Open Left - Transition

Are Cabinet Positions Better Than Statewide Office?

Chris Bowers — Thu, 19 Feb 2009 17:58:04 GMT

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.
Here are ~~four~~ five good reasons why it is better to be a Cabinet Secretary than a Governor, a Senator, or both:

Don't have to run for office: One clear advantage being a cabinet Secretary has over statewide office is that you don't have to run a full blown electoral campaign. Given the amount of time that takes these days, being a cabinet Secretary allows you to actually govern, rather than perpetually campaign.
No real chance you will lose: As long as you are an elected official who, because of her past campaigns, has already been thoroughly vetted, there is no real chance you will lose the spot. Given that there is always a decent chance you will lose a statewide campaign as a Democrat in a red state, this is a big step up.
No slowly climbing the seniority ladder: Even if Sebelius or Napolitano were willing to run a year long Senate campaign, and even if they were fortunate enough to win, upon entering the Senate they would start behind at least 55 other Democrats on the seniority ladder. When you are already around 60 years old, I don't blame you if you want to start at the top of an organization, rather than at the bottom.
Power centralizing in federal government: As Daniel de Groot showed back on New Year's Eve, governmental expenditures are now highly centralized at the federal level. As such, running a federal department, espeically large departments like HHS and Homeland Security, actually gives you more power than being the Governor of a mid-sized state.
You get to work with the President: While Senators and Representatives seem to drool over meetings with the President, a cabinet Secretary will work with the President on a regular basis. In fact, the President asked you to come work with him on a major department of the federal government. It is probably hard to over-estimate the appeal of that prospect.

In short, while I am still disappointed Sebelius and Napolitano are going to be Cabinet Secretaries rather than sitting Governors running for U.S. Senate, I can't say I blame them for the decisions they made. All told, being a cabinet secretary does seem like a better deal.

How, Exactly, Is Gregg "A Blow" to President Obama?

Chris Bowers — Fri, 13 Feb 2009 00:49:53 GMT

Have you heard? Judd Gregg's withdrawal is a "blow" to the Obama administration! That's what Judy Woodruff told me tonight on the News Hour, anyway.

And she's not the only one. The New York Times also thinks that "Mr. Gregg's withdrawal was the latest blow for the White House." The Washington Post writes that this is "a major blow" and the Wall Street Journal claims that Gregg's withdrawal is "another embarrassing blow to the Obama administration."

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?

BREAKING: Judd Gregg Withdraws

David Sirota — Thu, 12 Feb 2009 21:19:37 GMT

CNN is reporting that Judd Gregg just withdrew his nomination for Commerce Secretary. That's huge news - and hugely good news. As reported here at OpenLeft, Gregg wants to slash Social Security and is an ardent free-market fundamentalist and would have had control over a large portion of the government's economic enforcement apparatus. He was under the shadow of the Abramoff investigation, and he and the far-right were demanding near-unilateral control over the Census, which will be crucial for the 2010 redistricting battle.

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."

Since Gregg will not run for re-election, this works out very well.

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?

Sounds exactly right.

New Bailout Strategy: Corporatist Victory

Chris Bowers — Tue, 10 Feb 2009 04:00:00 GMT

(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.

More in the extended entry.
From the story, emphasis mine:

The Obama administration's new plan to bail out the nation's banks was fashioned after a spirited internal debate that pitted the Treasury secretary, Timothy F. Geithner, against some of the president's top political hands.

In the end, Mr. Geithner largely prevailed in opposing tougher conditions on financial institutions that were sought by presidential aides, including David Axelrod, a senior adviser to the president, according to administration and Congressional officials.

Mr. Geithner, who will announce the broad outlines of the plan on Tuesday, successfully fought against more severe limits on executive pay for companies receiving government aid.

He resisted those who wanted to dictate how banks would spend their rescue money. And he prevailed over top administration aides who wanted to replace bank executives and wipe out shareholders at institutions receiving aid.

Some details of the plan are still unclear. However, assuming operational control of many financial institutions, for which so many oft-correct economists have called, is clearly lacking from the plan. While that was always a longshot, the lack of stricter conditions on how bailout money is spent, and even on tougher conditions on executive compensation (although some recently laws passed by Congress might over-ride that decision), is particularly disappointing. Those changes to TARP were actually within reach.

The current plan appears to have at least one positive: it won't result in the administration asking for even more bailout money, as many had originally feared (hoped?). Also, there won't be any "bad bank," as I had strongly feared. However, private investors will apparently receive subsidies so that they can purchase the toxic assets on their own. Thus, it is still a form of "cash for trash." Also, unlike most investors, the government will not receive any operational over the institutions that take its money.

Obviously, since the final decision on how to proceed still rests with President Obama, he shoulders at least equal blame as Treasury Secretary Geithner. Along with his decision to keep Robert Gates on as Secretary of Defense, this new bailout strategy strikes me as Barack Obama's second major error in what has otherwise been a very strong Presidency.

