tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19039583044448781742024-03-05T09:20:28.064-05:00On PolitikA blog on politics & strategy - with apologies to Carl von ClausewitzMarcus A. Robertshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01290321894833470191noreply@blogger.comBlogger144125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1903958304444878174.post-38002669968160346422009-03-02T12:31:00.003-05:002009-03-02T12:53:57.904-05:00At long last, Kathy.<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhs24ebcQLVZXBZk-MPjWeraPyYvQ_0By8P5qKH1-HSvwENYOtDuZT4Ru1Bxw48hAGB3LwH9dyq1GS5Ay5qycLEF2IrsgXWwyC3TpfleUJQotJtdsq1tbe3vmZFtu4y2yrFC0jXgQbkHNzK/s1600-h/MAR+and+kathy.jpg"><img style="display:block; margin:0px auto 10px; text-align:center;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 300px; height: 400px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhs24ebcQLVZXBZk-MPjWeraPyYvQ_0By8P5qKH1-HSvwENYOtDuZT4Ru1Bxw48hAGB3LwH9dyq1GS5Ay5qycLEF2IrsgXWwyC3TpfleUJQotJtdsq1tbe3vmZFtu4y2yrFC0jXgQbkHNzK/s400/MAR+and+kathy.jpg" border="0" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5308645690274933618" /></a>Since <a href="http://vompolitik.blogspot.com/2008/08/i-love-kathleen-sebelius-barack-obama.html">time immemorial</a>, this blog has held a candle for the unbelievably popular and effective Governor of Kansas. <a href="http://www.politico.com/politico44/">In a few minutes time</a> she will be nominated as Health and Human Services Secretary. Not only will this gift Obama a talented cabinet minister but America will benefit from the universal health care programme she will usher in. Change we can believe in indeed.<div><br /></div><div>Some have expressed a logical concern that this will cost Dems any chance of picking up the Kansas open Senate seat in 2010 but I feel that that exchange is a price well worth paying to end the travesty of 47mn uninsured Americans (and to<a href="http://vompolitik.blogspot.com/2009/02/unacceptable.html"> stop Phil 'Child hater' Breddesen</a> in his tracks). Besides, the <a href="http://vompolitik.blogspot.com/2008/10/it-is-october-2010-road-to-filibuster.html">2010 table is already set beautifully</a> for our Senate chances.</div><div><br /></div><div>Now if you'll excuse me, I have some early afternoon champagne to pop, and thoughts of 2016 to occupy my mind...</div>Marcus A. Robertshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01290321894833470191noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1903958304444878174.post-81627161466161310902009-02-24T20:55:00.001-05:002009-02-24T20:59:05.372-05:00Twittering Obama's First Congressional Address<a href="http://twitter.com/vompolitik">http://twitter.com/vompolitik</a>Marcus A. Robertshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01290321894833470191noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1903958304444878174.post-10703689013909712602009-02-24T14:08:00.003-05:002009-02-24T14:15:40.156-05:00Ticket to Ride<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgR_EIKVhAzTgxofUL0dGy9yXNfTu7is_AbnoNrQ1hvqfcc-pEY3-HJuutuTfKD2GdyWmp3EezFNIvfFcrzlRgpo6Sdc3yr3uFz4yNpud3HX-HuAUiFNu6Uv6k0wjz114MbEcIp-2mmDrk/s1600-h/ticket+to+ride.jpg"><img style="margin: 0px auto 10px; display: block; text-align: center; cursor: pointer; width: 320px; height: 240px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgR_EIKVhAzTgxofUL0dGy9yXNfTu7is_AbnoNrQ1hvqfcc-pEY3-HJuutuTfKD2GdyWmp3EezFNIvfFcrzlRgpo6Sdc3yr3uFz4yNpud3HX-HuAUiFNu6Uv6k0wjz114MbEcIp-2mmDrk/s320/ticket+to+ride.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5306444352448660386" border="0" /></a> <span style="font-style: italic;">Leave it to us - we're professionals.</span><br /><br /><a href="http://vompolitik.blogspot.com/2009/01/stimulus-pie.html">As we’ve previously written,</a> not everyone is happy with the stimulus, and that includes us at VomPolitik. There are serious questions about whether it is large enough, whether the mix of spending and tax cuts is appropriate, and whether the Democratic majority should have rammed a left-of-center partisan plan down the throats of recalcitrant Republicans. That’s not why we’re unhappy, though. After years of trying to see the big picture, we’ve decided to take a vacation and become that most dreaded of political animals, the Single Issue Voter. And what is our Single Issue? High-speed rail.<br /><br />Marcus and I have been obsessing over high-speed rail for years. We’d like to pretend that it’s because building high-speed rail would create jobs, hasten commerce, and provide cleaner competition to air travel. All of those are true, and there are other arguments as well, but that’s not why we, in particular, want it. We just really like trains. And the <a href="http://newsletters.agc.org/highway/2009/02/12/stimulus-compromise-includes-reduced-transportation-funding">$9 billion in the stimulus package for high-speed rail</a> won’t buy us nearly enough. In fact, it’s so little it disgusts us and fills us with loathing.<br /><br />Let us assume, though, that our more sophisticated readers have taken a more nuanced view and decided to make national transportation policy decisions for reasons other than personal inclination, finding, for argument’s sake, the environmental justification persuasive. What would it take to build a national, high-speed rail network?<br /><br />Marcus and I have drawn up plans for what amounts to a<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inner_Circle_%28London_Underground%29"> Circle Line</a> for the United States, with the following main lines (all with stops at convenient cities): Boston to Miami; Chicago to San Francisco; Seattle to Los Angeles; and Los Angeles to Miami via Phoenix, Dallas, etc., with the lines connecting at their nearest points (Boston-Miami connects to the Chicago line via a New York-Chicago run, for example), laying 9,700 miles of track in all.<br /><br />At an average speed of 200mph (<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_speed_rail">slower than records set by European and Asian high-speed lines </a>but better than the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acela">Acela’s current 150mph</a>), this would allow travelers to get from Boston to Miami in seven and a half hours (only one or two hours more than the flying process); the entire circuit could be concluded in slightly over two days, with the longest stretch being Boston-Seattle, at 20 hours. Readers will note that this is significantly longer than it takes to fly, an inconvenience to be balanced by the lower ticket prices and greater comfort of the train (tickets being cheaper because of the train’s far greater passenger capacity).<br /><br />And what, you might ask, is the price tag of this wondrous system that will allow us to travel from one end of the country to another at speed and in comfort? <a href="http://www.megarail.com/pdf/UHSR-2g.pdf">Estimates on cost per mile vary, but a fair figure is between $40 million and $80 million per mile, which we average at $60 million</a>. $60 million for 9,700 miles of track means that it will cost a scant $582 billion to build a nation-wide, high-speed rail network. Worth every penny, in our view. All aboard!Frank A. Springhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03349370629984786194noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1903958304444878174.post-11171943683528611072009-02-09T11:26:00.004-05:002009-02-09T15:31:07.504-05:00Today's stimulus reading (Updated)Why should you read these? Because we may very well be on the brink of a depression and we need to get the stimulus right if we're to prevent it or at least mitigate it and that means understanding the issue both politically and economically. Thankfully, smart people who can write real well help: <div><ul><li>Paul Krugman explains how Centrist Democrats and Republicans are <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/09/opinion/09krugman.html?partner=rss&emc=rss">sabotaging the stimulus.</a><br /></li><li>Ambinder seeks to get the Administration's <a href="http://politics.theatlantic.com/2009/02/whats_a_depression.php">definition of a depression.</a><br /></li><li>Gallup shows that Obama (and to a lesser extent Congressional Dems) are beating the GOP in the <a href="http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0209/Winning_the_stimulus_debate.html?showall">court of public opinion on the stimulus.</a><br /></li><li>And noted economist <a href="http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/02/07/republicans_cut_500000_jobs_out_of_stimulus_packag/">Dean Baker</a> sums the matter up nicely: "Trying to save money on a stimulus is like finding a short cut for your jogging route. We can do it, but it undermines the whole point of the effort. " (h/t <a href="http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0209/Stimulus_and_spending.html?showall">Ben Smith</a>)</li><li>Update: And as the Stimulus heads into Conference between House and Senate here's proof positive by<a href="http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2009/02/job_creation_comparison.html"> Anglo-American economist Will Straw of the dangers of a centrist approach</a>, namely the loss of at least 430,000 job opportunities by shifting from the liberal House bill to the centrists Senate bill.</li></ul></div>Marcus A. Robertshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01290321894833470191noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1903958304444878174.post-31964714195725813312009-02-06T15:07:00.003-05:002009-02-09T11:50:10.091-05:00Amidst a snowstorm of protest... (Updated)In comparison to Bredeson, I pray that <a href="http://politics.theatlantic.com/2009/02/delauro_for_hhs.php">Ambinder is right about DeLauro now in contention for HHS</a>. In the meantime, for some Obama old-school grassroots activism feel free to <a href="http://www.whitehouse.gov/contact/">drop the White House a line</a> if you oppose Phil 'screw the children' Bredeson.