've kept that spirit alive; when a region of our country decided that keeping a race in bondage was an economic necessity, others rose up to abolish the practice, when many of those same people codified discrimination, those affected joined with others to gain rights to vote, among other rights, when one of our leaders and his cadre decided to use fear to justify empire, the people rebuilt a movement that has made strides to getting America back on the road to rejoining the world as a whole.
Is America the best country in the world? In some ways, yes, but we're a work in progress, and need to look to where we need to make that progress.
Friday, February 13, 2009
Norm Coleman: We Need Activist Judges So I Can Win This Damn Lawsuit
When a Republican lawyer starts arguing that his case has created legal "penumbras" (yes, a direct quote) around certain laws, and that His Corrupt Highness Al Franken "would have you sit in a vacuum, strictly interpreting a statute," you know up has finally become down and liberal Jews really do control the weather.
A historical footnote: let's all remember that "penumbras" are official Republican no-noes ever since Griswold v. Connecticut, still their favorite Exhibit A in supposed judicial overreach.
A historical footnote: let's all remember that "penumbras" are official Republican no-noes ever since Griswold v. Connecticut, still their favorite Exhibit A in supposed judicial overreach.
15 Yards For Excessive Celebration
Seriously, the Republicans are partying over Judd Gregg backing out as though they've won a major victory. What's the big deal? It reminds me of a backup tight end wiggling his package and taunting the safety, only to have the safety point to the scoreboard where it's now 45-10.
Elderly Abuse Prevention: To Their Credit, Most Republicans Voted Yes
Being from the great state of Arizona has its perks. Our driver's licenses, thanks to a deregulation kick a few years back, don't expire until we're 65. We grow up with a natural tan. We usually have a healthy respect for the outdoors. We're in spitting distance of both California and Mexico without the high cost of living or the rampant fraud. We have the Grand Canyon.
Unfortunately, we also have Trent Franks and Jeff Flake, who joined 23 other brave souls in the House to vote against -- I kid you not -- funding an elderly abuse prevention program.
Unfortunately, we also have Trent Franks and Jeff Flake, who joined 23 other brave souls in the House to vote against -- I kid you not -- funding an elderly abuse prevention program.
The House took up H.R. 448, the Elder Abuse Protection Act, which would establish specialized elder abuse prosecution and research programs to aid victims, and would provide training to prosecutors and other law enforcement personnel related to elder abuse prevention and protection, and establish programs to provide for emergency crisis response teams to combat elder abuse. The bill, sponsored by Rep. Joe Sestak (D-PA), passed on a 397-25 vote. [roll call 62] All members of the Nevada Congressional delegation voted in favor the measure. Our neighbors to the south may be interested to know that Congressman Flake (R-AZ) and Congressman Franks (R-AZ) were among the lonely 25 voting in opposition.When a granny-kicker joke is actually on point, you know we've lost the battle that day.
Saturday, February 7, 2009
Obama and the Stimulus Bill: A Muddled Tale
I'll have many occasions to praise Obama rather than bury him, but over at the boards we've been having a somewhat heated discussion about his handling of the stimulus bill and I felt like I should fire the first salvo here.