HHS Rumors Focus on Bredesen, DeLauro, Sebelius

Chris Bowers — Mon, 09 Feb 2009 20:00:59 GMT

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.

Rosa DeLauro is quickly becoming a favorite candidate of progressive health care reform advocates. She is the second-highest ranking woman in the House of Representatives, is extremely close to the issue, is a member of the Progressive Caucus, and Rahm Emanuel actually lives in her basement. Two sources claim that she is under consideration by the White House.
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.

Too Bad It Wasn't Geithner Or Gates

Chris Bowers — Tue, 03 Feb 2009 18:30:42 GMT

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.

Robert Gates does not have any tax issues that I know of, but he did spend several years producing erroneous intelligence on the Soviet Union. Also, White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel has argued that the Department of Defense, which Gates manages, has $300 billion of cost over-runs every year. Again, that is a lot of money to set on fire.

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.

Privatization advocates led Obama transportation review effort

kevinc — Mon, 02 Feb 2009 03:44:34 GMT

The privatization of transportation infrastructure was supposed to be a Bush administration goal, but based on my (LittleSis-powered) review of Obama's transition team, it is a major priority of the new administration, as well.

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).
On Thursday I profiled Mort Downey, a well-regarded transportation expert, as a "quiet name" - an influential decisionmaker who operates behind the scenes, out of the public spotlight. Downey's work in the for-profit world - as president and now chairman of PB Consult, a division of engineering giant Parsons Brinckerhoff - has established him as a cheerleader for infrastructure privatization. His decades of work in the public sector give him that much more cred as an industry spokesperson.

The two other leads on the DoT review team were Jane Garvey, former FAA chief, and Michael Huerta, a former DoT official.

As of last May, Garvey is head of public-private partnerships (aphorism for infrastructure privatization) at JP Morgan. The hire garnered quite a bit of press attention, including a writeup in DealBook, the New York Times' Wall Street blog, which observed: "it marks only the latest high-profile hire amid sharply climbing interest in infrastructure investing, which involves toll roads, airports and the like."

From the internal memo announcing Garvey's arrival, published on DealBook:

Today is an exciting day for JPMorgan's Infrastructure Advisory Group. In addition to our advisory and financing role on the $12.8 billion Pennsylvania Turnpike concession, I'm pleased to announce that Jane Garvey has joined JPMorgan's as head of U.S. Public Private Partnerships in Transportation, reporting to me. In this role, Jane will advise clients in the transportation sector on how traditional infrastructure financing methods can be improved to facilitate much needed project delivery for governments. As federal funding disappears and state and local fiscal positions weaken, public private partnerships are increasingly used as a tool for delivering much needed projects.

Nowadays, many economists believe that the government needs to make significant investments in infrastructure in order to get the economy back on track. Wall Street, on the other hand, clearly has a lot riding on the continued erosion of federal funding for infrastructure.

So it would be no suprise if people like Garvey, who has been hired by a Wall Street bank, opposed funding increases for infrastructure, whether it be part of the stimulus package or the upcoming transportation bill. She stands to gain lots of money, probably millions, as infrastructure privatization continues. Why should we believe that she's working for the public interest, and not Wall Street interests/gross self-interest?

Michael Huerta, the third and final team lead on Obama's DoT review, is another very well-respected transportation expert with loads of public sector experience. But like Downey and Garvey, his most recent work has been in the private sector, for ACS, a Fortune 500 company that specializes in business process outsourcing.

The division Huerta heads up, ACS Transportation Solutions, is a member of the National Council for Public-Private Partnerships, like Downey's PB Consult. When a state or local government outsources the management of a toll road, Huerta's ACS often steps in. It's not hard to imagine that Huerta stands to gain substantially from privatization. But we don't have to imagine it. He says so right here, in this ACS investor call from May 15, 2008 (not available online, published on the Voxant FD Wire):

So what is driving our past growth in the future? Well, you are seeing a lot more privatization here in the U.S. and abroad as public authorities, governments look to get more efficiency out of the transportation system, that trend is very good for us.

So privatization is very good for Michael Huerta. And Jane Garvey. And Mort Downey. Every single Obama DoT review member is a privatization advocate, despite the fact that the American public overwhelmingly supports public investment in transportation infrastructure (regardless of political affiliation), despite the fact that this is an extremely controversial issue, despite the fact that this was supposed to be Bush's agenda, not Obama's.

The transition selections matter because Obama transition review teams were charged with significant personnel and policy decisions at their respective agencies. The DoT review team's leadership suggests that the Obama DoT will be chock full of privatization advocates and pushovers, and will embrace policies that favor Wall Street interests. The LaHood pick is a good example of how this will play out, but I suspect there are and will be others.

The fact that this hasn't gotten much attention demonstrates the dangers of the revolving door: Huerta, Downey, and Garvey have leveraged years of public sector experience for private interests and (exorbitant) personal gain, but because of their public service and their status as experts, no one questions their motivations.