<div><br /></div><div>Update: Now <a href="http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hMoBPdSZRykV8yb4kox16zZsPI8gD9671CRG0">Kathy's name</a> is being trailed again... don't tease us again Barack!</div>Marcus A. Robertshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01290321894833470191noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1903958304444878174.post-4583527922100029452009-02-06T13:06:00.003-05:002009-02-06T13:24:08.127-05:00Unacceptable<a href="http://thepage.time.com/2009/02/06/mr-secretary/">The Page</a> is reporting that Tennesee Governor Phil Bredeson is poised to become Health & Human Services Secretary. Such a move would be seriously endanger the cause of universal healthcare. As a result, it would likely create serious outright opposition from more then just liberal netroots but <a href="http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/the_treatment/archive/2009/02/05/more-reasons-why-bredesen-is-a-bad-bad-idea.aspx">serious healthcare reformers</a>. <div><br /></div><div>Why? Because Bredeson's record of <a href="http://www.commondreams.org/headlines06/0220-06.htm">cutting healthcare</a> and restricting access to healthcare amongst even the poorest in his state is dangerous prologue for the healthcare fights with the Right to come. Furthermore, his <a href="http://politics.theatlantic.com/2009/02/the_bredesen_experience.php">ludicrous analogy</a> of healthcare as a commodity not unlike groceries show's a fundamental lack of intellectual understanding on matters of public goods. Jonathan Cohn, of <a href="http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/the_treatment/default.aspx">The Treatment</a> healthcare blog, as ever <a href="http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/the_treatment/archive/2009/02/05/more-reasons-why-bredesen-is-a-bad-bad-idea.aspx">breaks down the danger succinctly and sharply</a>. </div><div><br /></div><div>If Bredeson is nominated to lead HHS he should be opposed. Healthcare matters more then giving Obama another free pass on a crucial national priority.</div>Marcus A. Robertshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01290321894833470191noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1903958304444878174.post-25875031867898771162009-02-05T11:34:00.006-05:002009-02-05T12:28:03.459-05:00Reach for the reset button: Obama so far and the Health Czar vacancy<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg2bQhZpas6hI7Z85mOglp5JRtSNILdBHJvIPq2zy2LzmjAuca9p1YdhFK0GKGG8l1mz6s6dN3rJAH0kow94Ka5Eo0JUFoyzEOoSrI_SJq3_lq-A6CWmTPN9XlvypH7WXkxMU_bLNjs1odv/s1600-h/IMG_0039.JPG"><img style="float:left; margin:0 10px 10px 0;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 150px; height: 200px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg2bQhZpas6hI7Z85mOglp5JRtSNILdBHJvIPq2zy2LzmjAuca9p1YdhFK0GKGG8l1mz6s6dN3rJAH0kow94Ka5Eo0JUFoyzEOoSrI_SJq3_lq-A6CWmTPN9XlvypH7WXkxMU_bLNjs1odv/s200/IMG_0039.JPG" border="0" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5299357702031622754" /></a><br />In case you hadn't noticed, I am not best pleased with the Obama Administration of late:<div><ul><li>The stimulus is <a href="http://vompolitik.blogspot.com/2009/01/stimulus-we-can-believe-in.html">too small</a>.<br /></li><li>Foreign policy star <a href="http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2009/02/04/zinni_unloads">General Zinni was badly snubbed</a>.<br /></li><li>Tom Daschle withdrew as Health Czar, <a href="http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/the_treatment/archive/2009/02/03/dachle-is-done-health-reform-is-not.aspx">damaging the prospects of universal health care this year</a>.<br /></li></ul></div><div>Now, based upon the clear and obvious understanding that the sole purpose of Barack Obama's presidency is to please me then there is but one thing that he can do to get me back on side, and <a href="http://politics.theatlantic.com/2009/02/hhs_secretary_whos_in_out.php">her name is Kathy...</a></div><div><br /></div>Marcus A. Robertshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01290321894833470191noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1903958304444878174.post-42683128777768105282009-02-04T11:27:00.009-05:002009-02-04T12:18:35.296-05:00Tax Bites Dems - Again<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi7hLgNBhvd1zxlhesJqLtOKxdEq8fwnIuVaMd-R3ubGcJBRdEmXEaQ46zEcJHGI-6AJlgW6j2mbPNodn5b7bAUcw6AxamiOo9AZVRQIAFjimgP6hZAT4jwCxwg-R5hl8q05glZAlJZGnY/s1600-h/halloween-grim-reaper-clipart.jpg"><img style="margin: 0px auto 10px; display: block; text-align: center; cursor: pointer; width: 224px; height: 320px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi7hLgNBhvd1zxlhesJqLtOKxdEq8fwnIuVaMd-R3ubGcJBRdEmXEaQ46zEcJHGI-6AJlgW6j2mbPNodn5b7bAUcw6AxamiOo9AZVRQIAFjimgP6hZAT4jwCxwg-R5hl8q05glZAlJZGnY/s320/halloween-grim-reaper-clipart.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5298992080068562402" border="0" /></a><br /><div style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-style: italic;">The sound of inevitability</span><br /></div><br />Alas, Tom Daschle, we hardly knew ye. Ditto Nancy Killefer. Congratulations to Tom Geithner, whose nomination matured to confirmation.<br />Readers will know what these three Obama Administration nominees have in common: their path from designate to office-holder took a turn for the rocky over issues to do with failing to pay tax. <a href="http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0209/18361.html">Daschle, the Health and Human Service Secretary nominee, withdraw his candidacy over the trouble</a>, <a href="http://www.bizjournals.com/washington/stories/2009/02/02/daily38.html">as did White House Chief Performance Officer-nominee Killefer</a>. Geithner survived his spot of bother, and <a href="http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0209/18392_Page2.html">the Obama Administration has declared the matter close</a>d.<br />It is not my intention to excuse or apologize for a failure to pay tax, but I submit this for your consideration: is it that high-level policy-wonk Dems, as a species, are fundamentally incapable of paying tax, or is there a systemic problem at work, perhaps to do with <a href="http://www.trygve.com/taxcode.html">a tax code of such complexity that no one seems sure how long it really is</a>?Frank A. Springhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03349370629984786194noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1903958304444878174.post-69999282466057899502009-01-29T15:46:00.003-05:002009-01-29T17:20:09.391-05:00Stimulus we can believe in...Ok, so now we've explored unity as a rhetorical device, a strategic imperative and as a change from the "chilidish" things of our past partisanship. What is thus left, is the question of the stimulus itself, or to be specific, what is the purpose of the stimulus and how should it be achieved?<div><br /></div><div>Republicans talk of stimulus as <a href="http://republicanleader.house.gov/blog/?p=412">"targeted, timely and temporary"</a>. Even Vice President Biden warns of the need for the stimulus to not possess <a href="http://www.cnbc.com/id/15840232?video=1016867751&play=1">"a long tail"</a> leading to future mandatory spending. But with America's roads, rails, water and basic systems receiving a D grade from the <a href="http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5iEjXNSCLFDFAjB3w365OjkHZHvgQD95VUFC03">American Society of Civil Engineers</a>, with the power grid failing under the<a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/#28902275"> stress and strain of a regular January snowstorm</a>, with the US Postal Service considering<a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28901191/"> scaling back deliveries of mail to 5 days a week</a>, it is clear that the stimulus should go further.</div><div><br /></div><div>In short, what is needed is not "targeted, timely and temporary" stimulus but rather a massive broadside of a stimulus, as far reaching as it is long lasting, that goes beyond the needs of the economic crisis at hand to address the fundamental structural weaknesses in the American economy as a whole. Such an economic package would have the following purposes:</div><div><br /></div><div>1) Major economic stimulus in both the short and long term</div><div>2) Saving existing jobs and creating new jobs</div><div>3) Transforming the state of American infrastructure from thirdworld standards to envy of the world</div><div><br /></div><div>Let's now conside how each of these can be achieved in turn:</div><div><br /></div><div>1) Major economic stimulus </div><div>Keep in the bill and indeed expand those elements that have been assessed by <a href="http://endtheecho.wordpress.com/2008/01/25/moodys-on-economic-stimulus-package/">Moody's Investor Service</a> as having a direct stimulative effect on the economy far greater then that of either personal or corporate tax cuts. Remove from the bill, those elements that don't deliver value for the tax payers dollar.</div><div><br /></div><div>That means food stamps (yielding $1.73 of economic impact per $1 of government spending), extending unemployment benefits ($1.64) and infrastructure spending ($1.59). Each of these elements has been assessed by Moody's Investor Service as having a direct stimulative effect on the economy far greater then that of either an across the board tax cut ($1.03) or a corporate tax cut ($0.30!).<br /></div><div><br /></div><div>2) Jobs</div><div>As the saintly CNBC economic maven <a href="http://www.thechrismatthewsshow.com/html/transcript/index.php?selected=1&id=137">Erin Burnett notes</a>: "Every billion dollars you spend on infrastructure CEOs will say is about 18 to 20,000 jobs."