I think his problem was that he didn't understand at the outset that he had to sell this thing. The idea that he let the House go about its business in the awkward way that it did in order to lay some kind of groundwork for a grand final outcome in the Senate. . . I just don't buy that he controls the weather to quite that extent. He didn't get publicly involved in the slightest until very recently. Obama, like everyone, has flaws, and I think we shouldn't be blind to the fact that he's a little conceited about his own ability to get things done. The final bill will be pretty good -- Paul Krugman's pleas for much more spending notwithstanding -- but look at what he's given up for no apparent reason other than chasing the grand bipartisan compromise he's always talked about in such glowing terms:
$40 billion State Fiscal Stabilization
$16 billion School Construction
$1.25 billion project-based rental
$2.25 billion Neighborhood Stabilization (Eliminate)
$1.2 billion in Retrofiting Project 8 Housing
$7.5 billion of State Incentive Grants
$3.5 billion Higher Ed Construction (Eliminated)
$2 billion broadband
$1 billion Head Start/Early Start
$5.8 billion Health Prevention Activity
$2 billion HIT Grants
$1 billion Energy Loan Guarantees
$4.5 billion GSA
$3.5 billion Federal Bldgs Greening
$100 million FSA modernization
$50 million CSERES Research
$65 million Watershed Rehab
$30 million SD Salaries
$100 million Distance Learning
$98 million School Nutrition
$50 million aquaculture
$100 million NIST
$100 million NOAA
$100 million Law Enforcement Wireless
$50 million Detention Trustee
$25 million Marshalls Construction
$100 million FBI Construction
$300 million Federal Prisons
$300 million BYRNE Formula
$140 million BYRNE Competitive
$10 million State and Local Law Enforcement
$50 million NASA
$50 million Aeronautics
$50 million Exploration
$50 million Cross Agency Support
$200 million NSF
$100 million Science
$89 million GSA Operations
$300 million Fed Hybrid Vehicles
$50 million from DHS
$200 million TSA
$122 million for Coast Guard Cutters, modifies use
$25 million Fish and Wildlife
$55 million Historic Preservation
$20 million working capital fund
$200 million Superfund
$165 million Forest Svc Capital Improvement
$90 million State & Private Wildlife Fire Management
$75 million Smithsonian
$600 million Title I (NCLB)
There are a lot of good-sounding construction and science programs being shredded or eliminated in that list.
As I wrote on the board, I think Obama failed to anticipate the type, scope or magnitude of the Republican resistance. I don't put all the blame solely on his shoulders, but there's a difference between the best bill he could have passed and the best "bipartisan" bill he could have passed. The country is still very ready to see him take charge. Instead I think he believed all along that this would be fairly easy and that he wouldn't need to get his hands dirty. These initiatives, most of which are uncontroversially good ideas, were sacrificed on the altar of his unpreparedness and his desire to look like he's working with all sides no matter the cost. That's my read.
Yes, this bill will do plenty of good. But the way it was handled didn't inspire me. Obama looked to be content letting the thing go to Hell only to realize he had to make an appearance at the eleventh hour. I don't think he planned this all along. I think it's important to take note of how this bill went down when we're looking for clues to explain both his successes and his shortcomings in the months and even years ahead. He seems like someone who learns lessons from experience but also someone who genuinely believes his way is best even when everyone is telling him otherwise. We'll have to wait and see which tendency wins out, but that doesn't mean we should stay quiet or passive in the meantime.
Maybe, in the end, we'll all call this the useful mugging Obama needed to see what he's really up against. I just wish it hadn't taken place on such an important bill in a way that made him seem so unprepared. As even David Brooks observed in his latest column (which I won't link to), Obama had little impact on the bill's evolution as it proceeded. That's the real source of my confusion. Why did he hang back?