And quietly, through the classic process of regulatory capture, Wall Street has positioned itself to shape and control the future of American transportation infrastructure. Who knows if they will be successful, but if highways are anything like houses, it certainly is a scary prospect.

Originally published in Eyes on the Ties (the LittleSis blog).

60 Democratic Senators By The End Of February? Update

Chris Bowers — Sat, 31 Jan 2009 22:12:06 GMT

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.

More details in the extended entry.
An anonymous source in the Obama administration indicates that Judd Gregg is the leading candidate to become Commerce Secretary:

An Obama administration official tells ABC News that Sen. Judd Gregg, R-N.H., is now the leading candidate for Commerce Secretary and could be announced as soon as Monday.(...)

Gregg's announcement, while making the Obama administration more bipartisan, would likely have the opposite effect on the U.S. Senate. New Hampshire's Democratic governor John Lynch could appoint a Democrat to replace Gregg, thus delivering to Democrats their elusive 60-vote majority, empowering them to stave off Republican filibusters.

However, anonymous sources close to Judd Gregg claim that he would never accept the position, unless he was replaced in the Senate by a Republican:

Sen. Judd Gregg (R-N.H.) won't accept a position as President Obama's secretary of Commerce unless he is guaranteed his Senate seat remains in GOP hands, said two Republicans who know Gregg well.(...)

"Gregg would never allow his seat to go to a Democrat, the only way he would allow it is if he died," said a Republican close to Gregg. "He would consider it to be a breach of trust to people who elected it."

The Republican requested anonymity to avoid the appearance of meddling in Gregg's deliberations.

Let's take a look at the possible outcomes:

Judd Gregg does not become Commerce Secretary. This would be fine. We don't really need anymore Republicans running the government. Further, Miss Laura indicates that New Hampshire Governor Lynch more than likely would not appoint anyone progressive. So really, whatever.
Gregg becomes Commerce Secretary, and is replaced in the Senate by a Republican: This is the worst possible outcome. It would actually increase Republican power over the government. Truly terrible. This potential outcome must be opposed.
Gregg becomes Commerce Secretary, and is replaced in the Senate by a Democrat: While this would put a Republican in charge of a third federal department, and while it would likely result in a DINO becoming Senator in New Hampshire, it would still be a positive outcome. Specifically, it would greatly increase the change that the Employee Free Choice Act will pass into law, and reduce the number of Republicans needed to pass legislation through the Senate. With 60 Democratic caucus members, Republicans would only need to be flipped in order to counteract wayward Democrats. While it won't stop "Gang of 14" style center-right dealings, it would still be a net positive.

I would order the likelihood of these outcomes the same way they are listed here. Outcome number three simply seems too bold for the cautious Obama team, and as such doesn't feel likely to me. Outcome number two is somewhat in line with recent Obama overtures to Republicans, but is actually too big of a concession to fit their normal pattern (with the exception of the huge concession they made by keeping Gates as Secretary of Defense). So, I'm going with outcome number one. I bet the leaks on Gregg are simply a trial balloon to gauge reaction, and that the reaction has been too partisan for the Obama team's liking.

What do you think? Will it be #1, #2 or #3?

Becoming Spacefaring: Integrated Space Policy

Ferris Valyn — Sat, 17 Jan 2009 17:06:23 GMT

This was sent to the transition team

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.

What is a Spacefaring Society?

A truly spacefaring society embraces a much grander scope of space activity than currently exists:

• Ease of Travel: A spacefaring society has the capability to transport large numbers of people, goods, and materials to and from the earth's surface, and between various in-space destinations, in a much safer, more frequent, and substantially more affordable manner than is current available.

• Personal Accessibility: In a spacefaring society, average people, not just the wealthy or highly trained astronauts can travel, work, and live in space. Such a society entails large numbers of people-eventually thousands-not just visiting space briefly, but actually living there, working, and raising families.

• Resource Utilization: A spacefaring society uses off-world resources and the characteristics of the space environment to provide materials, products, and services for the economic and social benefit of both earth-side and in-space communities.

• Off-world "Local" Economies: As our nation becomes a spacefaring society, "local" in-space markets will be developed and strengthened, providing a more robust and diverse space economy, which will provide more benefits earth-side as well.

What are the Benefits of Becoming a Spacefaring Society?

There are many benefits to our nation not just from becoming a spacefaring society, but also from the very process of getting to that point:

• Energy and Material Resources: In addition to current uses of space for earth observation, telecommunications, and national defense, the space environment potentially offers energy from space solar power, platinum-group metals for use in fuel cells, microgravity manufacturing, and many other resources to help solve terrestrial problems.

• New Jobs and Industries: Mastering the space environment and harvesting its resources will create high-tech jobs and new industries for serving both terrestrial needs and, eventually, other in-space markets.

• Technology Development and Affordable Space Science: In order to master the space environment, many new technologies will need to be developed, which will also have useful terrestrial applications. Those capabilities will also make space science missions more capable and more affordable.