</div><div><br /></div><div>With unemployment at <a href="http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601103&sid=aqc_bpAZTgqE&refer=news">4.7mn</a> and likely to climb far higher as the crisis's full force is revealed it would thus cost the Federal Government some $235bn to employ the entire unemployed workforce to date on infrastructure projects. In this Keynesian moment, that is probably a price well worth paying to not only stop unemployment but to secure the kind of infrastructure this nation needs - which leads us to our final point.</div><div><br /></div><div>3) Transforming American infrastructure</div><div>The <a href="http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5iEjXNSCLFDFAjB3w365OjkHZHvgQD95VUFC03">American Society of Civil Engineers</a> have called for $2.2 trillion in infrastructure spending to modernise the very"roads and bridges, the electric grids and digital lines that feed our commerce and bind us together" that President Obama spoke of in his <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/01/20/obama.politics/">inaugural address</a>. Although as the <a href="http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5iEjXNSCLFDFAjB3w365OjkHZHvgQD95VUFC03">AP notes</a>, </div><div><br /></div><div>"<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18px; ">even though the pricetag to fix America's physical needs is $2.2 trillion over five years, it's really only half that bad because $1.1 trillion of that is already being spent or planned, Herrmann said. The biggest "gap" between what's being spent or planned and what's needed is an additional $548.5 billion in roads and bridges, the report said. Second is $189.5 billion for public transit."</span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18px;"><br /></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Georgia; font-size: 16px; line-height: normal; ">As such it's clear that a different approach to stimulus could have the desired economic impact in terms of stimulating spending, ensuring jobs and building up the nation's vital infrastructure in one fell swoop. What is needed now is the political courage, and indeed partisanship, to create a new stimulus package capable of achieving these aims through dramatic government interventions in the domestic economy. The scale of such an effort is likely to be staggering, but it is matched by the very scale of crisis itself. It is to this issue that we shall turn our attention next.</span><br /></span></div>Marcus A. Robertshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01290321894833470191noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1903958304444878174.post-80296648137606250752009-01-28T16:21:00.002-05:002009-01-28T16:28:07.739-05:00The Stimulus Pie<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/tHnPmz9Uj5U&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/tHnPmz9Uj5U&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object><br /><br /><br />“This is a screwed up, month-late Christmas tree with a bunch of thrift store ornaments.” – DC Duck<br /><br />Apparently, not everyone is happy with the stimulus package. <a href="http://vompolitik.blogspot.com/2009/01/price-of-unity-part-ii.html">Marcus has commented on the question of unity</a> surrounding the Obama team’s approach to the stimulus and posed two good questions: how does 44 deal with Congressional Republicans now that they’ve refused the offer, and what should the stimulus look like? <br /><br />To tackle the first question, the unity approach marks a welcome change from the zero-sum game where the party in power gets its way and the opposition is frozen out until eight years later, when all policies are instantly reversed, and the only way to prevent extremes is to bog the nation down by electing an executive and legislature of different parties. Of all the childish things it is time to put aside, this one in particular should pass into its mortal maturity un-mourned.<br /><br />Unfortunately, Congressional Republicans don’t seem to see it that way, and unity, by definition, requires consent by more than one actor, alas. What to do with the recalcitrant Republicans? <br /><br />Imagine the stimulus package as a pie. The pie is made up of dollars and of political capital, and 44 offered the Republicans an approximate 40% of it (<a href="http://www.cnbc.com/id/28799476">one-third of its money in tax cuts</a>, some <a href="http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2009/01/27/1762544.aspx">cosmetic victories by cutting out the provisions for contraception</a>) – less than half of the pie, and certainly a great deal less than what they would have wanted, but nonetheless much more than a minority party, recently destroyed in a general election, would have any right to expect. <br /><br />The Republicans refused. The problem they face is that 44 and the Democratic Congress have only to retain Democratic support and win over two Republican Senators to get a cloture-proof majority in the Senate and pass whatever stimulus pie they choose – not a hard job considering that all Obama has to do is convince two Republican Senators not to be the people who stopped the stimulus pie. If that isn’t leverage enough, he’s giving away cash like it’s going out of style, and it’s hard to believe there aren’t two Republican Senators who’d like a bridge constructed or a bus-fleet built in their state. <br /><br />How to deal with R’s after the stimulus pie goes through is a new question. Marcus, and he’s not alone, is inclined to take a partisan line – 44 offered the R’s a chance at unity, they declined, so they get to be a beaten-up minority for the next few years. My own view on this is that 44 must stick with his unity approach – for the next pie, he must go back and offer them 40% again. If they take it, so much the better. If not, 44 and the Dems simply take more for themselves, the point being that negotiations don’t start with the Republicans demanding more and compromising at 40% - the deal starts at 40% and only gets worse for them. The next pie, 40% again, and so on. <br /><br />This changes the game from a piece of public ritual drama where two sides are seen demanding 100% their way and then reaching the inevitable compromise, to one of real collaboration – the majority gets 60%, the minority gets 40%, and we move on to the next issue. The downside is that the ruling party, which could probably get a much bigger piece of the pie, has to give up a bit of its share in the name of unity government. The upside is that there’s a real chance that some lasting policy might come out of such a system.<br /><br />Of course, Republicans could continue to not play, refusing their 40% on a regular basis. The downside is that this sinks any hope of unity. The political upside is that the Republican leadership has to return, time and again, to the rank-and-file and explain why they turned down a fair deal in favor of a worse one, and the rank-and-file must go back to voters and explain same.<br /><br />Of course, the question of how much of the pie Republicans should get is only one part of the problem. Perhaps a more serious one is whether or not the pie is big enough. For a man who claims to like pie so much, the President has made this one <a href="http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0109/18099.html">perilously small</a>. More on that to come.Frank A. Springhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03349370629984786194noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1903958304444878174.post-82078830003136318832009-01-27T15:35:00.002-05:002009-01-27T16:57:53.713-05:00The price of unity: part IIThe thing about political unity is, I'm a fan. A big fan in fact. Not only does it provide some of my favourite rhetorical moments in an Obama speech but I actually believe there is a serious strategic imperative to it. Let's think about those two aspects before we consider where we go from here with regard to Obama, the GOP and the stimulus.<div><br /></div><div>Rhetorically, unity is a beautiful, moving theme, The first half of <a href="http://www.demconvention.com/barack-obama/">Obama's acceptance speech</a> at the Convention I found to be clever but conventional. The second half, where he spoke of both the power and practice of unity made my heart soar:</div><div><br /></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: rgb(17, 17, 17); font-family: Tahoma; font-size: 11px; line-height: 13px; ">"We may not agree on abortion, but surely we can agree on reducing the number of unwanted pregnancies in this country. The reality of gun ownership may be different for hunters in rural Ohio than for those plagued by gang-violence in Cleveland, but don't tell me we can't uphold the Second Amendment while keeping AK-47s out of the hands of criminals. I know there are differences on same-sex marriage, but surely we can agree that our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters deserve to visit the person they love in the hospital and to live lives free of discrimination. Passions fly on immigration, but I don't know anyone who benefits when a mother is separated from her infant child or an employer undercuts American wages by hiring illegal workers. This too is part of America's promise - the promise of a democracy where we can find the strength and grace to bridge divides and unite in common effort."</span><br /></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: rgb(17, 17, 17); font-family: Tahoma; font-size: 11px; line-height: 13px;"><br /></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: rgb(17, 17, 17); font-family: Tahoma; font-size: 11px; line-height: 13px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Georgia; font-size: 16px; line-height: normal; ">That's the kind of unity I want: finding common ground where there has been division both needless and painful. What I don't want is to give away our values and our moment for the sake of attempting unity where in reality it does not exist. Rachel Maddow's <a href="http://www.blueoregon.com/2009/01/defazio-larry-summers-is-antiinfrastructure-the-president-is-not.html">"I won"</a> segment last night captured this aspect of the issue beautifully.