What I'd like to know: (4.00 / 1)

Will Obama still give his "full-throated support" to Specter if Specter continues to vote like a Republican, as he did today by voting against Obama's budget?

It's way too early to ask this question, of course, since Specter and the Dems are in a honeymoon period. But if Specter contributes to filibusters and otherwise hinders the Obama agenda, what's the point of having him in the caucus? Seeing 60 names with a D next to them is great, but doesn't mean squat if one of them continues to act against the party.

I think Obama and the other Dems are crossing their fingers that Specter will be like Jeffords and start voting more liberally. Because it will be mighty awkward in the 2010 primary if Specter is seen to have filibustered some Obama judges or tried to stop other priorities. Specter owes his future political viability to the Democratic party, so he'd better fall in line.

It's notable that other Democrat senators are already unhappy that Specter might bump ahead of them in seniority.

Privately, some Senate Democrats are even grumbling that Specter should cede seniority because they rescued his career. Facing a tough primary challenge from former Rep. Pat Toomey, Specter was considered a political corpse. Now that he's switched parties, he's been revived, and critics feel he should be thanking them, not taking their seats.

---

by: existenz @ Wed Apr 29, 2009 at 19:00:28 PM CDT

I think the fair point is this (4.00 / 1)

But if Specter contributes to filibusters and otherwise hinders the Obama agenda, what's the point of having him in the caucus?

In 18 or so months he will be judged by the democrats in Pennsylvania.   If those democrats want him in the party, then that is their right.

He shouldn't be getting any seniority though.  Personally I'd like to see Al Franken be senior to him.

http://transgendermom.blogspot....

---

by: transgenmom @ Wed Apr 29, 2009 at 19:37:14 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

What is the process for replacing Reid? (0.00 / 0)

I'm horrifically ignorant; what is the process for replacing the majority leader?  Because apparently this is the deal Reid cut with Specter; that he's to keep his seniority.

Am I confused in assuming this could mean that instead of a solid Dem committee chair, we could potentially end up with a Republican, oops, I mean a "conservative Democrat" as chair?  Because if this is the case, I really don't see how this helps anything.  

Reid sucks.  He's got to go.  What horrible political instincts/strategy/planning/framing/implementation.

Republicans can't fix our country; they're too busy saddlebacking.

---

by: Ms Bluezone @ Wed Apr 29, 2009 at 20:26:11 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

It's up to the caucus (0.00 / 0)

And they really seem to like him.  So I've always preferred the theory that the poor decisions by Reid are not so representative that he's a bad leader, but that they're not such a hot group.  Anyone else who could win the support of a majority of the Dem Caucus would do much the same, I think.

If his bad decisions were pissing them off enough, I think someone would have challenged him for Majority leader at the start of the 111th.

---

by: Daniel De Groot @ Wed Apr 29, 2009 at 21:22:02 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

The Public Option (0.00 / 0)

I saw in a quote that restated support for a public option (indirectly); so that is a very welcome sign for me.

---

by: glacierpeaks @ Wed Apr 29, 2009 at 23:54:59 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

If he filibusters, he's history (4.00 / 1)

Specter will likely keep voting relatively conservatively. But if he isn't a reliable vote for cloture when he's needed, he's going to piss off a lot of senators, including many who aren't keen on giving Specter full seniority.

And he's going to create a narrative that he's still a Republican in all but name.

If he wants to filibuster, he's going to need the cover of at least one Democrat at all times.

Forgotten Countries - a foreign policy-focused blog

---

by: Englishlefty @ Wed Apr 29, 2009 at 20:35:33 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

there's gotta be a deal... (0.00 / 0)

The budget vote and his opposition to EFCA must have been grandfathered in, just because he'd look a shade too douchey immediately reversing his position on those two items. And it's not like his vote was needed to pass the budget. The test will come on health care. Apparently Obama and Reid were quite happy to have Specter join their team, and the only reason I can think of that it is of any benefit to them whatsoever is that they've gotten assurances that he'll support them on major legislation.

Now, I wouldn't put it past Reid to make a crappy deal just for the hell of it. But Obama is nothing if not a rational actor, and I can't imagine why he'd be pleased to have Specter join the team, and thereby snuff out the chance of getting a real democrat from PA in 2010, if he wasn't quite confident that it would benefit his agenda.