I think his problem was that he didn't understand at the outset that he had to sell this thing. The idea that he let the House go about its business in the awkward way that it did in order to lay some kind of groundwork for a grand final outcome in the Senate. . . I just don't buy that he controls the weather to quite that extent. He didn't get publicly involved in the slightest until very recently. Obama, like everyone, has flaws, and I think we shouldn't be blind to the fact that he's a little conceited about his own ability to get things done. The final bill will be pretty good -- Paul Krugman's pleas for much more spending notwithstanding -- but look at what he's given up for no apparent reason other than chasing the grand bipartisan compromise he's always talked about in such glowing terms:
$40 billion State Fiscal Stabilization
$16 billion School Construction
$1.25 billion project-based rental
$2.25 billion Neighborhood Stabilization (Eliminate)
$1.2 billion in Retrofiting Project 8 Housing
$7.5 billion of State Incentive Grants
$3.5 billion Higher Ed Construction (Eliminated)
$2 billion broadband
$1 billion Head Start/Early Start
$5.8 billion Health Prevention Activity
$2 billion HIT Grants
$1 billion Energy Loan Guarantees
$4.5 billion GSA
$3.5 billion Federal Bldgs Greening
$100 million FSA modernization
$50 million CSERES Research
$65 million Watershed Rehab
$30 million SD Salaries
$100 million Distance Learning
$98 million School Nutrition
$50 million aquaculture
$100 million NIST
$100 million NOAA
$100 million Law Enforcement Wireless
$50 million Detention Trustee
$25 million Marshalls Construction
$100 million FBI Construction
$300 million Federal Prisons
$300 million BYRNE Formula
$140 million BYRNE Competitive
$10 million State and Local Law Enforcement
$50 million NASA
$50 million Aeronautics
$50 million Exploration
$50 million Cross Agency Support
$200 million NSF
$100 million Science
$89 million GSA Operations
$300 million Fed Hybrid Vehicles
$50 million from DHS
$200 million TSA
$122 million for Coast Guard Cutters, modifies use
$25 million Fish and Wildlife
$55 million Historic Preservation
$20 million working capital fund
$200 million Superfund
$165 million Forest Svc Capital Improvement
$90 million State & Private Wildlife Fire Management
$75 million Smithsonian
$600 million Title I (NCLB)
There are a lot of good-sounding construction and science programs being shredded or eliminated in that list.
As I wrote on the board, I think Obama failed to anticipate the type, scope or magnitude of the Republican resistance. I don't put all the blame solely on his shoulders, but there's a difference between the best bill he could have passed and the best "bipartisan" bill he could have passed. The country is still very ready to see him take charge. Instead I think he believed all along that this would be fairly easy and that he wouldn't need to get his hands dirty. These initiatives, most of which are uncontroversially good ideas, were sacrificed on the altar of his unpreparedness and his desire to look like he's working with all sides no matter the cost. That's my read.
Yes, this bill will do plenty of good. But the way it was handled didn't inspire me. Obama looked to be content letting the thing go to Hell only to realize he had to make an appearance at the eleventh hour. I don't think he planned this all along. I think it's important to take note of how this bill went down when we're looking for clues to explain both his successes and his shortcomings in the months and even years ahead. He seems like someone who learns lessons from experience but also someone who genuinely believes his way is best even when everyone is telling him otherwise. We'll have to wait and see which tendency wins out, but that doesn't mean we should stay quiet or passive in the meantime.
Maybe, in the end, we'll all call this the useful mugging Obama needed to see what he's really up against. I just wish it hadn't taken place on such an important bill in a way that made him seem so unprepared. As even David Brooks observed in his latest column (which I won't link to), Obama had little impact on the bill's evolution as it proceeded. That's the real source of my confusion. Why did he hang back?
Friday, December 19, 2008
One Man's Take On The Cabinet Picks
I know they haven't taken office yet, but it's not too early to have formed a few opinions, so here's my take on the Obama cabinet, now more or less complete. I'm treating rank incompetence or outright venality as an F, so forgive me if it seems like I'm grading on a curve. I can't give someone an F just because they're not Mother Jones.
Labor, Hilda Solis -- I can say, from my dealings with her and her office as a journalist, that she's seriously, ass-kickingly good. She pays attention to the street-level details that most Congressmen snooze their way right past, especially where obscure concepts like environmental justice are concerned (the idea that pollution disproportionately affects the poor, which is true pretty much everywhere). So she gets an A. More here.
Veterans Affairs, Eric Shinseki -- An easy A. Not only does Obama give the last laugh to Paul Wolfowitz's whipping boy, he finds a decorated military man whose first priority is the troops rather than contractors or the fun of war or the neoconservative agenda.
HHS, Tom Daschle -- Another A. Daschle will sell Obama's health care plan to the Senate like no one else could, and he'll make sure the final version is as good as it can get. He's become a geniune wonk on the issue since leaving Congress, and it seems pretty clear that he was the consensus best choice. Howard Dean would have been an interesting pick, and I still think he also would have made a good Labor secretary, but Daschle will do an excellent job.