</span><br /></span></div><div><br /></div><div>As I struggled over this issue at lunch Frank reminded me that the thing about real bi-partisanship is, that you have to have a serious partner. In their treatment of the Administration's stimulus proposal there is little sign that the GOP is ready to be a real partner. And if the rhetorical lift was all that there was to it I'd be prepared to dismiss it out of hand and move forward as a good partisan once more, but alas there's more to unity then just language.</div><div><br /></div><div>The rhetorical and emotional upsides of unity aside, there is a strategic aspect to it and that is the idea that one of the big reasons why government in the last 20 years has been as ineffective as it has been because of the lack of unity. Think Healthcare in '93, Social Security reform in '05 or the so-called War On terror, let alone Iraq. Where there is a lack of fundamental agreement, then it becomes very difficult to execute policy and achieve major outcomes, because the chances are you only passed your legislation by a hairsbreadth and then those that oppose you waged a guerrila campaign to undermine your efforts in practice thereafter.</div><div><br /></div><div>More conceptually, where a lack of unity in the national polity exists there is a lack of will and will, <a href="http://www.clausewitz.com/CWZHOME/VomKriege2/BK1ch01.html">as Clausewitz noted</a>, is often the very essence of victory. Col. Harry Summers in his brilliant Clausewitzian analysis of Vietnam, '<a href="http://www.amazon.com/Strategy-Critical-Analysis-Vietnam-War/dp/0891415637">On Strategy</a>' concluded that lack of national unity behind that war was a key cause of US failure as it manifested in a lack of national will with degenerative effects throughout the polity. If such is the case in foreign policy, how much more so the domestic polity?</div><div><br /></div><div>Thus, Obama's paen to unity makes sense in both rhetorical and strategic terms. More unity = more force. More force = more results. Ta daaaa.</div><div><br /></div><div>But what do you do when unity is unachievable for lack of a serious partner? Many, including myself at times argue for retrenching back to a more partisan line, but that still leaves open the key questions for understanding the current Washington situation: what do you do with the Republicans? And what kind of stimulus is actually needed? It is to these questions that we must next turn our attention.</div>Marcus A. Robertshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01290321894833470191noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1903958304444878174.post-24934656156816917422009-01-27T12:14:00.002-05:002009-01-27T13:11:15.429-05:00What price unity?This weekend, even the purveyor of conventional wisdom extraordinaire David Gregory noted when interviewing White House economic chief Larry Summers that the $825bn Obama stimulus package <a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/28842169#28842169">may be too small</a> to turn the economy around.<div><br /></div><div>Meanwhile, <a href="http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/01232009/profile.html">the ever astute Bill Moyers Journal</a> discussed whether Obama's unity-first approach came at too high a price if it meant trading actual positive economic impact for GOP support.</div><div><br /></div><div>These two questions are linked and strike at the heart of the political debate about what kind of Administration this is. </div><div><br /></div><div>The Administration began by offering $300bn in tax cuts to please GOPers, despite <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/12/opinion/12krugman.html">liberal economist</a> views that tax cuts are not as stimulative as spending. At Obama's request, <a href="http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5itBENNErYRQKT05EtyY6woQTQb1wD95V83N80">House Dems have now cut $200mn in birth control funding</a> from the stimulus package to placate social conservatives. Obama has met with GOP leaders three times to personally seek common ground. Rahm has had countless phone calls with them. And, oh yes, there's an economic crisis of titanic proportions underway that just yesterday claimed at least 73,000 jobs.</div><div><br /></div><div>And yet House Republicans have <a href="http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0109/18024.html">already decided to vote no</a>.</div><div><br /></div><div>Obama wants bi-partisanship and clearly considers the pursuit of unity through compromise to be both the goal and the approach that guides his first major Congressional challenge, but liberals are right to fear that at a certain point bi-partisanship comes at too high a price. If the GOP continue in their obstinacy then Obama should declare his diplomatic efforts at an end due to Republican intransigence, strip those provisions from the package that were there to assuage conservatives, <a href="http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/01/22/sad-if-true/">restore the mass-transit spending</a> that the Administration replaced with tax cuts, and pass a Democrats-only bill that actually stimulates the economy, saves and creates jobs and pays out huge sums for the massive infrastructure challenges that this nation faces.</div><div><br /></div><div>Such a package would likely cost far more then $825bn and would be a deeply partisan affair but if Nobel Laurette <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/12/opinion/12krugman.html">Paul Krugman is right</a> (and he's been right about this whole imbroglio thus far), that's what it'll take to save us from depression. The President may soon be forced to choose between bi-partisan unity and the economy. I think we know what the unemployed would choose.</div>Marcus A. Robertshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01290321894833470191noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1903958304444878174.post-54364892292417960172009-01-20T00:24:00.002-05:002009-01-20T01:08:15.561-05:00January 20th, 2009<div>"Out of many we are one and while we breath, we hope." - <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/11/04/obama.transcript/index.html">Barack Obama</a><br /></div><div><br /></div><div>With language like this, oratory that soars in both heart and head, how can expectations for tomorrow be anything less then epic? And as they say in West Wing, when expectations are so high the only thing you can do is exceed them.</div><div><br /></div><div>And so tonight, even as we worry over whether the stimulus is large enough, whether Afghanistan is intractable, whether Chuck Todd will ever again cover a campaign so perfect, we know that Obama will give a speech for the ages come tomorrow.</div><div><br /></div><div>Lincoln's inaugurals. FDR's. JFK's. And now Obama's. We get to see history tomorrow and it will be both an honour and a privilege. With this in mind <span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-style: italic;">On Politik</span> offers it's heartfelt thanks to the survivors of Gore 2000, Carnahan '02, Ohio for Kerry and Madrid for Congress: <span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-style: italic;">Our</span> time for change has come.</div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div>Marcus A. Robertshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01290321894833470191noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1903958304444878174.post-11155051873473041752009-01-13T12:27:00.002-05:002009-01-13T12:56:56.775-05:00On Politik On The March!<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiKqQ4tJRTf1IxNA9BqOJ93RhgEV-dAikc_ITJiQqRzsq0kRbN1dbZS3LngGBSV-eYt8R3sI-fnm1hD1s0JPXOabNKK2BuXEhxFnzeW_6E4afdOOsgTFaMa2EwK9qMLvMxqlcoUJzNlhmo/s1600-h/Clausewitz.jpg"><img style="margin: 0px auto 10px; display: block; text-align: center; cursor: pointer; width: 225px; height: 300px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiKqQ4tJRTf1IxNA9BqOJ93RhgEV-dAikc_ITJiQqRzsq0kRbN1dbZS3LngGBSV-eYt8R3sI-fnm1hD1s0JPXOabNKK2BuXEhxFnzeW_6E4afdOOsgTFaMa2EwK9qMLvMxqlcoUJzNlhmo/s320/Clausewitz.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5290838696245519266" border="0" /></a> <span style="font-style: italic;">Can victory be far behind?</span><br /><br />A word to our readers:<br />It's a week exactly until the 44th President of the United States takes the Oath of Office. Having chronicled and commented on what history may record as the most edifying, engaging, and entertaining presidential campaign in modern political history, we're expanding our remit at On Politik to explore the broader aspects of the word 'politik'. We will continue to comment on electoral politics, of course, but we will also address policy (foreign and domestic), the politics of governing (not just winning elections) - 'politik' in its truest sense as the business of the polity.Frank A. Springhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03349370629984786194noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1903958304444878174.post-14404039605301277652009-01-04T15:20:00.007-05:002009-01-04T16:06:06.209-05:00Richardson's Loss Could Be Senate Dems' Gain<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhmuql8LLkC8kvBYGnxmUuORMhs0oCHUylDWGZqrATl8AgtZQE4q679UsO7b7aXDoGbKT0L5fAWC7DNdIRyY4i1VqGakvw4M8V_mQ1LJQFan7mgsVeUIX2x4AVfpE0GedgAJYWJnybA94o/s1600-h/Olympia_Snowe,_official_photo_2.JPG"><img style="margin: 0px auto 10px; display: block; text-align: center; cursor: pointer; width: 255px; height: 320px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhmuql8LLkC8kvBYGnxmUuORMhs0oCHUylDWGZqrATl8AgtZQE4q679UsO7b7aXDoGbKT0L5fAWC7DNdIRyY4i1VqGakvw4M8V_mQ1LJQFan7mgsVeUIX2x4AVfpE0GedgAJYWJnybA94o/s320/Olympia_Snowe,_official_photo_2.JPG" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5287547031991192514" border="0" /></a> <span style="font-style: italic;">Let it Snowe...