---

by: Chachy @ Thu Apr 30, 2009 at 00:02:34 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

And why pray tell do (4.00 / 4)

Obama and the Democrats even need Specter's vote on health care reform, given that it is supposedly going to be handled in reconciliation, requiring only 51 votes?

Or have the spineless Democrats decided that they didn't want to confront the Republicans petulant whining over doing health care reform in reconciliation? Have they decided instead they will take any kind of health care reform, however watered down it will have to be to get fully 60 votes, just to avoid that the fate worse than death, which is to show some stones?  

---

by: frankly0 @ Thu Apr 30, 2009 at 00:08:12 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

51 is too many (0.00 / 0)

They need to pass healthcare with 50+Biden. If they have 51, they should keep improving the bill until they're back to 50+Biden.

Remember it was PROMSIED to be "the same healthcare coverage offered to members of congress" - and you know that even 50+Biden won't give us that.

---

by: obsessed @ Thu Apr 30, 2009 at 06:07:37 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Could be Obama trying for too much (0.00 / 0)

Remember the stimulus, where he wanted 80 votes, and had to cut about $100bn each for Specter, Snowe and Collins to break 60?

It might be that he's trying to do something like that again.

Which is obscenely stupid, because fixing healthcare should not be a bipartisan project. It should be a rigidly partisan project, so that you can get the best bill that's possible and so that you can then beat the crap out of the Republicans for opposing it for the next decade.

Forgotten Countries - a foreign policy-focused blog

---

by: Englishlefty @ Thu Apr 30, 2009 at 18:19:59 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

here's the transcript from today's "town hall" -- (0.00 / 0)

http://www.cqpolitics.com/wmsp...

(lots of boilerplate and non-answers -- and he repeated yet again that Medicare and Medicare are too expensive and SS needs changes)

---

by: amberglow @ Wed Apr 29, 2009 at 19:06:05 PM CDT

Well those programs do need changes. (0.00 / 0)

---

by: Micheline @ Wed Apr 29, 2009 at 20:00:08 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Right on (0.00 / 0)

We need cost containment at the care-delivery level.  Medicare, Medicaid and private insurance are all too expensive because the delivery of care is too expensive -- waste, fraud and abuse are going on, sure, and medical errors. But there's a whole bunch of admin costs that still need to be wrung out of the payment-transaction process (it's mostly still paper being handed around). And there's so much duplication of services because of poor communication from one provider to the next.  "We can't find your X-rays from two weeks ago, but never mind, we'll just take them again because Medicare/Medicaid/your insurer will pay for it."

Yesterday, I thought it was highly impressive that the first of the three stages of the health reform plan released for public perusal was the one that covered cost containment. The administration and Congress both get it about where the priorities lie.  I am highly, highly optimistic.

---

by: gas28man @ Thu Apr 30, 2009 at 08:44:52 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

well I like the economic stuff so far (0.00 / 0)

Making the right noises about not just returning to the status quo ante clusterfuck of greed.  

---

by: Daniel De Groot @ Wed Apr 29, 2009 at 19:06:33 PM CDT

ok, first question is a wingnut meme (0.00 / 0)

Close the mexican border...after the flu is already loose in the US.

---

by: Daniel De Groot @ Wed Apr 29, 2009 at 19:10:45 PM CDT

"not closing border" is not based on science -- it's based on money -- (0.00 / 0)

it's based on keeping "free trade" flowing, and the costs to businesses.

---

by: amberglow @ Wed Apr 29, 2009 at 19:11:26 PM CDT

Q to President Obama (0.00 / 0)

(from Chuck Todd):  Why are the Poor & Middle Class NOT paying their fair share of taxes????????????

---

by: mariann @ Wed Apr 29, 2009 at 19:11:40 PM CDT

what a tool! (0.00 / 0)

---

by: The Big Hurt @ Wed Apr 29, 2009 at 19:37:00 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I don't remember that question (4.00 / 1)

Chuck Todd asked about Pakistan, not taxes. Did you make that question up, because I didn't hear any questions about taxes.

---

by: existenz @ Wed Apr 29, 2009 at 20:07:44 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Swine Flu is the New Terror Threat (0.00 / 0)

Be afraid. Be very afraid.