Defense, Robert Gates -- I know Daily Kos was kind of pissed about this, because it supposedly reinforces the "Republicans are tougher" mantra, but it was the smartest thing Obama could have done at this point. Gates has famously done a good job of cleaning up Rumsfeld's gigantic mess, and military continuity is key in 2009 if only to give Obama cover while he tries to fix the economy. (If he'd brought in someone like Wesley Clark, on the other hand, I think you'd see more nitpicking and second-guessing in Congress and the media, fairly or not). Gates will be gone in a year and we'll be able to talk about a longer-term pick then. Until that day, I give this an A-. I'd give an A for an outside-the-box pick who nonetheless silenced the critics from day one, and who promised to cut back on military spending, but I'm not sure where you'd find anyone like that. As with the financial meltdown and the Treasury pick (see below), we need to think about the short term first.
HUD, Shaun Donovan -- B+, from what I've read. More information here. It's a little hard to judge without knowing more of the nitty-gritty, but he's obviously eminently qualified and seems to have good ideas.
Homeland Security, Janet Napolitano -- Somewhere between a B+ and an A-. She understands the need for immigration reform of the not-racist variety, and she cares about the fate of immigrants and border populations, which is a huge step up from Michael "The Undertaker" Chertoff and his non-existent agenda. Hopefully she can get the various agencies under her umbrella working together better, and from seeing her in action in Arizona, she can definitely pull it off. She's just the right kind of tough: serious without being off-putting, smart without being superior, personable without being a pushover. I think she could actually do a lot of good in the next four years.
Treasury, Tim Geithner -- Hard to say until we see him in action, but I'd give him a B. Everyone agrees he's solid and has the needed expertise. I know he's "one of the people" who steered the economy where it is in the first place, but his role in the real screwups never seemed to be central and he's obviously committed to fixing it rather than dawdling or covering his ass. A really transformational figure would have been great, but we need triage first.
Attorney General, Eric Holder -- About a B. His apparent priorities are good: he's against the death penalty and joined an amicus brief in favor of DC's city-wide gun ban (which the courts overturned, as we know). He's represented a few turds in private practice (Chiquita Foods, Merck) but from what I've seen and heard of him, his legal and political instincts are worth our trust until he proves otherwise. His main job will be to restore the peoples' trust in the department and the staff's trust in the higher-ups, and I think he'll do well.
Commerce, Bill Richardson -- Right now, a B. I'm not sure what good the Commerce Secretary can do independent of the president's wishes, frankly. Richardson is there because he's good at shaking hands and doling out jobs and largesse in a friendly way, which is what a president wants in his chief commercial point man. The department is a weird hodgepodge of employment stimulus, patent oversight, NOAA (yeah, NOAA), the National Institute of Standards & Technology, minority employment programs, the census. . . It's a real grab bag. In general, this is a glad-handing, business-savvy post where you need more personality than brains, and Richardson is ideally suited to it for that reason.
EPA, Lisa Jackson -- She has such a limited profile that I'm tempted not to give a grade, but I'll give this one a B- for now. That may seem low, but there were a lot of better candidates out there. Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility, a premier outlet for governmental whistleblowers, thinks she's a bad choice, although one of their reasons (the federal EPA took over some Superfund cleanups in New Jersey) is disingenuous because it happens in a lot of states. The Sierra Club thinks she was a good choice, but they like the totally uninspiring Vilsack for Ag too so their opinion isn't of enormous value. We'll have to wait and see. I would have picked someone like Jan Schakowsky, a Rep. from Illinois, who sits on the House environment subcommittee of Energy & Commerce and is a big ally of the progressive wing of the party.
Agriculture, Tom Vilsack -- Meh. B- as well. He's not going to completely screw the pooch, but there are a lot of environmental as well as economic issues that Ag needs to sort out, and while somone like Vilsack probably knows the agriculture "players" just fine, he doesn't strike me as a guy blowing in on the west wind with a lot of fresh ideas. There's little reason to think that on his watch, the Ag department will set out rules for fully sustainable agriculture, and that's what we need right now. It's also unclear what he and Obama will do about ethanol, and I wish they'd talk more about what a big piece of the environmental puzzle ag reform is going to be.