• International Engagement: The process of becoming a spacefaring society will allow us to engage a number of other countries, with the potential to reduce international hostilities.

• Broadening Horizons: A spacefaring society can expand our horizons just as an Information Age society already has.

Spacefaring-Not Just a NASA Effort

Unfortunately, our current policy, with its over-reliance on NASA and under-reliance on private enterprise, does not encourage large-scale human space development.

• America cannot rely only on NASA: The challenge of becoming a spacefaring society is bigger than NASA by itself can manage. NASA should continue to play an important part in such efforts, but putting all our eggs in that basket will not lead to a spacefaring society.

• Private Initiative: A truly spacefaring society will only be possible as private investment and private commercial activity becomes the primary driver of space development. There must be room for innovation by private individuals and organizations.

Recommendations

To enable the development of a spacefaring society, the Obama administration should embrace the following key concepts to guide policy development

• Active Presidential involvement: The president and his senior staff must take an active role in space policy. The president must be prepared to use his bully-pulpit to galvanize the nation to become spacefaring, and be prepared to spend political capital to ensure that space development remains the primary focus of our civil space policy.

• Opening markets and encouraging private investment: The US governmental space policy should be to open markets and encourage private investment. This can be done via technological development (using prizes, research and technology maturation programs, and programs like COTS and COTS-D), competent regulation (like ITAR reform), direct public investments, and private investment incentives (like transferable tax credits or other economic tools).

• Buying Commercial: Policies should be implemented or, where existing, reinforced, requiring NASA and other government agencies to preferentially buy commercial goods and services wherever possible, rather than developing their own in-house solutions. The burden of proof should be on the government to explain why it cannot buy goods or services commercially, before it is allowed to use public resources for in-house capabilities.

• Broader Department involvement: Major departments within the Federal government outside of NASA must be engaged in space development. For instance, the Office of Space Commercialization should be fully funded and staffed, and the Office of Commercial Space Transportation should report directly to the Department of Transportation.

• Legal System: Increased investment in space will benefit from an improved legal framework for defining space property rights, contractual relationships and the allocation of risk.

• Public forum: Becoming a spacefaring society will require input from all parts of society, in a format that is directly accessible to the public. Therefore, we recommend re-establishing the National Aeronautics and Space Council, making sure it is fully funded, and has the authority it needs to operate.

• Space Infrastructure Development: The national space policy should focus on encouraging the commercial development of infrastructure in space such as propellant depots, and other facilities that can lower the cost and increase the capabilities of future operations.

NASA's Role

NASA will still have an important role within a government that is focused on becoming a spacefaring society:

• Principal Scientific Investigator: NASA's science programs have produced incredible discoveries. These need to continue and be expanded.

• Advanced R&D: NASA's focus must be on pushing the level for key spacefaring technologies to the point where private industry can commercialize them.

Conclusions

In addition to these recommendations, the recommendations submitted by the Space Frontier Foundation and X-Prize Foundation would fit well within a national policy that encourages large-scale space development. Also, many of the ideas proposed in the CAIB report and Aldridge Commission are also worth revisiting.

Refocusing both US space policy in general, and NASA's role within it, will allow us to begin the process of becoming a spacefaring society. President-elect Obama ran on a change mandate. By extending that change mandate to include a change towards becoming a spacefaring society, President-elect Obama would enable space to better help the US and society at large.

Qualities of the next NASA administrator

Ferris Valyn — Sun, 11 Jan 2009 23:51:39 GMT

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.

Join me over the fold to see these qualities

Capable administrator – This is perhaps the most important requirement – rather than being a scientist, or an astronaut, or a list of accolades, the next NASA administrator must be capable of administrating large scale government agencies. NASA is a ménage of competing interests and missions, whose goals sometimes are in complete opposition.

Add to that the fact that NASA’s funding is always a struggle with Congress, and the public works angle that always plays a role, and it becomes obvious that NASA can be a managerial headache. Therefore, NASA must have an administrator who not only has a technical and scientific appreciation for space, but also understands the inherent political nature involved when dealing with government work at this level, and can work with other sectors, like the activist community and the media. It’s very insightful that James Webb, arguably one of the best NASA administrators, wasn’t a scientist, or engineer, but was a politician who respected science and engineering. This is not to say that a scientist or engineer can’t do this – but they need to have a history of being a good administrator, and a good understanding of how to deal not only with the complexities associated within NASA, but also those that extend beyond NASA.

Agent of Change – During the Presidential campaign, then Senator Obama's position on space evolved, and his final proposed space policy discussed a number of issues – not just climate change, or human spaceflight, but numerous important details, like working with the commercial sector, export control reform, inter-agency cooperation, developing good international rules for conduct in space, and so on. This was not just a policy designed to grab a few votes in Florida and Texas – his proposal offers a real opportunity to finally move space beyond its current inception of science, public works, and technological development, to one that allows for the average person to become involved, and to help society to grow to the point that it truly embraces all that space has to offer.

