One of the least enjoyable aspects of getting older is the almost inevitable urge to complain about how things were better in the past. You start noticing how much more stuff costs, how you consume different cultural artifacts than younger people, how the neighborhoods and places of business you frequent have changed, and how the means by which you accomplish things in life have either become antiquated or obsolete. Before you know it, you are starting to use lots of inappropriate definite articles ("the HBO" was a favorite one of older people when I was a kid), and you sound like an old Dana Carvey character, even though none of the kids these days even know who Dana Carvey is:
That's kind of how I feel when I read articles about how the progressive blogosphere and / or netroots have changed for the worse, such as the one Big Tent Democrat put up this morning. Believe me, I understand the feeling that BTD expresses. I spent much of 2008 exasperated by a progressive Internet space that had seemingly reversed itself overnight on things like the value of triangulation, bipartisanship, appearing Fox News, allowing Joe Lieberman to keep his seniority, sending more troops to Afghanistan, retroactive immunity for telecom companies, replacing local state party organizers with ones who answer directly to the DNC, and much more. It seemed as though numerous policies and strategies that had held near-consensus stature within the progressive online ecosystem had been either scrapped or reversed simply because Barack Obama said it was a good idea to scrap or reverse them.
Back then, the urge to call people who reversed their positions lobotomized "sheeple" was almost impossible to resist--and I frequently did not resist it.
However, that is not an impulse I feel anymore. This is because I realized Barack Obama persuaded progressive activists to change their minds not because those activists are sheeple or because activist organization leaders operate in "veal pens," but rather because Obama developed new messaging that was more convincing than the likes used by myself, or BTD, or anyone else on the left who was making contrary arguments. He just beat those old arguments, plain and simple, and the progressive Internet space changed.
In response to Republican holds on key nominees, the White House continues to threaten, but not use, recess appointments:
Today, the United States Senate confirmed 27 of my high-level nominees, many of whom had been awaiting a vote for months. (...)
While this is a good first step, there are still dozens of nominees on hold who deserve a similar vote, and I will be looking for action from the Senate when it returns from recess. If they do not act, I reserve the right to use my recess appointment authority in the future.
Given that the Senate moved on 27 appointments, it would appear that the White House threat to use recess appointments has worked. Since the White House first made the threat, 29 of the 63 of the nominees facing "holds" have been cleared.
Still, I wonder if just continuing to threaten recess appointments is the most effective tactic. Perhaps making exactly one recess appointment anyway would have been the right move, demonstrating a willingness to escalate unless even more action is taken in the future.
The counter argument would be that using any recess appointments might have resulted in fewer nominees being cleared. Senate Republicans could have simply thrown the ball back in the White House's court, saying something like "well, if you are going to use recess appointments, then clear them all via recess appointments."
Since we can't save the game, play it out, and then reload trying the other approach, there is no way of knowing which tactic would have resulted in the most nominees being approved. Perhaps there would have been no difference at all. Either way, I have no doubt that there was discussion in the White House about the pros and cons of making recess appointments this weekend.
Still, it is disappointing that, once again, the White House did not adopt the more aggressive approach. Republicans have paid little to no political cost to adopting aggressive, process-oriented delay tactics. It is a good bet that the White House would not suffer at all if it adopted aggressive, process-based tactics itself.
In the end, the daily news cycle and process arguments do not resonate much with the public. A quick glance at open-ended national priority polls shows that process issues like partisanship and the filibuster, never preoccupy a significant percentage of the electorate. It is easy to get away with process, and as such it is smart to use every process means at your disposal to achieve your desired political ends.
Yesterday, Kathleen Sebelius emerged as the Obama administration's top choice to lead the department of Health and Human Services. I was disappointed, partially because I thought Rosa DeLauro would be a more effective, more progressive choice. However, Sebelius had a good run as insurance commissioner in Kansas, and is also a Governor, both of which give her solid experience for this role. And besides, at least the industry-supporting, health care-cutting Tennessee Governor Phil Bredesen didn't get the nod. So, Sebelius is both experienced, and way, way better than Bredesen.
Mainly, I was disappointed because Sebelius at HHS takes away what was by far our best chance to win Sam Brownback's open Senate seat in 2010. While we needed Sebelius to win that Senate seat, HHS didn't need Sebelius specifically, there are plenty of non-horrible Democrats who could have handled the job. This move reminds me of former Arizona Governor Janet Napolitano becoming director of Homeland Security. Not only was she our only chance to defeat John McCain for Senate in 2010, but because she has left the Arizona Governor became a Republican. So, our electoral prospects dimmed in multiple ways.