Interior, Ken Salazar -- Gotta give this a C+. Raul Grijalva from Arizona would have been a clearly superior choice from an environmental standpoint. Salazar is a conservative Democrat and no watchdog of the mining industry in Colorado. He's worked with environmental groups on mitigating the worst abuses they bring to his attention, but he's nothing like the new sheriff the department needs (or Grijalva would have been).
Energy, Steven Chu -- Mixed: A- for policy, C for personality. The guy is basically a genius, and clearly knows what needs to be done on global warming, but he's also got more than a whiff of scandal about him that I don't like and could end up embarrassing Obama unnecessarily. He accepted unusual and unreported honoraria from the University of California, and his partnership with BP (already on hold when he was announced) could be viewed as a greenwash, although I'm not convinced he completely sold out. I think he could end up being a great mind on alternative energy but a potentially indifferent manager of the department's various other responsibilities, including the nuclear weapons stockpile and the environmentally disastrous national labs. He's probably one of the best choices Obama could have made for the post, but he comes with a few risks.
State, Hillary Clinton -- I honestly don't know, not because I like or don't like Hillary but because I don't know what Obama's priorities will be and how she'll carry them out. The job, although everyone thinks of it as a marquee post, is basically to be the president's traveling salesman, and doesn't allow for a lot of day-to-day freelancing the way a lot of other departments demand of their managers.
Transportation, Ray LaHood -- NA/Impossible to grade. The story line emerging is that he was picked because his part of Illinois is undergoing massive highway renovation and he understands the need for the scale of infrastructure Obama is proposing, plus he's a fairly moderate and non-crazy Republican to grease the skids in Congress on certain things. And he's good friends with Rahm Emanuel, which should help further. But still, kind of bizarre.
Education, Arne Duncan -- NA. Someone else, maybe Bently, will have to weigh in here. I don't know what the Education secretary does for a living. Duncan seems like a smart guy, but whether he's suited for the role Obama will ask him to play, I'm unqualified to say. E. J. Dionne has a fairly in-depth look at this question here.
Labor, Hilda Solis -- I can say, from my dealings with her and her office as a journalist, that she's seriously, ass-kickingly good. She pays attention to the street-level details that most Congressmen snooze their way right past, especially where obscure concepts like environmental justice are concerned (the idea that pollution disproportionately affects the poor, which is true pretty much everywhere). So she gets an A. More here.
Veterans Affairs, Eric Shinseki -- An easy A. Not only does Obama give the last laugh to Paul Wolfowitz's whipping boy, he finds a decorated military man whose first priority is the troops rather than contractors or the fun of war or the neoconservative agenda.
HHS, Tom Daschle -- Another A. Daschle will sell Obama's health care plan to the Senate like no one else could, and he'll make sure the final version is as good as it can get. He's become a geniune wonk on the issue since leaving Congress, and it seems pretty clear that he was the consensus best choice. Howard Dean would have been an interesting pick, and I still think he also would have made a good Labor secretary, but Daschle will do an excellent job.
Defense, Robert Gates -- I know Daily Kos was kind of pissed about this, because it supposedly reinforces the "Republicans are tougher" mantra, but it was the smartest thing Obama could have done at this point. Gates has famously done a good job of cleaning up Rumsfeld's gigantic mess, and military continuity is key in 2009 if only to give Obama cover while he tries to fix the economy. (If he'd brought in someone like Wesley Clark, on the other hand, I think you'd see more nitpicking and second-guessing in Congress and the media, fairly or not). Gates will be gone in a year and we'll be able to talk about a longer-term pick then. Until that day, I give this an A-. I'd give an A for an outside-the-box pick who nonetheless silenced the critics from day one, and who promised to cut back on military spending, but I'm not sure where you'd find anyone like that. As with the financial meltdown and the Treasury pick (see below), we need to think about the short term first.