But this won’t happen with NASA in its current inception. NASA has been plagued by cost overruns, recreates existing infrastructure while ignoring new technologies, and has discouraged scientific debate. This cannot continue, and change is needed in multiple places in NASA (but particularly the human spaceflight program). Thus, the next NASA administrator needs to be someone who can work with the entrepreneurial space sector as well as the traditional space sector – someone who can work with new international partners, and new federal government partners, as well as traditional partners like ESA, JAXA, and RSA. He/She needs to be someone who will embrace new tools, like prizes and service contracts, rather than just default to traditional contractor and cost-plus contracting models. Therefore, it needs to be someone who will not just transform NASA’s rockets, but NASA itself.

Respect for Information and Transparency – NASA’s current administrator hasn’t always respected information. From his comments on global warming, to his rejection of data regarding launch vehicle options, Michael Griffin has not respected information multiple times. In addition, NASA under his watch has attempted to censor data, both relating to the issue of global warming, but also with regard to things like spaceflight architecture selection.

This is unacceptable in a NASA administrator. Given the scope and cost of the projects it deals with, the scientific nature it must have, and the political environment that it operates in, the NASA administrator must have a respect for information and transparency. This ensures the policy fits the data, rather than the data fitting the policy, and ensures that the United States is getting the world class space programs it deserves.

=====================================

It could be argued that what is needed is a NASA equivalent to President-elect Barack Obama. After all, if you consider the list of criteria I’ve offered, this is exactly what we see in President-elect Obama, and we can already see what his impact will be on national policy. Something equivalent is needed in space policy.

Monday, Monday, Monday!

Chris Bowers — Mon, 05 Jan 2009 20:13:27 GMT

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:

Tim Kaine will be the new DNC chair. Kaine is pretty conservative, but I will have only one question for him: will he revive the fifty-state strategy?
On a more positive appointment note, Glenn Greenwald praises Dawn Johnson, the new head of the Office of Legal Consul. Commenting on some fantastic articles by Johnson, Greenwald writes:
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.
Also, Leon Panetta to head the CIA. First reaction: much better than the other names being floated.
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.
New Yorkers no longer want Caroline Kennedy to be their Senator, and now prefer Andrew Cuomo, according to a new poll from PPP. Not that polls matter in a process as undemocratic as Senate appointments. We need a Constitutional amendment for special elections for Senate vacancies.
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.
The Congressional Progressive Caucus releases a detailed trillion dollar stimulus plan. It looks pretty great, but we are still not at 18 progressive votes in the House, and talks on the stimulus seem pretty well advanced at this point. Still, at least producing these plans, and winning over 100 votes for them, is progress. The Nation has more on this.

I'll be back later today with a look at how different election forecasting methods performed in 2008. This is an open thread.

Creating Space for Disagreement

Chris Bowers — Tue, 30 Dec 2008 04:00:00 GMT

In terms of the long-running meta argument about whether there is too much or too little criticism of Barack Obama in the netroots, two quotes from the Obama transition today are relevant. First, incoming Press Secretary David Gibbs when asked about disagreement:

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."

Second, Internet director Macon Phillips:

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:

Those who criticize Obama will be responsible for his defeat, and thus need to be silenced / separated from his true supporters. (This is actually my favorite example of Obama supporters adopting totalitarian language.)
Shut up, because Obama is smarter than you (a very common meme)
Shut up and clap louder. (This one seemed to grow in popularity during December)
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.

Slow Transition At The Pentagon

Chris Bowers — Tue, 23 Dec 2008 17:31:30 GMT

(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.

Cabinet Appointment Round-up

Chris Bowers — Wed, 17 Dec 2008 00:41:42 GMT

I have been somewhat delinquent on this the last couple of days, but there are three recent cabinet picks I haven't said anything about:

Shaun Donovan, Housing and Urban Development: The chatter I have heard on Donovan from progressives behind the scene is generally positive. Seems smart, earnest, and perhaps a bit of a technocrat. I would put Donovan in the "cautiously optimistic" category.
Arne Duncan, Education: Given that Obama has generally tried to avoid factional fights, Duncan seemed like the obvious pick. He was the only candidate who was short-listed by both the "efficiency" faction and by the teachers. Combine this with his Chicago background, and he made perfect sense. Not sure if I am "meh" on this one or "cautiously optimistic." I guess if I am not sure, than I am "meh."
Tom Vilsack, Agriculture: As I noted before, there was never much hope for a progressive agriculture pick. I am wary of Vilsack, who was one-time chair of the DLC. However, he doesn't appear to be in the egregiously bad category that I was afraid of for this post. A bit of a disappointment but, considering my expectations for this post, not much of one.

Overall, there is a clear pattern where Obama is working to avoid any sort of factional fights within the institutional progressive / Democratic ecosystem with his picks. The strategy appears to be steering clear of rocking any boats within the broader media and political establishment as well. The basic policy seems to be conflict avoidance, above all else. This is, of course, exactly how Obama said he would govern during 2007-2008. While I am disappointed that more sweeping progressive change does not appear to be on the agenda, it is still striking change from the Bush / Cheney years. Obama is basically fulfilling his promises.