All of this makes me wonder about the thought process Napolitano and Sebelius had in accepting their new cabinet posts. Is heading up a large federal department really better than being a Governor, a Senator, or even both? It seems hard to believe, but, as I explain in the extended entry, in all likelihood it actually is.
You know, I have never seen so many Democratic activists so happy about what is apparently a major defeat for Democrats. Every blog post, and virtually every comment I read, is ecstatic. It kind of reminds me about how, after the 2006 elections, we were told that conservatives had actually won, so liberals should be upset.
Yes, it is truly awful that one less Republican will be in President Obama's cabinet. It is also "a blow" to President Obama and Democrats that Judd Gregg is so humiliated by this episode that he won't even seek re-election in 2010. And it is a terrible blow to progressives that the specific policy concerns of the three Congressional minority caucuses have more influence over White House policy than does the press corps' fascination with bipartisanship.
I'm devastated. What a huge blow. How will we ever recover from this terrible setback?
Again, this is fantastic news. Now, can we please get someone at least moderately progressive as a Commerce Secretary nominee?
Update (Chris): President Obama's statement is pretty great:
For Immediate Release February 12, 2009
STATEMENT FROM PRESS SECRETARY
ROBERT GIBBS
"Senator Gregg reached out to the President and offered his name for Secretary of Commerce. He was very clear throughout the interviewing process that despite past disagreements about policies, he would support, embrace, and move forward with the President's agenda. Once it became clear after his nomination that Senator Gregg was not going to be supporting some of President Obama's key economic priorities, it became necessary for Senator Gregg and the Obama administration to part ways. We regret that he has had a change of heart."
Update 2 (Chris): The timing of Gregg's withdrawal indicates it is part of the broader Republican attempts to oppose President Obama and the Democratic trifecta at all costs. TPM quotes a Democratic congressional staffer:
It's hard not to think that Gregg's withdrawal, with the grumbling about the census and the stimulus, was not timed to cause the most damage possible to the Obama administration. Releasing the statement just as Obama took the stage in Peoria was clearly designed to undermine the President's event. The fact he scheduled a presser only seems to confirm it. The classy exit would have been to wait til tomorrow afternoon to quietly bow out. Basically Gregg decided not just to politely decline, but rather to blow shit up and burn the bridge behind him. Do not think this portends good things for the wider political climate.
If the larger GOP strategy can be describe as putting all of their chips on "FAIL", this has to be seen as a significant addition to that pile, no?
(Via existenz in Quick Hits). Tonight, The New York Times has a new story about tomorrow's forthcoming announcement on the Obama administration's strategy for the second round of TARP money (that is, how the Obama administration will spend the second $350 billion of the Wall Street bailout). If the story is correct, it appears the corporatists in the Obama administration have prevailed over the populists / leftists in the administration on most areas of bailout strategy. This includes, most importantly, placing minimum to no conditions on how bailout recipients spend money, and a decision for the government to not take operational control of any banks.
The story is also a classic case of exactly why cabinet appointments make a huge difference in determining policy. Rather than all appointees simply following orders from President Obama, they take part in a vigorous debate on policy. In this case, corporatist Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner appears to have won on virtually all counts, even over senior administration advisors such as David Axelrod.
Current rumors on President Obama's candidate to head the department of Health and Human Services seem to be focusing on three candidates: Tennessee Governor Phil Bredesen, Connecticut Congresswoman Rosa DeLauro, and Kansas Govenror Kathleen Sebelius.
Kathleen Sebelius has emerged as a top contender, according to a "senior administration official" in what was undoubtedly a trial balloon style leak. She wouldn't be bad, as she has experience as insurance commissioner in Kansas. However, in moving to HHS, she would take away our only real shot at winning a Senate seat in 2010. Also, this might actually be an issue where major connections inside Congress are required, and Sebelius lacks that compared to DeLauro. She is probably less progressive than DeLauro, too.
While there haven't been any news reports on it that I can find, rumors are that Phil Bredesen visited the White House last week about the position. Even without confirmation of his visit, it is well known that Bredesen is under consideration. As a health care cutting Governor in bed with the insurance industry, Bredesen would simply be a terrible, awful choice for HHS. Rumors of his consideration have sparked a backlash from health care advocates, something that cannot be said about either Sebelius or DeLauro.
Lots of other names have been floated, including an active campaign to support Howard Dean for HHS, but these are the only three names I have seen associated with direct White House consideration.
If anyone else can find news stories linking any other names with actual White House consideration, rather than random speculation or advocacy group support, please list them in the comments.
Update: Oregon Senator Ron Wyden might also be in the mix. However, the main news story that started such speculation doesn't seem to connect him to actual consideration, just "one of several prominently mentioned in Washington, D.C., health-policy circles and in news stories and blogs." Also, the speculation has not been followed up with an recent buzz.