HUD, Shaun Donovan -- B+, from what I've read. More information here. It's a little hard to judge without knowing more of the nitty-gritty, but he's obviously eminently qualified and seems to have good ideas.
Homeland Security, Janet Napolitano -- Somewhere between a B+ and an A-. She understands the need for immigration reform of the not-racist variety, and she cares about the fate of immigrants and border populations, which is a huge step up from Michael "The Undertaker" Chertoff and his non-existent agenda. Hopefully she can get the various agencies under her umbrella working together better, and from seeing her in action in Arizona, she can definitely pull it off. She's just the right kind of tough: serious without being off-putting, smart without being superior, personable without being a pushover. I think she could actually do a lot of good in the next four years.
Treasury, Tim Geithner -- Hard to say until we see him in action, but I'd give him a B. Everyone agrees he's solid and has the needed expertise. I know he's "one of the people" who steered the economy where it is in the first place, but his role in the real screwups never seemed to be central and he's obviously committed to fixing it rather than dawdling or covering his ass. A really transformational figure would have been great, but we need triage first.
Attorney General, Eric Holder -- About a B. His apparent priorities are good: he's against the death penalty and joined an amicus brief in favor of DC's city-wide gun ban (which the courts overturned, as we know). He's represented a few turds in private practice (Chiquita Foods, Merck) but from what I've seen and heard of him, his legal and political instincts are worth our trust until he proves otherwise. His main job will be to restore the peoples' trust in the department and the staff's trust in the higher-ups, and I think he'll do well.
Commerce, Bill Richardson -- Right now, a B. I'm not sure what good the Commerce Secretary can do independent of the president's wishes, frankly. Richardson is there because he's good at shaking hands and doling out jobs and largesse in a friendly way, which is what a president wants in his chief commercial point man. The department is a weird hodgepodge of employment stimulus, patent oversight, NOAA (yeah, NOAA), the National Institute of Standards & Technology, minority employment programs, the census. . . It's a real grab bag. In general, this is a glad-handing, business-savvy post where you need more personality than brains, and Richardson is ideally suited to it for that reason.
EPA, Lisa Jackson -- She has such a limited profile that I'm tempted not to give a grade, but I'll give this one a B- for now. That may seem low, but there were a lot of better candidates out there. Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility, a premier outlet for governmental whistleblowers, thinks she's a bad choice, although one of their reasons (the federal EPA took over some Superfund cleanups in New Jersey) is disingenuous because it happens in a lot of states. The Sierra Club thinks she was a good choice, but they like the totally uninspiring Vilsack for Ag too so their opinion isn't of enormous value. We'll have to wait and see. I would have picked someone like Jan Schakowsky, a Rep. from Illinois, who sits on the House environment subcommittee of Energy & Commerce and is a big ally of the progressive wing of the party.
Agriculture, Tom Vilsack -- Meh. B- as well. He's not going to completely screw the pooch, but there are a lot of environmental as well as economic issues that Ag needs to sort out, and while somone like Vilsack probably knows the agriculture "players" just fine, he doesn't strike me as a guy blowing in on the west wind with a lot of fresh ideas. There's little reason to think that on his watch, the Ag department will set out rules for fully sustainable agriculture, and that's what we need right now. It's also unclear what he and Obama will do about ethanol, and I wish they'd talk more about what a big piece of the environmental puzzle ag reform is going to be.
Interior, Ken Salazar -- Gotta give this a C+. Raul Grijalva from Arizona would have been a clearly superior choice from an environmental standpoint. Salazar is a conservative Democrat and no watchdog of the mining industry in Colorado. He's worked with environmental groups on mitigating the worst abuses they bring to his attention, but he's nothing like the new sheriff the department needs (or Grijalva would have been).