More left-wing Democrats will dominate the House leadership, and also be involved in the conservation among White House senior staff. Developments in the Senate are far less encouraging (Lieberman as committee chair, Reid still ineffective, Bayh forming Blue Dog Senate caucus). Still, while I am not terribly excited about the cabinet and the Senate, with a decent array of progressives among the White House senior staff and House leadership, progressives should have a voice in all major policy decisions during the next two years of the trifecta.

Hope is infectious when you are out of power, and the reality of taking power rarely meets your ideals. This is especially true if you are a left-wing Democrat, since your own party often works to distance itself from you. However, like a supermajority of Americans, I still hope that what the Obama administration ends up doing will turn the country around. Things are so bad right now, that even if I end up disagreeing with some of the legislation or appointments that the Obama administration makes, I still really really really hope everything they do works.

Update: Link added with more on Vilsack pick.

Obama Transition Listening To Progressive Pressure

Chris Bowers — Mon, 15 Dec 2008 23:00:00 GMT

Earlier today, in a post entitled "Obama's Domination Of Democratic Opinion," I think I went too far in implying that there was no room at all for progressives to maneuver from Obama's left, and that the party will completely fall in line with whatever Obama wants. What I meant to state in the article is that Obama's ability to sway Democratic opinion on major issues, such as keeping Gates as Secretary of Defense, is simply a factor that progressives need to be aware of during the next four years. It is not, however, an immutable obstacle that will prevent any progressive maneuvering Obama does not directly sanction himself.

There are already at least three instances during the transition phase that indicate it is possible for progressives to exert outside influence on decisions made within the Obama camp: Secretary of Agriculture, Secretary of the Interior, and CIA Director. These instances indicate that President-elect Obama and his closest advisors are indeed listening to progressive pressure, and will consider it in at least some cases. Further, there is enough similarity in how pressure was successfully applied in these three cases, along with several cases where it was not successfully applied, that a roadmap for successful activism from Obama's left is already emerging.

I provide detail on these positive developments in the extended entry.

Consider the three examples I include in the extended entry.
Here are three examples where progressive activism seems to have made a difference during the Obama transition:

In today's Living Liberally column, Kerry Trueman notes that, following a letter signed by ninety experts and forty-thousand activists was sent to the Obama transition team on his Secretary of Agriculture options, the once gloomy prospects for Secretary of Agriculture have now improved quite a bit. Experts and activists spoke up, undertake a coordinated action, and it appears to have found a receptive audience within the Obama team. Very good.
When John Brannan pulled out of the running for CIA Chief, he cited blogs as the main source of his opposition:
The day after it was leaked that Raul Grijalva had fallen out of the running for Secretary of the Interior, he received the public backing of more than 100 environmental and conservation groups for the position. This quickly resulted in another leak from the Obama team that Grijalva was still in the running.In this case, coordinated institutional action appears to have made a difference.

So, we already have some cases are cases where the Obama team appears willing to listen to progressive pressure. The key to successful progressive maneuvering appears to be three-fold:

It must come on a decision that has not yet been made, but where trail balloons have been leaked. These balloons do appear to be an attempt to gauge support for a decision that is still pending, and we should use them for this purpose. Making Obama change a decision after the fact appears virtually impossible (although his public flip on telecom immunity and 527s are exceptions to this rule).
The opposition must be both widespread and active, coming from a range of voices, experts, and institutions. Just talking about it isn't enough, it needs to be backed up with petitions. I would actually be really happy if petitions were suddenly relevant again.
It needs to be on an issue that is not commanding national news coverage. It seems likely that pressure of this sort would not have made any difference in the more prominent picks for Treasury, State and Defense. It seems that Obama will not back down to pressure on anything that commands significant public attention. So, perhaps the focus needs to be on wonkier issues that are generally ignored by national news outlets.

Overall, I am optimistic that the Obama camp appears willing to listen to progressives, and that a roadmap to successful progressive pressure appears to be emerging. While we need to be aware of Obama's ability to sway opinion in the Democratic Party when he chooses to do so, not every issue is going to be as prominent as, say, the fight to deny Lieberman the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs chair. Perhaps it is in these less-prominent areas where we can get the most done, as long as we move at the appropriate time and with the appropriate sorts of action.

Speaking of which, perhaps it is time to start a campaign for Howard Dean to receive a prominent role in the Obama administration. Wesley Clark, too.

Drug War Leads "Open for Questions" At Change.gov

Chris Bowers — Fri, 12 Dec 2008 19:05:56 GMT

This is the sort of thing that can happen when voting is left open to the public:

The first round of questions for the transition team's change.gov website came to a close at midnight. The question
""Will you consider legalizing marijuana so that the government can regulate it, tax it, put age limits on it, and create millions of new jobs and create a billion dollar industry right here in the U.S.?"

is in the lead with 7,947 people liking this question, and 634 people not liking this question.