Wyden could be a decent pick, but he is so tied to specific health care legislation--The Healthy America Act--that I'm not sure he really works for the Obama administration.
My only reaction to Daschle's withdrawal from Health and Human Services is that I wish either Treasury Secretary Geithner or Defense Secretary Gates had been defeated, too.
Giethner, like Daschle, had tax issues, and yet he was confirmed by the Senate. Now, he is about to light hundreds of billions of dollars on fire as part of the biggest corporate welfare program in history. He also worked with the Bush administration in handling the first $350 billion of the bailout.
The three largest federal departments, in terms of budget outlays, are easily Treasury, Defense, and Health and Human Services. While I don't want to defend Daschle, I do wonder why nominees for the two other large federal departments--both of whom were directly tied to the Bush administration, both of whom have ethical questions, and both of whom are currently lighting hundreds of billions of dollars on fire--passed and Daschle was defeated. Why did Daschle have to fall on his sword, but Gates and Geithner did not? It is a worthwhile question to ask, and one of the few thoughts I have on the Daschle story.
All three of the Obama transition team leads charged with reviewing the Department of Transportation are privatization advocates. Not only that, but their private sector activities suggest that they stand to profit substantially from further privatization of the nation's transportation infrastructure (highways, bridges, tunnels, and so on).
Quick update on the possibility of Democrats reaching sixty seats in the Senate, and thus theoretically having enough Senators to render Republican filibusters impossible.
Anonymous Democratic sources indicate that New Hampshire Republican Senator, Judd Gregg, is now the leading choice for Commerce Secretary.
However, anonymous Republican sources indicate that Gregg would never accept the position unless he was replaced by a Republican in the Senate.
The Case for Becoming a Spacefaring Society:
Proposals for an Integrated US Space Policy by Jonathan Goff and Ferris Valyn
Throughout history, mankind has learned to master the environments around itself-developing new technologies to harness the elements to better our lives, improve our health and wellbeing, protect ourselves from others, and learn more about our position in the universe. In the past, mastering new environments, such as the developing of seafaring or aeronautics, has lead directly to substantial benefits for those nations which have chosen to take the lead.
While we have started to explore the next great environment-outer space and the planetary bodies of our solar system-such exploration by itself will not lead to a spacefaring society. The development of a truly spacefaring society-one that can master and tame this new environment, and harness its resources-is a more compelling vision than exploration alone, one that holds the potential for far greater benefits to our nation.
We strongly urge the new administration to make the development of a spacefaring society the focus of our nation's space policy.
From various news reports, it appears that President-elect Obama is beginning his final selection for NASA administrator. While I don’t have any specific names, I do have a few suggestions as to the qualities that the next NASA administrator should have.
So, the day after I break my left arm, Open Left crashes. Great. At least I'm getting all of 2009's bad luck out of the way early. Here are some items for Monday:
Beyond these articles, I don't know all that much about her, but anyone who can write this, in this unapologetic, euphemism-free and even impolitic tone, warning that the problem isn't merely John Yoo but Bush himself, repeatedly demanding "outrage," criticizing the Democratic Congress for legalizing Bush's surveillance program, arguing that we cannot merely "move on" if we are to restore our national honor, stating the OLC's "core job description" is to "say 'no' to the President," all while emphasizing that the danger is unchecked power not just for the Bush administration but "for years and administrations to come" -- and to do so in the middle of an election year when she knows she has a good chance to be appointed to a high-level position if the Democratic candidate won and yet nonetheless eschewed standard, obfuscating Beltway politesse about these matters -- is someone whose appointment to such an important post is almost certainly a positive sign. No praise is due Obama until he actually does things that merit praise, but it's hard not to consider this encouraging.
On December, Democrats extended their lead on Republicans in partisan self-identification to 8.7%, according to Rasmussen. That is our biggest lead since June, and bigger than any lead Democrats have held outside of the extended Clinton vs. Obama primary contest.
The Minnesota Supreme Court has rejected a key lawsuit from Norm Coleman, denying him his last chance to win. Franken will be declared the winner later today, but it still may take a while to get him into the Senate.
Tax cuts are being piled onto the stimulus in order to win Republican support. These cuts are now larger than Bush's, and are not just of the middle-class variety. Not good. We don't need Republican support, but Obama is seeking it anyway. My best guess is that this is a repeat of the Democratic leadership's strategy on the bailout. This way, Republicans won't be able to be able to say "I told you so" if it doesn't work, or if it becomes unpopular. Bad idea if you ask me, since we will be blamed if the country doesn't turn around, no matter what.
Or, maybe Obama considers bipartisanship good for its own sake, which would be sad.