---

by: wanderindiana @ Wed Apr 29, 2009 at 19:13:16 PM CDT

Torture Question - good stuff (4.00 / 3)

Obama is dodging, but he did at least straight up state waterboarding is torture, but he's avoiding the obvious follow through that he must prosecute his predecessor for doing it.

---

by: Daniel De Groot @ Wed Apr 29, 2009 at 19:20:01 PM CDT

Torture Question (0.00 / 0)

I'd like to watch that exchange again. I don't think anyone asked about prosecution, even in the follow-up question.

---

by: fisaed @ Wed Apr 29, 2009 at 19:29:03 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

it was in the initial question (0.00 / 0)

But Obama ignored that part because it was actually several questions so it gave him the chance to omit an answer to that part.

---

by: Daniel De Groot @ Wed Apr 29, 2009 at 19:35:50 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

here's Todd! on Pakistan -- (0.00 / 0)

we need to be assured the US can secure their nukes??

Obama puts the responsibility on their army (that's where their ex-dictator Musharraf came from with his coup just before -- not sure that's reassuring)

---

by: amberglow @ Wed Apr 29, 2009 at 19:25:39 PM CDT

doesn't that guy who sells the world nuke stuff come from Pakistan? (0.00 / 0)

supposedly he's the one who sold info to Iran and N. Korea or something? no?

---

by: amberglow @ Wed Apr 29, 2009 at 19:27:49 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Fledgling democracy (4.00 / 1)

The army is still the real power in Pakistan. Zardari is a very weak figure.

---

by: fisaed @ Wed Apr 29, 2009 at 19:32:51 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

so shouldn't we be strengthening the non-military, and not pouring billions of arms and aid (0.00 / 0)

into the military?

do they want another coup? is that Obama's preferred solution there?

---

by: amberglow @ Wed Apr 29, 2009 at 19:42:48 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

obama on specter (0.00 / 0)

he has a record of legislative accomplishment as good as anyone in the Senate

what? as good as ted kennedy?

---

by: The Big Hurt @ Wed Apr 29, 2009 at 19:32:03 PM CDT

live transcript link anyone? (0.00 / 0)

maybe I misheard something?

---

by: The Big Hurt @ Wed Apr 29, 2009 at 19:35:20 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

nope -- that's what he said (0.00 / 0)

-- ugh.

there'll be a transcript soon at CQ Politics. they're very quick with them.

---

by: amberglow @ Wed Apr 29, 2009 at 19:43:59 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

transcript available (0.00 / 0)

http://www.cqpolitics.com/wmsp...

OBAMA: Well, first of all, I think very highly of Arlen Specter . I think he's got a record of legislative accomplishment that is as good as any member of the Senate.

---

by: The Big Hurt @ Wed Apr 29, 2009 at 20:52:40 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

the abortion boilerplate was terrible during the campaign (4.00 / 1)

and still is --

calling women's rights and autonomy over their bodies a strawman is nauseating on multiple levels.

---

by: amberglow @ Wed Apr 29, 2009 at 19:40:41 PM CDT

the "woman's autonomy" argument IS a strawman (4.00 / 1)

It ignores that a strong case can be made for giving at least some fetuses rights.

---

by: Chachy @ Wed Apr 29, 2009 at 22:25:29 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

no -- there is no case to give non-living things rights -- at all -- esp if it infringes on (4.00 / 1)

the rights of those alive.

---

by: amberglow @ Thu Apr 30, 2009 at 12:28:58 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Melissa McEwan's post on this is particularly good: (4.00 / 1)

http://shakespearessister.blog...

"Obama doesn't "want create straw men here," so instead he just creates a straw-woman, that mysterious yet ubiquitous pro-choice activist who "suggest[s] that this is simply an issue about women's freedom and that there's no other considerations." You know, the funny thing about that straw-woman is that she always seems to be invoked by ostensibly pro-choice men who seem to regard women's freedom-or, more accurately, women's autonomy, agency, and ownership of their own bodies-as the least important part of the abortion debate.

And if you're wondering if our president is one of those men, note his deeply unthrilling juxtaposition between "abortion is a moral issue and an ethical issue" and "those who are pro-choice make a mistake when they ... suggest that this is simply an issue about women's freedom and that there's no other considerations." He invokes that straw-woman who only cares about "women's freedom" specifically to lecture her on centralizing the moral component of abortion, because he has not internalized the idea that women's autonomy, agency, and ownership of their own bodies is itself a moral issue central to the abortion debate.