Overall the first round of questions generated a turnout of 978,947 votes on 10,303 questions from 20,462 people.

Now, I don't mean to mock the question, or the public in general, when I say "this is the sort of thing that can happen." Quite to the contrary, as I explain in the extended entry, half the country has used marijuana, more people are arrested each year for marijuana than for violent crime, the nation overwhelmingly favors reduction in marijuana penalties, it is very relevant to our economic downturn, and it is a question that simply has not been asked of the incoming administration in other forums. It should be asked, and I am glad it is on track to winning.

More in the extended entry.
Five reasons why the marijuana question should be asked:

Widespread use: As of six years ago, 47% of the country--including the current, previous and incoming Presidents--have used marijuana at least once.
Major criminal justice issue: More people are arrested for violation of marijuana laws than for violent crimes:
The FBI reported Saturday that the number of arrests for violations of the marijuana laws hit an all-time high of 755,186 in 2003. Despite a decade of marijuana law reforms and protestations by police chiefs across the land that marijuana is not a priority, that figure is nearly double the number of people arrested for pot in 1993. The number of people arrested on marijuana charges last year also exceeds the number arrested for violent crimes by more than 150,000.

With only a couple of hiccups, the number of people arrested on marijuana charges has trended steadily upward in the past decade, no matter which party controls the levers of government. The previous peak of 735,500 was recorded in 2000, with 724,000 arrested in 2001 and 697,000 in 2002.

It is difficult to conceive of something that 750,000 Americans are arrested for each year as a "small" issue.
Country overwhelmingly favors reduction in marijuana penalties: As of six years ago, 80% of the country is in favor of marijuana for medical use and only 21% of the country thinks people should be jailed for small amounts of marijuana possession.
Cheap, indoor entertainment during recession: As we enter a recession, people are clearly looking for cheap, indoor entertainment. Video game sales are up 11%. Television viewership has hit an all-time high, up 3% over last year, even though existing revenue models for television are struggling. As half of the country is aware, marijuana is a form of entertainment that fits into this mold. This is a question relevant to our economic downturn.
Question not addressed elsewhere: Is this the most pressing problem we face as a nation? No, obviously not. Is it a problem we face as a nation? Yes, obviously so. Is it the sort of question among the top vote getters at change.gov that is least likely to be addressed at one of Obama's news conferences, or on his website? Probably. For example, the fourth ranking question, "will you lift the ban on Stem Cell research in your first 100 days in office?" has already and repeatedly been answered in the affirmative by the incoming administration. The third-ranking question, about oversight on the bailout, is something you would hear at almost any Obama press conference. Personally, I voted for the question on the use of mercenaries that currently ranks ninth, but I can understand how, and why, two questions on marijuana are in the top ten, including the top question. It simply has not been addressed during this campaign. What use would it be for the first question from "Open for Questions" to simply be a re-hashing of questions already answered, or regularly asked by gatekeeper media, during other news conferences? I can't think of one.

This should be a question that the incoming administration has to answer. It is, after all, not a small problem, not an issue on which there is consensus, and has not been addressed elsewhere. The Internet has long provided an outlet for issues and questions ignored by gatekeeper media. It is nice to see that "Open for Questions" is proving no exception.

America Not Very Ideological As A Nation

Chris Bowers — Thu, 11 Dec 2008 23:15:00 GMT

There is a finding in the new Pew poll that shows little ideological dissatisfaction with Obama's cabinet choices, especially on the left (PDF, page 23 of report, page 24 of PDF):

Most Americans also are satisfied with the ideological tenor of Obama's appointments: 68% say they are "about right," while 15% say they are too liberal and just 3% say they are too conservative. In particular, just 1% of liberal Democrats say Obama's choices are too conservative, despite grumbling among some activists on the left.

Talking Points Memo linked to this part of the Pew poll as their top headline for some of the day. In their write-up of the poll, they note:

The "angry left" notion is largely a media fiction, and in reality liberals who have raised questions about this or that appointment also are optimistic about other Obama decisions and are capable of holding more than one opinion about the entire Obama presidency.

With numbers like these, that is pretty hard to argue with. So, rather than arguing with it, I would actually like to take their conclusion a step further. The Pew numbers show not only that the "angry left" is largely a media fiction, but also that the country as a whole is not very invested in abstract ideological positioning.

Overall, only 18% of the country express ideological dissatisfaction with Obama's current cabinet appointments, according to the Pew poll. Eight years ago, according to the same Pew poll, only 28% of the country expressed ideological dissatisfaction with Bush's cabinet choice. Back then, 7% of the country thought Bush's cabinet picks were too liberal, while 21% though his picks were too conservative. The remaining 72% of the country either though that Bush's cabinet choices were "about right," or had not opinion on the ideological leanings of his picks.