</span><br /><br />Happy New Year. We kick off this year the way we closed the last - with the discomfiture of a governor. This time it is Bill Richardson of New Mexico, laid low by charges that his Administration illegally gave state contracts to a firm that had donated substantially to his political campaigns. While the case itself will take some months to investigate and adjudicate, <a href="http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/01/04/richardson-reportedly-withdraws-from-cabinet-appointment/?hp">Richardson has withdrawn his appointment as Commerce Secretary. </a><br /><br />Who should take his place in the Cabinet? <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kathleen_Sebelius">Kathleen Sebelius</a>, <a href="http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/category/kathleen-sebelius/">floated early as a possible nominee</a>, would be on the list. <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Daley"> Bill Daley</a>, Commerce Secretary under Clinton and, like Obama, a Chicagoan of note, is a dark-horse contender but a worthy one. Into this hat it's worth tossing the name of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olympia_Snowe">Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-ME),</a> a Republican who serves on the Senate Commerce Committee. She'd come into the job with the issues at her fingertips, and her nomination would further support Obama's pledge to reach across the aisle. More than that, her appointment would open a Senate seat in Maine, to be filled by the appointee of Democratic Governor Jim Baldacci. The appointee would then run for (re)election in 2012 in a state that generally votes Democrat except against its two incumbent Republican Senators (the other is Susan Collins; Maine has two Democratic Congressman, a Democrat-controlled State Senate and House, and a Democratic Governor in Baldacci), inching Democrats closer to the filibuster-proof majority.<br /><br />And now, from the Department of Disturbing Coincidences: when not abroad, I have lived in three American states (not counting short hitches on political campaigns) - New Mexico, Illinois, and New York. Their governors as of this time last year: Bill Richardson, Rod Blagojevich, Eliot Spitzer. Quite.Frank A. Springhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03349370629984786194noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1903958304444878174.post-91171801957651901592008-12-09T14:49:00.005-05:002008-12-09T15:11:46.668-05:00The Fall of Rod<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg9h_1zCbqR2c2y5FSv3y4-Wjl9FEkw9lXA6piBBaTF8ujqv2KX14-xPLle2xQpUpPpPmLVE9yCHMI8oi9cNunZhzIANVABzLc8-DoOlT231SyhI9aGrqmcKytekrfb9uOpIrWWUPf75F0/s1600-h/2563984861_e29db13d8b.jpg"><img style="margin: 0px auto 10px; display: block; text-align: center; cursor: pointer; width: 320px; height: 240px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg9h_1zCbqR2c2y5FSv3y4-Wjl9FEkw9lXA6piBBaTF8ujqv2KX14-xPLle2xQpUpPpPmLVE9yCHMI8oi9cNunZhzIANVABzLc8-DoOlT231SyhI9aGrqmcKytekrfb9uOpIrWWUPf75F0/s320/2563984861_e29db13d8b.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5277884621709690146" border="0" /></a> <span style="font-style: italic;"></span><br />Alas, Rod Blagojevich, <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/09/us/politics/10Illinois.html?hp">corrupt soon-to-be-former Governor of Illinois</a>, we hardly knew ye. And it’s probably just as well. Let this be a lesson to us all: never elect a candidate for governor who promises tax cuts on the back of cutting waste in the public universities – such people cannot be trusted. Of course, no one predicted that Governor Blagojevich would go so far as to nakedly try to sell the Senate seat of the President-elect of the United States to the highest bidder, but the point remains.<br /><br />A few observations:<br /><br />You have to go back to 1994 for the last time the good people of Illinois elected a governor whose tenure did not end in an arrest for corruption (as seems likely for Rod).<br /><br />To impeach Blagojevich, the Illinois House of Representatives must investigate the charges against him, then recommend an impeachment trial in the Illinois State Senate. T<a href="http://chicagoist.com/2008/04/28/will_blagojevic.php">here’s been talk of impeaching Blagojevich for some months in connection with the Tony Rezko business</a>, but it hadn’t gone far - much of it was the usual haziness of state-level corruption changes.<br /><br />To move forward with the impeachment investigation, the Speaker of the Illinois House would have to create a commitee to do so. Speaker <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Madigan">Michael Madigan</a>’s antipathy for Blagojevich is well known, but the matter is complicated somewhat by the fact that Speaker Madigan’s daughter, AG <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lisa_Madigan">Lisa Madigan</a>, appears to be <a href="http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/12/the_blago_indictment_fun_with.php">Senate Candidate Number 2</a> referred to in the indictment.<br /><br />Should the committee recommend impeachment, the trial by Senate would take place on the home turf of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emil_Jones,_Jr.">Emil Jones</a>, the outgoing President of the Senate, an ally of Gov. Blagojevich’s, one-time Obama mentor, and possible Senate appointee himself. The question now, though, is whether Jones was ever in serious consideration, given that his friends may well have been priced out of the market as Blagojevich’s bag-man, Chief of Staff John Harris, tried to shake down the likes of SEIU and Warren Buffet?<br /><br />So, Blagojevich’s fate now rests with legislative bodies ruled by the father of a now-tainted (and presumably perfectly innocent) Senate appointee-prospect, and an ally whose claim to the Senate is almost certainly hopeless. Resigning now might be less painful.<br /><br />Final point: <a href="http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/1208/A_tip_from_Rahm_.html">Ben Smith reports that this morning’s arrests may have been the result of swift action by Rahm Emmanuel, responding himself to a shakedown attempt</a>. All right and proper on Rahm’s part, of course, but here’s a thought – having taken down Rod Blagojevich, elevated Bill Richardson to Commerce and Janet Napolitano to DHS, and considering elevating Arnold Schwarzenegger to energy czar, Jennifer Granholm to Transport, and Kathleen Sebelius to Labor or Education, Rahm and the Office of the President-elect may end up removing from power over 10% of the nation’s governors. If I were Duval Patrick, I’d sleep with one eye open.Frank A. Springhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03349370629984786194noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1903958304444878174.post-34525276809303947542008-12-02T12:15:00.008-05:002008-12-02T13:03:42.077-05:00Back from fishing......or rather a blissful week in Albuquerque for Thanksgiving with Frank's clan. Sorry for the silence of late: let's get stuck in with what's happened since.<br /><br />On Hillary: <gulp> <gulp> (GULP) it's a good call. It says he thinks he can control the Clintons and that he cares less about their media distractions then he does about implementing his policy (as Nate has now also noted, <a href="http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/11/obamas-agenda-difference-between.html">strategy and tactics</a> anyone?) but it should work out. I may have preferred Kerry (and dreamed of<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zbigniew_Brzezinski"> Zbig</a>) but this is as good choice a choice as can be for those desirous of dealing both firmly and fairly with Israel and the Palestinians. Between Rahm Emanuel and Hillary Clinton the Administration has all the pro-Israeli creds it needs to broker a serious peace deal that trades the Palestinian right of return for Israeli settlements so as to create a practicable, territorially contiguous Palestinian state. Land for peace is the best guarantee of Israel's security and I think Secretary Clinton understands that.<br /><br />On Jones: The most surprising cabinet pick by Obama thus far. Apparently, <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/29/us/politics/29jones.html?_r=2&adxnnl=1&partner=rss&emc=rss&adxnnlx=1228239097-XWsZeB4MLkbPr2BuTnpVog">Obama only spoke with him at length twice</a> during the campaign. As NATO commander Jones showed a preference for force in Afghanistan that I found surprising. Whether he has learned the lessons of the limited <a href="http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/01/18/features/bookfri.php">utility of force</a> in that country particulalry is something I'm looking into. Still, if anyone can hold their own against Hillary in argument it's likely to be the man who once held the title Supreme Commander Allied Forces Europe - surely the only title in the world better then POTUS!<br /><br />On Gates: as long as it's short term (no more then a year) then it's a good play. Puts a Republican face on Iraq troop drawdowns. That should make the GOP's fostering of a <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dolchstosslegende">Dolchsto</a></gulp></gulp><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dolchstosslegende" style="font-family: georgia;" class="internal" title="De-Dolchstoßlegende.ogg"><span style="color: rgb(51, 51, 255); font-size: 100%;"></span>ß</a><gulp><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dolchstosslegende"><gulp>legende</gulp></a> more difficult. After a year though, I want Danzig to step up, not least because I want DoD to be a Democrat's domain.