He then asserts that the reason he is pro-choice "is because I don't think women take that-that position casually," except, apparently, the pro-choice activist straw-women he just needed to scold in front of the nation to make sure everyone understands what a bipartisan hero he is. Suffice it to say I'm not happy that he feels obliged to invent heartless pro-choice activists who don't care about women who get abortions when they don't want to-because they have no other choices, because they're under- or unemployed, because they lack healthcare, because they lack daycare, because they lack the ability to care for themselves or existing children-just so that he can construct a false balance between pro-choicers who are wrong on the issue and anti-choicers who are wrong on the issue and cast himself as the Great Bipartisan Unaffected Observer Who's Going to Find the Common Ground."

About sums it up. I know that she's had issues with David, but we're not 12, and she's expressed herself extraordinarily well here.

---

by: sb @ Thu Apr 30, 2009 at 12:40:26 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

"women's autonomy, agency, and ownership of their own bodies" is exactly the point, but it's a rights issue, (0.00 / 0)

not a moral one -- in terms of government and laws and rights, which is the only focus that should matter in terms of a president.

all this "moral" talking on both sides is simply inviting religion into our government, i'd say.

and the whole issue is absolutely ireconciliable morally anyway.

---

by: amberglow @ Fri May 01, 2009 at 06:49:47 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

"Why should he be seeking "consensus" on women's rights?" (0.00 / 0)

-- http://susiemadrak.com/2009/04... ==

...  I did catch the part where he made it clear that women's reproductive rights aren't a current priority but placating the anti-choice movement is (believe it or not, Mr. President, an unwanted pregnancy is a pretty big economic crisis for most women):

... Why should he be seeking "consensus" on women's rights? Do we now allow people's opinions to determine whether we have rights? Hmm. ...

---

by: amberglow @ Fri May 01, 2009 at 07:36:14 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

fetuses are non-living things? (0.00 / 0)

That's not plausible at all. And an unnecessary condition for arguing that something doesn't deserve rights, anyway - I mean, bacteria don't deserve rights; I don't think blastocysts deserve rights. But they're most certainly living things. Just like a third trimester fetus who, I think, deserves some rights.

---

by: Chachy @ Thu Apr 30, 2009 at 15:05:31 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

not according to our laws or government, which is all Obama and other officials should be concerned with -- (0.00 / 0)

fetuses are not people.

fetuses don't have rights.

if you want to change our laws, go ahead. The President is supposed to uphold our laws and Constitution, not ignore our laws.

---

by: amberglow @ Fri May 01, 2009 at 06:46:35 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

horrible and non-answering on African-American unemployment -- (0.00 / 0)

awful.

---

by: amberglow @ Wed Apr 29, 2009 at 19:51:13 PM CDT

state secrets -- he inherited the Bush position so that's why they are using it now ?!? (0.00 / 0)

and he's gonna keep using it.

---

by: amberglow @ Wed Apr 29, 2009 at 19:53:33 PM CDT

Yeah (4.00 / 2)

his argument:

I think it is appropriate to say that there are going to be cases in which national security interests are genuinely at stake and that you can't litigate without revealing covert activities or classified information that would genuinely compromise our safety.

But searching for ways to redact, to carve out certain cases, to see what can be done so that a judge in chambers can review information without it being in open court, you know, there should be some additional tools so that it's not such a blunt instrument.

Basically, he's clearly stating his own support for throwing out certain cases just because they refer to state secrets that supposedly can't be revealed, even redacted, even only to the judge in his chambers.

So can we now announce that it's official that this is not 11-dimensional chess, in which Obama's DOJ is arguing for the Bush state secrets policy just so it can be overturned?  

---

by: frankly0 @ Thu Apr 30, 2009 at 00:23:09 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

It's possible in principle that (0.00 / 0)

the passage I quoted from Obama might have another interpretation.

God knows it is quite a mess -- pretty damn confusing for a Constitutional Law Professor.

But it's hard not to read that first paragraph as saying that there are going to be some cases which should just not be allowed to be litigated for reasons of national security. The second paragraph seems to be saying that he'd like to make it possible not to use the "blunt instrument" of simply throwing out the case, but rather find "additional tools" beyond redaction and reading in a judges chambers so that a case can be tried. (Of course, he has no suggestions on this score, so it can as easily be read as an empty promise.)