Energy, Steven Chu -- Mixed: A- for policy, C for personality. The guy is basically a genius, and clearly knows what needs to be done on global warming, but he's also got more than a whiff of scandal about him that I don't like and could end up embarrassing Obama unnecessarily. He accepted unusual and unreported honoraria from the University of California, and his partnership with BP (already on hold when he was announced) could be viewed as a greenwash, although I'm not convinced he completely sold out. I think he could end up being a great mind on alternative energy but a potentially indifferent manager of the department's various other responsibilities, including the nuclear weapons stockpile and the environmentally disastrous national labs. He's probably one of the best choices Obama could have made for the post, but he comes with a few risks.
State, Hillary Clinton -- I honestly don't know, not because I like or don't like Hillary but because I don't know what Obama's priorities will be and how she'll carry them out. The job, although everyone thinks of it as a marquee post, is basically to be the president's traveling salesman, and doesn't allow for a lot of day-to-day freelancing the way a lot of other departments demand of their managers.
Transportation, Ray LaHood -- NA/Impossible to grade. The story line emerging is that he was picked because his part of Illinois is undergoing massive highway renovation and he understands the need for the scale of infrastructure Obama is proposing, plus he's a fairly moderate and non-crazy Republican to grease the skids in Congress on certain things. And he's good friends with Rahm Emanuel, which should help further. But still, kind of bizarre.
Education, Arne Duncan -- NA. Someone else, maybe Bently, will have to weigh in here. I don't know what the Education secretary does for a living. Duncan seems like a smart guy, but whether he's suited for the role Obama will ask him to play, I'm unqualified to say. E. J. Dionne has a fairly in-depth look at this question here.
Tuesday, December 16, 2008
Thread of the Week - 12/16
Replacing Hillary
A rose by any other name is still a rose, unless it's got the word "Kennedy" in it.
The situation in New York is forcing many liberals to look, once again, at the role of political dynasties, and whether they hurt or help us. Obama's success against Clinton, ironically, served as a blow against dynastic politics. But with her ascent to the role of top diplomat, some see an opportunity to get a big name in office quick while others see it as an all-too-convenient way around the democratic process.
A rose by any other name is still a rose, unless it's got the word "Kennedy" in it.
The situation in New York is forcing many liberals to look, once again, at the role of political dynasties, and whether they hurt or help us. Obama's success against Clinton, ironically, served as a blow against dynastic politics. But with her ascent to the role of top diplomat, some see an opportunity to get a big name in office quick while others see it as an all-too-convenient way around the democratic process.
Tuesday, December 9, 2008
Blagojeviching All Over The Place
One of things I've always loved about the left is that its greatest virtue is not loyalty.
I like to say that, when it comes to ideas and politics, loyalty is highly valued but very much overrated, and when people who screw up in a pretty major way, like power-hungry twit Rod Blagojevich, there's typically a race to ditch them rather than circle the wagons.
That's hardly loyal, but usually in the best interest of the people and their government.
Lately, we've seen fellow corrupt politician William Jefferson get dropped on his head by the electorate as well.
Compare that to Larry Craig, who is still desperately clinging to his seat, or Ted Stevens, who was convicted of several felonies and then lost a close election in Alaska, and then amazingly left office to a frickin' standing ovation, and we see a clear difference in standards.
The only question mark remaining for the Democratic Party is Charlie Rangel, who probably should give up his chairmanship, if not his seat, after some of his recent screw ups. He may be innocent until proven guilty, but public office is not about how innocent you are, it's about what you can do for the people you work for - and anyone with that kind of shadow looming over them loses significant cred in the political world.
I like to say that, when it comes to ideas and politics, loyalty is highly valued but very much overrated, and when people who screw up in a pretty major way, like power-hungry twit Rod Blagojevich, there's typically a race to ditch them rather than circle the wagons.
That's hardly loyal, but usually in the best interest of the people and their government.
Lately, we've seen fellow corrupt politician William Jefferson get dropped on his head by the electorate as well.
Compare that to Larry Craig, who is still desperately clinging to his seat, or Ted Stevens, who was convicted of several felonies and then lost a close election in Alaska, and then amazingly left office to a frickin' standing ovation, and we see a clear difference in standards.