<br /><gulp><br />On <a href="http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1208/16072.html">Obama's NSC</a>: Including Eric Holder and Susan Rice in yesterday's roll out sent important messages in both policy and political terms: first, that obeying and implementing the law will be key to Obama's war on terror approach whilst re-engaging with the international community through the UN will be crucial to national security as a whole. Second, that Gates, Jones and Clinton will be balanced by two deeply loyalist voices for Obama himself in all NSC discussions. As such, Obama's own likely thinking will be reflected in the NSC from interesting angles: the Justice Department and the UN Ambassador. And that in a team of big, powerful personalities with likely conflicting agendas and counsels will leave Obama where he wants to be as, in the words of his predecessor, "The Decider".</gulp></gulp>Marcus A. Robertshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01290321894833470191noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1903958304444878174.post-85699561020912066872008-11-19T10:41:00.003-05:002008-11-19T12:25:05.594-05:00Playing the long game...<div>President-elect Obama likely picked up two new votes for his domestic agenda last night: <a href="http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/11/begich-will-be-alaskas-first-us-senate.html">Mark Begich</a> (AK) and <a href="http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/1108/Lieberman_stays.html?showall">Joe Lieberman</a> (FU). On Lieberman, partisans like me wanted vengeance but Obama continues to pursue his oh-so-annoying-because-it-makes-sense approach to <a href="http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/11/provocation_of_the_day_why_the.php">ignoring slights</a> in favour of his pursuit of The Prize. <a href="http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/11/lieberman_two_additional_views.php">Savvy commentators</a> have also pointed out why Lieberman so richly deserved to lose his chairmanship for policy reasons but also how Obama, as a poker player, can win in the end. </div><div><br /></div>It's almost as if Obama knows the difference between <a href="http://vompolitik.blogspot.com/2008/09/strategy-tactics.html">strategy and tactics</a>.<div><br /></div><div>Obama wants to move a <a href="http://vompolitik.blogspot.com/2008/11/obamas-legislative-program-costs.html">big agenda</a>. He needs to have as close to 60 votes as possible in the Senate (paging Senators Collins and Snowe). He needs to have a White House staff and departmental leadership that can deliver on his ambitions for the country and the world. I believe a pattern is forming: Obama is forgiving enemies, securing votes and selecting many experienced, clever Clintonistas so that he can govern with maximum effectiveness. This is politik as policy more then politics. In the short term he might pay a political price in terms of <a href="http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/11/18/12338/082/272/662806">complaints from his left flank</a> on Lieberman and the embrace of the Clintons, in the long term his bet is that history will judge him not for what he did with Joe, Bill and Hillary but rather with the economy, national security, healthcare and climate change.<br /><div><br /></div><div><br /></div></div>Marcus A. Robertshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01290321894833470191noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1903958304444878174.post-83503998649689892002008-11-18T16:49:00.007-05:002008-11-18T17:23:55.962-05:00Mark Halperin raises the prospect of an Iraq/Afghanistan redeployment... via Syria?<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj6G4PdAnoEuUrwbJVXq3oXyzHigULX6jbTwhbF8ZJg_x7rFzfRTgtl2iwuHS332TGhX9Pj66G3Y7Ms3HaI8Ewxmhy1KZ6-rvhqvt4T4DS1BOvU1lxchvOo9ejDdAbJf4atgfSkfIkQO5QT/s1600-h/target+syria.jpg"><br /><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="line-height: 24px; font-family:georgia;font-size:14px;">Per </span></span></a><span class="Apple-style-span" style="line-height: 24px; font-family:georgia;font-size:14px;"><a href="http://thepage.time.com/2008/11/18/top-officer-military-can-meet-obama-demands/" style="font-weight: bold; color: rgb(51, 102, 204); ">The Page</a>: "Joint Chiefs of Staff Chair <strong><a href="http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gxb31iLt5hkYolgZzuELTc14hSuQD94HIBC02" target="_blank" style="font: normal normal bold 14px/normal georgia, arial, sans-serif; text-decoration: underline; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(51, 102, 204); ">Adm. Mullen tells the AP</a></strong> the Pentagon is developing plans to get troops quickly out of Iraq and into Afghanistan. <span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-style: italic; ">Says the military has already practiced traveling out of Iraq through Turkey and Jordan to determine "what the challenges might be.""</span></span><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-style: italic; line-height: 24px; font-size:14px;"><br /></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="line-height: 24px; font-size:14px;">This begs 3 questions:</span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-style: italic; line-height: 24px; font-size:14px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-style: normal; ">1) Has the US military actually practiced marching 160,000 troops through Turkey and Jordan recently?</span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-style: italic; line-height: 24px; font-size:14px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-style: normal; ">2) Why is the US planning to march west to Afghanistan instead of east? </span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-style: italic; line-height: 24px; font-size:14px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-style: normal; ">3) Should Syria be worried?</span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style=" line-height: 24px;font-size:48px;"><br /></span></div><img style="display:block; margin:0px auto 10px; text-align:center;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 400px; height: 325px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj6G4PdAnoEuUrwbJVXq3oXyzHigULX6jbTwhbF8ZJg_x7rFzfRTgtl2iwuHS332TGhX9Pj66G3Y7Ms3HaI8Ewxmhy1KZ6-rvhqvt4T4DS1BOvU1lxchvOo9ejDdAbJf4atgfSkfIkQO5QT/s400/target+syria.jpg" border="0" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5270125925368145554" /><br /><div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style=" font-style: italic; line-height: 24px;font-size:14px;"><br /></span></div></div>Marcus A. Robertshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01290321894833470191noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1903958304444878174.post-7927196298944262072008-11-18T10:54:00.004-05:002008-11-18T16:38:59.756-05:00Obama's legislative program: costs & priorities<span class="Apple-style-span" style="border-collapse: collapse; font-family: arial; font-size: 13px; "><div>Obama should LBJ things with big moves as fast as possible on his big campaign priorities. I also like the idea of him <a href="http://www.thechrismatthewsshow.com/html/transcript/index.php">channelling Reagan in '81</a> and walking from the Capitol's steps after his inauguration but that may be a little much given the scale and complexity of the legislation at hand. Here's what his initial program might look like:</div><div><ul><li>Economy/stimulus: tax cuts (estimated at <a href="http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/10/29/eveningnews/realitycheck/main4557520.shtml">$188bn over 2 years</a>), Detroit restructuring (<a href="http://money.cnn.com/2008/09/17/news/companies/detroit_bailout.fortune/index.htm">$25bn</a> for now...), <a href="http://www.barackobama.com/issues/economy/">infrastructure package</a> for transportation, public works and general construction (estimated at $<a href="http://news.morningstar.com/newsnet/ViewNews.aspx?article=/DJ/200810270815DOWJONESDJONLINE000198_univ.xml">150bn over 10 years</a>)<br /></li><li>Healthcare: Expands public insurance by 48.3mn people at an estimated cost of <a href="http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/lewin-group-presents-mccain-obama/story.aspx?guid=%7BCC204977-2FAC-46CC-8A99-DF3886BC6146%7D&dist=hpprcfm?DR_ID=54919">$1.2tn over 10 years</a>.<br /></li><li>Energy/environment: moving towards <a href="http://my.barackobama.com/page/content/newenergy">renewables and energy independence</a> in 10 years, creating 5mn new green collar jobs at an estimated cost of <a href="http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/50948/story.htm">$150bn over 10 years</a><br /></li><li>DoD re-budgeting: Army, Marines expansion (<a href="http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/10/29/eveningnews/realitycheck/main4557520.shtml">at least $67bn of additional spending per year</a>)<br /></li><li>Education: the <a href="http://www.barackobama.com/issues/education/">Obama education plan</a> emphasizes funding for No Child Left Behind, an expansion of pre-school care and ensuring college tuition affordability for the middle class at an estimated cost of <a href="http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/issues/PreK-12EducationFactSheet.pdf">$18bn per year.</a><br /></li></ul></div><div>That adds up to roughly $354bn in new spending for FY2009 at a time when tax revenues will be down and debt reaches historic levels.</div><div><br /></div><div>So, the key questions are: how many of these pieces can he afford in terms of both political capital and actual money? How fast can he move them legislatively? And what, if anything, gets cut back, cancelled or even expanded?