---

by: frankly0 @ Thu Apr 30, 2009 at 00:44:05 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

wsj reporter calling obama chief shareholder (4.00 / 1)

Umm, that would be the taxpayers who are the shareholders, not the president.

---

by: wanderindiana @ Wed Apr 29, 2009 at 19:54:42 PM CDT

Yeah (0.00 / 0)

He's more analogous to Chairman of the Board.

---

by: Daniel De Groot @ Wed Apr 29, 2009 at 21:22:55 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

so, we learned : torture is a "mistake" but we got information? (it works, he said), (0.00 / 0)

DHS is working on immigration,

...

anything else new?

---

by: amberglow @ Wed Apr 29, 2009 at 20:07:01 PM CDT

This really stuns me: (4.00 / 1)

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05...

Is it true that "Larry Summers is the new Bob Reich?" I know the question was asked by the author, but the comments by the President on who his economic advisors are really amazes me. Tell me what you think.

Its also news that the President doesn't see a need for Glass-Steagall.

---

by: glacierpeaks @ Wed Apr 29, 2009 at 20:30:20 PM CDT

re glass-steagall (0.00 / 0)

Can you be more specific? I just went through a transcript of the presser and didn't see this mentioned.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/worl...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/worl...

---

by: wanderindiana @ Wed Apr 29, 2009 at 21:19:47 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

He says that (4.00 / 2)

Canada doesn't have it in place, and yet they have fared this crisis relatively well due to other regulations.

Fair enough. And worthy of investigation.

However, I get nervous because we always hear how 1) we had regulatory failure 2) we are entering a new age that will require more regulation, 3) however, regulation such as G-S that worked in the past, but was swept away by the neo-liberals, does not need to be re-instated because we have newer, better, tougher regulation that 4) we never hear specifically what that is.

And I want people to read the section where he is talking about his advisors. He points to the fact that two of his five economic advisors are not Rubinites as a sign that  he has a diverse group. He then goes on to say that he doesn't need someone with a starkly different opinion like Bob Reich, because Larry Summers is very good at making Reich's point (so why have Reich in the room?).

Truly odd; truly blind.

---

by: glacierpeaks @ Wed Apr 29, 2009 at 21:44:51 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

To be fair (0.00 / 0)

he said that Summers and Reich were not as far apart in their views as in the '90s. However, that is still an argument for not hearing the differences. I thought this guy was the Great Listener.

Oh, and if we include Goolsbee, then that means that AG, LS, TG, and Orszag are roughly in the same alignment, with Bernstein and perhaps Romer representing "outside opinions".

---

by: glacierpeaks @ Wed Apr 29, 2009 at 21:47:34 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I enjoyed this press conference (0.00 / 0)

I think it was a lot more informative and interesting than the last two.

My highlights: He stated that waterboarding was torture, and made the point that even during the Blitz the Brits didn't use it. It was pretty clear from his answer that he was stating that the previous administration made torture an official policy.

As far as the Blitz reference, I'm guessing he was referring to this 2006 column in the British Times, which was just recently highlighted on Andrew Sullivan's blog:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/t...

So maybe Obama reads Andrew Sullivan's blog, huh? I'm not surprised.

His state secrets answers will earn some scoffing from Greenwald, but if Obama and Holder really are planning to stop using it and/or modify its use, I'd love to see it. At least he's more ambivalent about the issue and willing to think it over some more.

Overall, much better questions than usual and solid answers all-around.

---

by: existenz @ Wed Apr 29, 2009 at 21:11:49 PM CDT

There's a reason we didn't use it during the Blitz (0.00 / 0)

We didn't have any German prisoners. We'd lost all our battles up until then. Whereas the Germans had a tidy haul of our prisoners from the Dunkirk campaign.

So if he is reading Andrew Sullivan, he's got his history wrong. But enough of my not strictly relevant griping.

It's good that he's rejecting torture, but that ought to be the bare standard to not be impeached. His answers on state secrets still just aren't satisfactory. Star chambers just don't fit with a democracy.

Forgotten Countries - a foreign policy-focused blog

---

by: Englishlefty @ Thu Apr 30, 2009 at 18:16:21 PM CDT

[ Parent ]