The only question mark remaining for the Democratic Party is Charlie Rangel, who probably should give up his chairmanship, if not his seat, after some of his recent screw ups. He may be innocent until proven guilty, but public office is not about how innocent you are, it's about what you can do for the people you work for - and anyone with that kind of shadow looming over them loses significant cred in the political world.
Thread of the Week - 12/9
Hell and the Holocaust
Tucked away in a thread about Bill Maher's "Religulous" is an exchange between two of our own: Lapp (Kaunis Laatja) and Samnell. The topic: Are Christians worse than Nazis?
Sounds crazy to even consider, I know. Sam's almost entirely on his own on this one - but the debate is worth it because the logical wrangling between these two brains has a level intellectual power behind it missing from most hyperbolic slobbery you'll usually encounter on the Internet. There's a little huffing and puffing, but for the most part, each others' arguments are actually being considered.
Sam's case is, essentially, that the idea that some deserve eternal torture is worse than the idea that people deserve finite torture confined by the nature of life and death. Lapp's case... is probably what most of you are thinking already. But Sam has a talent for stacking up extreme if not inconceivable arguments with levels of logic, and we're not here for a popularity contest. So as far as I'm concerned, it's recommended reading.
Tucked away in a thread about Bill Maher's "Religulous" is an exchange between two of our own: Lapp (Kaunis Laatja) and Samnell. The topic: Are Christians worse than Nazis?
Sounds crazy to even consider, I know. Sam's almost entirely on his own on this one - but the debate is worth it because the logical wrangling between these two brains has a level intellectual power behind it missing from most hyperbolic slobbery you'll usually encounter on the Internet. There's a little huffing and puffing, but for the most part, each others' arguments are actually being considered.
Sam's case is, essentially, that the idea that some deserve eternal torture is worse than the idea that people deserve finite torture confined by the nature of life and death. Lapp's case... is probably what most of you are thinking already. But Sam has a talent for stacking up extreme if not inconceivable arguments with levels of logic, and we're not here for a popularity contest. So as far as I'm concerned, it's recommended reading.
Saturday, December 6, 2008
Solstice Sign--Good or Bad Tactic for Atheists?
I must confess to mixed feelings over the Freedom from Religion Foundation's sign in the Washington state Capitol Rotunda. Nobody detests the unconstitutional lack of separation between church and state more than I do. I understand the feelings and the passion behind it. Whenever a religion tries to use government property as a means of promoting their religious opinions, I am offended. So, if the state government is going to insist on sponsoring religious messages on government property--something that I vehemently oppose--then it only seems fair that an anti-religion group post their own message. The idea is to give Christians a taste of their own medicine, to show them the cost of using the public commons to shove their views down my throat.
Now, what is so bad about a secular sign that celebrates the Winter Solstice? This one was put up for those of us who do not want the government to be seen as pushing the idea that we ought to believe in any god, let alone the god of Christians. The problem in my mind is that most nativity scenes and other Christmas displays do not carry overt messages that one ought to believe in God. That message is somewhat more subtle. The very fact of a nativity scene on public property is a little bit of a victory dance for some Christian groups, and that is why they push for them. But this FFRF sign had the statement: "Religion is but myth and superstition that hardens hearts and enslaves minds." Ouch. Yeah, I believe that, but I don't want to shove it in people's faces. Especially not in the holiday season. It doesn't make people stop and think "Well, gosh, I never realized how religious messages on public property must be like for nonbelievers!" It makes them stop and think "Well, gosh, I guess those atheists really are nasty, angry people!" Object lessons are designed to make the message giver feel better, not the message receiver.
That said, I have to admit that the FFRF sign has as much right to be in the Capitol Rotunda as religious symbols. I really do, although I would rather that there were no religious messages on public property. And I'm glad that they made an issue of putting something up. I just wish that they had thought of a message that was a little gentler, a little more in tune with the holiday spirit. After all, I want people to respect and tolerate my beliefs. Sometimes that means that I have to make the extra effort not to let my frustration with intolerance make me seem intolerant of their beliefs.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