<br /></div></span>Marcus A. Robertshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01290321894833470191noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1903958304444878174.post-83421664617909393512008-11-17T11:37:00.006-05:002008-11-17T16:20:25.232-05:00Obama's Secretary of State<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjgQqiPoc6Z2FKqke1uSDG6k5UL8B9bBL8dOXCMIx_l8RFCMZ09kTY5cKH1c3Du7e9jv7EVZb-VCNMnCPPXMF-KbP24EjXfHVXGhiHGIuzxxmJT0oziokswQbqstqXTYlMdOneg7rdwRqMt/s1600-h/seward.jpg"><img style="display:block; margin:0px auto 10px; text-align:center;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 120px; height: 135px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjgQqiPoc6Z2FKqke1uSDG6k5UL8B9bBL8dOXCMIx_l8RFCMZ09kTY5cKH1c3Du7e9jv7EVZb-VCNMnCPPXMF-KbP24EjXfHVXGhiHGIuzxxmJT0oziokswQbqstqXTYlMdOneg7rdwRqMt/s400/seward.jpg" border="0" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5269726221141795506" /></a><div> <span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-weight: bold;">Secretary of State Clinton</span></div><div><br /></div>On the journey to and from Ohio, we listened to <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Team-Rivals-Political-Abraham-Lincoln/dp/0684824906">'Team of Rivals'</a> which is now the <a href="http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1859431,00.html?xid=rss-nation">zeitgeist book</a> of the political cognoscenti. When I first backed Obama in October 2006 I argued that at worst he would be Reagan (gifting us a transformed electoral map - check), he could well be Kennedy (and inspire a new generation to public service - looking good) and at best he could be Lincoln (let's talk in 50 years).<div><br /></div><div>Obama as Lincoln is possible, but is Hillary really <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_H._Seward">Seward</a>?</div><div><br /></div><div>Lincoln's Secretary of State was his greatest rival for the 1860 Republican nomination was indeed a New York Senator once thought as destined for White House who was eclipsed at the eleventh hour by a come-from-nowhere Illinois rival. I can already hear Doris Kearns Goodwin's shorthand scribblings!</div><div><br /></div><div>I have some serious concerns about Senator Clinton in the position of senior cabinet officer: her <a href="http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0808/12721.html">management record</a> during the campaign was horrific, her gaffes were often foreign policy related (from <a href="http://voices.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/2008/03/hillarys_balkan_adventures_par.html">landing under fire</a> to <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1581150/Nobel-winner-Hillary-Clinton%27s-%27silly%27-Irish-peace-claims.html">bringing peace to Northern Ireland</a>) and the Bill factor in terms of <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/31/us/politics/31donor.html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss&pagewanted=all">deeply dodgy Kazak</a> deals and <a href="http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1108/15680.html">dubious donations</a> (albeit for great causes) should in and of itself provide pause for grave reflection.</div><div><br /></div><div>Still, perhaps she would shine in a position that gives her a spotlight, <a href="http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/11/14/1674694.aspx">removes her from domestic politics</a> and allows her to genuinely broker peace deals and face down tyrants - I don't think anyone doubts who would win an Ahmadinajad/Hillary show down! She's also a better choice then Richardson who gave exemplary service as global envoy and UN Ambassador (if ever there was a man made for the <a href="http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=af68fef4-eb92-473f-a0e4-77274017f75e&p=4">haggling of international diplomacy</a> at the world's greatest bazaar it was Bill) but his '<a href="http://www.slate.com/id/84864/">running' of the Energy Department</a> and Ryan Lizza's primary season <a href="http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=af68fef4-eb92-473f-a0e4-77274017f75e">character assassination</a> should rule him out.</div><div><br /></div><div>Kerry would be a decent choice. "Knows the game" (as Halberstam might have said), respects Obama, is respected in turn by many international leaders. Al Giordano makes a <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/al-giordano/kerry-is-the-no-drama-opt_b_142733.html?show_comment_id=17877706">strong case</a> for him as the 'no drama' choice. He'd also be a worthy successor to <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A51640-2005Feb24.html">Secretary Rice</a> in <a href="http://hnn.us/roundup/entries/4064.html">sartorial terms</a>.</div><div><br /></div><div>Still, my own preference is for Dick Lugar, senior Senator from Indiana and ranking Republican on the Senate Foreign Relations committee. Lugar and Obama have a <a href="http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/wire/chi-ap-in-lugar-obama,0,7952008.story">strong relationship</a>. Lugar and Biden have a <a href="http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1108/15462_Page2.html">strong relationship</a>. Lugar has the right instincts on matters of America's <a href="http://lugar.senate.gov/press/record.cfm?id=288659">moral leadership role</a>, <a href="http://lugar.senate.gov/nunnlugar/">nuclear proliferation</a> and <a href="http://lugar.senate.gov/press/record.cfm?id=296577">Darfur</a>. What's more, a Republican at State would probably mean a Democrat at Defence - especially as I worry about the wisdom of keeping Gates on in even a short term capacity (more on that soon).</div><div><br /></div><div>So, to sum up, I'd like Lugar best although I doubt it'll be him. I'd prefer Kerry over Hillary but would settle for Hillary over Richardson. That said, I think now it will be Hillary and so Doris' scribblings shan't be in vain.</div>Marcus A. Robertshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01290321894833470191noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1903958304444878174.post-24269571337945655962008-11-14T10:49:00.005-05:002008-11-14T12:49:49.917-05:00Obama's cabinet: fantasy & realityCourtesy of evil Washington lobbyists via <a href="http://www.politico.com/static/PPM103_adminflowchart.html" style="font-weight: bold; color: rgb(51, 102, 204); ">Politico</a>, here's a DC parlour game tipsheet for the Obama cabinet:<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj-Yf9I87H6_w7DKW9E9-rwiJJKe3JVR4cYkv6Nv4cxd49XA2b29DKMhNUwyJ3wTNWljK-xi-U96IpXAi4f-BSSB7AWZ_fLL_H1vDi0n9RIuulxBjvkU0Eoplpe7MdDZdIW7v9iDJb3Elhw/s1600-h/Obamascab3.jpg"></a><div><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj-Yf9I87H6_w7DKW9E9-rwiJJKe3JVR4cYkv6Nv4cxd49XA2b29DKMhNUwyJ3wTNWljK-xi-U96IpXAi4f-BSSB7AWZ_fLL_H1vDi0n9RIuulxBjvkU0Eoplpe7MdDZdIW7v9iDJb3Elhw/s1600-h/Obamascab3.jpg" style="text-decoration: none;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><br /></span><img style="text-decoration: underline;display: block; margin-top: 0px; margin-right: auto; margin-bottom: 10px; margin-left: auto; text-align: center; cursor: pointer; width: 400px; height: 248px; " src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj-Yf9I87H6_w7DKW9E9-rwiJJKe3JVR4cYkv6Nv4cxd49XA2b29DKMhNUwyJ3wTNWljK-xi-U96IpXAi4f-BSSB7AWZ_fLL_H1vDi0n9RIuulxBjvkU0Eoplpe7MdDZdIW7v9iDJb3Elhw/s400/Obamascab3.jpg" border="0" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5268542636881141106" /></a><br /><div>It's worth noting that <a href="http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/11/obama_met_with_clinton.php">Hillary</a> is not even mentioned on the sheet.<br /></div><div><br /></div><div>What follows is my take on what I'd like to see, regardless of what the contenders themselves have said on the subject. In brackets are those who I actually think will get the appointment.<br /></div><div><br /></div><div>State: <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/10/28/obamas-secretary-of-state_n_138682.html">Richard Lugar</a> (<a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/11/05/john-kerry-secretary-of-s_n_141582.html">John Kerry</a>)<br /></div><div>Treasury: <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/11/03/obamas-treasury-secretary_n_140464.html">Paul Volcker</a></div><div>Defence Secretary: <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/10/30/obama-secretary-of-defens_n_139434.html">Robert Danzig</a> (<a href="http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/10/tasked_two_top_aides_with.php">Robert Gates</a>)</div><div>Deputy SecDef: <a href="http://www.thenation.com/blogs/dreyfuss/381093/obama_s_national_security_team_emerging">John Hamre</a></div><div>National Security Advisor: <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_Zinni">Anthony Zinni</a> (<a href="http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/archives/2008/08/the_race_to_be/">James Steinberg</a>)</div><div>Secretary of Commerce: <a href="http://www.wtopnews.com/?nid=213&sid=1513155">Penny Pritzker</a></div><div>Education: <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/11/05/colin-powell-secretary-of_n_141613.html">Colin Powell</a></div><div>Energy: <a href="http://newmexicoindependent.com/9948/richardson-bingaman-on-obamas-cabinet-shortlist">Jeff Bingaman</a></div><div>Health & Human Services: <a href="http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/6/5/12209/11003/656/530212">Tom Daschle</a></div><div>Justice: <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/10/30/eric-holder-obamas-attorn_n_137696.html">Eric Holder</a> (<a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/11/05/janet-napolitano-attorney_n_141487.html">Janet Napolitano</a>)</div><div>Homeland Security: <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Richard_A._Clarke">Richard Clarke</a> (<a href="http://www.wittassociates.com/6405.xml">James Lee Witt</a>)</div><div>DepHomeSec: <a href="http://securitydebrief.adfero.com/who-will-be-the-next-dhs-secretary/">Ray Kelly</a></div><div>Veterans: <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/james-boyce/john-kerry-for-secretary_b_141743.html">Max Cleland</a> (actually I think Cleland will wind up as <a href="http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1108/15381.html">Secretary of the Army</a>)</div><div>Labour: <a href="http://inclusion2008.org/?q=node/100">David Bonior</a></div><div>Agriculture: <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/10/30/obamas-secretary-of-agric_n_139339.html">Tom Vilsack</a></div><div>Office of Urban Policy: <a href="http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/11/obama-to-create.html">Valerie Jarret</a><br /></div><div>Enviormental Protection Agency: <a href="http://voices.