But isn't it inherent in what President-elect Obama has done with his Cabinet - selecting so many strong personalities in his "Team of Rivals," including four former primary opponents - that one will maybe occasionally wander off the reservation?
"I think the far greater risk is assembling a group of people that whenever the president opens their mouth they all nod their heads in agreement," Gibbs said. The president-elect "wants and expects there to be disagreement within that room."
Twenty thousand people participated in the first user-generated press conference, which allowed the public to write and rank questions. The bailout, civil liberties and marijuana legalization were popular topics. The transition team's Internet director, Macon Phillips, said the queries "weren't only ones you'd expect from supporters, which is a good thing." Phillips did Internet outreach for the campaign, but he stressed that the objectives have shifted. "In the campaign we were organizing people. Now it's more conversational, trying to listen and engage people that weren't engaged in the campaign."
Over the past few months, Obama staff and supporters have sometimes taken on a totalitarian tone in response to Democratic and progressive criticism of Obama. You are probably familiar with the tunes in this pitch:
Or, just shut up to anyone who criticizes us at all, mostly famously from Obama advisors Hildebrand and Plouffe.
This tone is impossible to miss if you have lived online over the past year. However, through it all, the Obama campaign has both maintained a clear, public stance in favor of intra-party disagreement and, even more importantly, continued to create spaces (MyBO, Change.gov) that allowed for such disagreement (although the circumvention of Joe Anthony is a real exception). This has long been one of the fundamental tensions within the broader Obama movement, as an often top-down campaign met up with the largest grassroots activist outpouring in this country for about three decades. This tension is never going to disappear, as there will always be internal progressive and Democratic criticism of Obama, just as there will always be those Obama supporters who lash out against any such criticism for it's very existence. The important thing is that the spaces that allow for communication of disagreement remain intact. So far, that is something the Obama transition has definitely accomplished and, as the above quotes show, even openly sought out and encouraged. That is something they need to be congratulated and thanked for, and a reason to be positive heading into next year.
(Via VLaszlo in Quick Hits.) Sixteen years ago, President Clinton had some politically costly run-ins with the Pentagon early on in his presidency. Both "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," and Somalia were damaging to him in his first couple months, with Pentagon officials even referring to that time period as the "taming" of Bill Clinton. Obama appears to be doing whatever he can to avoid a similar fate, even if it means keeping a large number of Pentagon political appointees for an undetermined period of time:
Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates is asking many of the Bush administration's 250 Pentagon political appointees to remain on the job until the incoming Obama administration finds replacements -- a move designed to prevent a leadership vacuum with U.S. troops engaged in wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
The unusual request by Mr. Gates, whom President-elect Barack Obama has asked to continue in his Cabinet post, ensures that key policy positions will not be left to "acting" subordinates as typically occurs when political appointees are directed to resign during a presidential transition.
"I have received authorization from the president-elect's transition team to extend a number of Department of Defense political appointees an invitation to voluntarily remain in their current positions until replaced," Mr. Gates said in a Friday e-mail.
The chance to stay is "available to all willing political appointees with the exception of those who are contacted individually and told otherwise," he said.
Now, not al of the 250 political appointees are staying, as at least the second and third top positions at the Pentagon are being replaced. Also, it is likely that those who will stay on will be replaced fairly soon, given the wording of the email. However, given that Obama named his cabinet faster than any other President-elect, this slower transition at the Pentagon is indicative of a different strategy for the Department of Defense than for other areas of the government.
Now, if I am right, and Obama is engaging in a slower Pentagon transition in order to try and avoid politically costly fights with the Pentagon ala the early months of Clinton's Presidency, I am not sure why keeping either Gates or Bush political appointees on is the right approach. It seems to me that if anyone is likely to attempt sabotage of the early months of the Obama administration, it will be Bush political appointees at the Pentagon. In fact, this is already taking place in the form of the expansive military budget increases proposed by the Gates-led Pentagon. Such increases would seriously hamper Obama's ability to re-direct federal spending away from Bush-era patterns. Keeping on the people who have proposed said increases does not strike me as a good sign.
So, perhaps something else is going on with the slow transition at the Pentagon. Maybe it really just is wha the Washington Times says it is: the Obama team doesn't want any vacant positions, so they are asking people to stay on until the day their replacement arrives. I'm not sure why it is taking so long for those replacements to arrive. Whatever is going on, I can't say I am happy with any Bush political appointees sticking around. They caused the problem, now it is time for them to go.
STATE BLOGS
Current rumors on President Obama's candidate to head the department of Health and Human Services seem to be focusing on three candidates: Tennessee Governor Phil Bredesen, Connecticut Congresswoman Rosa DeLauro, and Kansas Govenror Kathleen Sebelius.