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/11/06/robert_f_kennedy_eyed_to_head.html">RFK Jr.</a></div><div>US Trade Representative: <a href="http://news.yahoo.com/s/cq/20081005/pl_cq_politics/politics2971172_5">Lael Brainard</a></div><div>UN Ambassador: <a href="http://www.bloggernews.net/118519">Susan Rice</a></div><div>Ambassador to the Court of St. James: <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2592704/Prepare-for-a-Kennedy-at-the-Court-of-St-Jamess.html">Caroline Kennedy</a><br /></div><div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;">Climate change Tsar: </span><a href="http://washingtontimes.com/news/2008/nov/13/no-gore-in-any-climate-czar-post/" style="color: rgb(51, 102, 204); "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;">Al Gore</span></a><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;"> (</span><a href="http://www.politico.com/static/PPM103_adminflowchart.html" style="color: rgb(51, 102, 204); "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;">Jerry McNerney</span></a><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;">)</span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;">Energy Security Council: </span><a href="http://www.politico.com/static/PPM103_adminflowchart.html" style="color: rgb(51, 102, 204); "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;">John Podesta</span></a></div></div><div><br /></div><div>Your thoughts?</div><div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div></div></div>Marcus A. Robertshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01290321894833470191noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1903958304444878174.post-19605690048024435942008-11-13T15:17:00.009-05:002008-11-13T15:29:05.603-05:00The McCain Campaign Threw in the Towel - in October<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiPE9HcS2XAnrPpSz7Bg_If3xnUNVIIfSp2VfPEhGv469xTx7zVS3fJTJGoCWjT2ew6_XBniVrXw_WrJe_3NVHqKNMVaUBl2KKdLeWoD5pmIZ1o_P9d68e4kBbiEk771HwxKl5QpzVXTSY/s1600-h/White-Flag.jpg"><img style="margin: 0px auto 10px; display: block; text-align: center; cursor: pointer; width: 320px; height: 240px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiPE9HcS2XAnrPpSz7Bg_If3xnUNVIIfSp2VfPEhGv469xTx7zVS3fJTJGoCWjT2ew6_XBniVrXw_WrJe_3NVHqKNMVaUBl2KKdLeWoD5pmIZ1o_P9d68e4kBbiEk771HwxKl5QpzVXTSY/s320/White-Flag.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5268240141946059954" border="0" /></a> <span style="font-style: italic;">October surprise?</span> <span style="font-style: italic;"></span><br /><br />Marcus has brought <a href="http://www.newsweek.com/id/167581">this fantastic article</a> to my attention. By way of passing the favor on, I direct you to the following portion:<br /><br />‘On the Sunday night before the last debate, McCain's core group of advisers—Steve Schmidt, Rick Davis, adman Fred Davis, strategist Greg Strimple, pollster Bill McInturff and strategy director Sarah Simmons—met to decide whether to tell McCain that the race was effectively over, that he no longer had a chance to win. The consensus in the room was no, not yet, not while he still had "a pulse."’<br /><br />This raises just a few questions.<br /><br />1) What<br />2) The<br />3) [deleted]?<br /><br />I won’t say “in seriousness”, because I don’t believe it’s possible to get there with this piece of inside information, but to try and be a bit analytical, I suppose the glaring question here is what, precisely, was this meeting meant to be in aid of?<br /><br />Leaving aside the ludicrous conclusion that the only standard of viability to which McCain’s senior staff appeared to hold their candidate was that he had not yet technically joined the choir invisibule, to what point and purpose this secret meeting? What if they had decided that, in fact, the race was absolutely over, and had said the same to Senator McCain? What exactly would that have accomplished, beyond demoralizing their already exhausted candidate? Let us call a spade a spade: McCain’s senior staff met to determine whether it was time to surrender.<br /><br />This, of course, begs another relevant question: how exactly does one surrender a presidential campaign? Refuse to accept electoral votes? Fire your field organizers and demand the ritual suicide of your senior staff? Refuse further contributions? Refund the money? Let your VP have a go at it? Endorse your opponent?<br /><br />The concept does, however, provide a nice end to the arch of the McCain campaign – from an <a href="http://images.politico.com/global/mccainwins.jpg">imaginary victory</a> to an impossible surrender.Frank A. Springhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03349370629984786194noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1903958304444878174.post-63321173588978533882008-11-06T17:10:00.001-05:002008-11-06T17:13:49.046-05:00How cool is this:<span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: rgb(51, 51, 51); font-family: 'Trebuchet MS'; font-size: 13px; "><a href="http://change.gov/page/s/application">http://change.gov/page/s/application</a></span>Marcus A. Robertshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01290321894833470191noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1903958304444878174.post-58826490054352055392008-11-06T14:28:00.004-05:002008-11-06T17:17:21.976-05:00Dropping the Rahm Bomb<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg756WKg8xFURTvopVFwNBh55sx5hlleQxGEX8AmKP0ox1G2543H88eEctJjs-WoEO6RLOX0mZHWA5ktp0OysgdvFmsvmshvUcO-p7BRTbTmticq8y3caPxo3TBO_tzuACS2S90Et3b8YU/s1600-h/26341656.jpg"><img style="margin: 0px auto 10px; display: block; text-align: center; cursor: pointer; width: 212px; height: 320px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg756WKg8xFURTvopVFwNBh55sx5hlleQxGEX8AmKP0ox1G2543H88eEctJjs-WoEO6RLOX0mZHWA5ktp0OysgdvFmsvmshvUcO-p7BRTbTmticq8y3caPxo3TBO_tzuACS2S90Et3b8YU/s320/26341656.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5265671171554702274" border="0" /></a> <span style="font-style: italic;">"I have three words for Congressional Republicans, and all of them are f***"</span><br /><br />Returning from Ohio in triumph (still having trouble believing I'd ever write those words), Marcus and I spoke about the Rahm Emanuel pick for Chief of Staff. Marcus has a lot of respect for Rep. Emanuel's famous abilities, but is concerned about the reports of his ferocious temper and tendency to savage subordinates. This kind of behavior is not at all in keeping with the way Obama ran his campaign and Marcus was quite understandably concerned that Obama is moving away from the core organizational values that made him the most effective presidential candidate in modern history.<br /><br />This is understandable, and I believe that President-Elect Obama is already taking steps to address this question. Before I write more, however, I should add that while Marcus respects Rahm very much, I'm more by way of being a rabid fan. My contact with Representative Emanuel has been pretty minimal, but I admire his intensity, intelligence, and aggression absolutely.<br /><br />That caveat aside, I'm prepared to admit that those same traits aren't necessarily ideal, particularly the intensity and aggression bits. Rahm has been known to lay into subordinates, emphasizing his points by stabbing them in the forehead with his finger. His gladiatorial tendencies were incredibly useful during the Dems' time out of power, when he directed a hugely <a href="http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2006/">successful 2006 offensive</a> at the Democratic Congressional Committee, then, having slain his enemies at the congressional level, took on the most powerful man in the United States -<a href="http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2007-06-24-cheney_N.htm"> the Vice President himself.</a> That same belligerence might not be such a boon in the office of a man elected on the promise of reaching across the aisle to do something other than strangle the first Republican handy.<br /><br />This, of course, is where Marcus's concerns come from, and they're not unreasonable. My initial response is to suggest that Rahm Emanuel isn't always a blood-soaked gladiator - he can be a tremendous motivator, a <a href="http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/11/why_rahm_a_message_to_and_from.php">skilled political operative</a>, and <a href="http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1108/15371.html">a gifted negotiator</a>. Further, a Chief of Staff takes on the character of his or her boss, and Emanuel is a bright man who will understand that Obama's patience for antagonistic or undisciplined staff is not in great supply.<br /><br />More than that, though, the President-elect has made some key appointments that should keep Rahm on the straight and narrow. He appointed <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/26/AR2007082601446.html">Pete Rouse</a>, Tom Daschle's former of chief of staff (who was so powerful in that position that he was called the 101st Senator, Marcus tells me, and most recently serving as chief of staff in Obama's Senate Office and on his campaign) to be Deputy Chief of Staff. Obama has also appointed chief strategist David Axelrod to a senior adviser position. Neither of these appointments is a surprise, but they're significant in that, having picked a fiery Chief of Staff, Obama immediately surrounded him by men of uncommonly even temper. My sense is that Obama is building a box around Rahm, containing his ferocious energy from exploding in all directions and pointing it at one place - Capitol Hill.Frank A. Springhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03349370629984786194noreply@blogger.com0