If, eight years ago, 72% of the country registered no ideological dissatisfaction with Bush's cabinet picks, and if right now 82% of the country registers no ideological dissatisfaction with Obama's cabinet picks, either the last eight years have resulted in the largest ideological swing in the history of any nation, or the country simply is not very invested in broad ideological discussions of cabinet appointments.

I'm going with the latter. More in the extended entry.
While solid, long-term measurements of ideological outlook among Americans have shown a shift to the left, those shifts are comparatively tiny in order to account for 72% of the country registering no ideological opposition to Bush's picks and 82% of the country registering no ideological opposition of Obama's picks. This leads to an important conclusion: any discussion of abstract ideology among prominent politicians is automatically speaking to a small minority of the country. The vast majority of Americans just don't view politics from a point within a coherent left-right ideological spectrum. As such, whenever pundits often say things like "X would be too liberal to be elected" or "X would be too conservative to be elected," clearly all of those statements are false because a super-majority of voters do not vote for or against candidates based on their abstract ideological positioning.

No one is too conservative to be elected, and no one is too liberal to be elected, because the country does not disqualify candidates based on their abstract ideological positioning. The vast majority of the country is seeking different sorts of connections with politicians--partisan, cultural, issue-based, personality-based, intuitive, etc--in order to make their decisions. Abstract ideological positioning is only one factor, and clearly a rather small one.

So yes, while the Pew poll shows that the "angry left" is largely a media created fiction, it also shows that the "angry right" is a similar fiction. And, for that matter, it also shows that the notion of voters picking candidates based on abstract ideology is a further fiction. While it is impossible to escape ideology, most Americans are not particularly coherent in, and / or self-aware of, their ideological positioning. That is a far larger and more important finding than opinions on Obama's cabinet choices.

This should have already been obvious, given that 68% of voters view Obama as liberal, but still give him high approval ratings anyway. From Rasmussen Reports, on November 28th:

Sixty-eight percent (68%) of American voters see Barack Obama as politically liberal, including 41% who say he is very liberal. The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey found that just 24% say the President-elect is politically moderate while 4% see him as conservative.

Given that the ideological label "liberal" has a negative 10% favorable rating according to Rasmussen, one would think that being seen as a liberal would be a negative for Obama. And yet, Obama retains a 66% approval rating with Rasmussen, despite 68% of the country viewing him as a liberal. The obvious conclusion is that while the country does not like "liberalism" in the abstract, too few people care about such abstract ideological labels enough for it to impact the national opinion of even the most prominent of politicians.

Elections are not won and lost based on abstract ideological positioning. This means that progressive Democratic candidates are not "too liberal" to be elected as much as it means that the "angry ideological left" is a relatively small part of the population. It is a finding that cuts both ways for participants in ideological movements, whether progressive, conservative or otherwise. Because the country is not very self-aware or internally coherent on ideological matters, you can still win elections and pass legislation of an ideologically determinative bent. However, don't ever expect large percentages of the population to support your abstract calls for "more conservative" or "more progressive" government. Such movements are always small avant-gardes, but they can influence politics to degrees far outstripping their numbers.

Promising Frontrunner for Energy Secretary

Chris Bowers — Wed, 10 Dec 2008 20:32:50 GMT

If this comes to pass, mark it down in my "makes me excited" category of Obama's cabinet picks:

But officials close to the transition team privately say that Steven Chu, a Nobel Prize winning physicist, appears to be increasingly on track to become energy secretary.

A Chinese-American, Chu is a professor of physics and molecular and cell biology at the University of California-Berkeley and has been the director of the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory since 2004, where he has pushed aggressively for research into alternative energy as a way to combat global warming.

It is the oldest of the Energy Department's national laboratories, but does only unclassified work and in recent years under Chu has been at the center of research into biofuels and solar technologies. Chu has been a strong advocate for the need to engage scientists in the search for ways to combat global warming by replacing fossil fuels with other energy sources such as biofuels and the sun.

Placing a scientist at the head of the Department of Energy is very exciting to me, because we will be dealing with a true expert on the subject matter. Further, it is not just any scientist, but the scientist at the center of solar and biofuel research, meaning that industry lobbyists won't stand a chance when talking to him. Yet further, it means that his closest colleagues will also be alternative energy scientists, thus resulting in some excellent deputies and assistants. Even yet further, having a physicist like this in the cabinet means there will be a true science and technology expert within the cabinet, which could bleed over into decisions in other areas. This is someone who will know what is possible in the field, and who should make an excellent contribution to the nation and the world.

Shawn in Show Me adds some more context on why this is a great potential pick:

If you look at the history of the Department of Energy, you'll find that there's never been a Secretary who actually was an expert on energy. The closest we've ever gotten was Charles Duncan who had a chemical engineering degree and had a cup of coffee out of school at Humble (later Exxon). For some reason it just never occurred to the President to install a person who was qualified for the position.

Instead we've been subjected to a long line of career politicians, military men and folks that were as far away from energy as you could get (Reagan's first Secretary of Energy was an oral surgeon) . Is it any wonder that our energy policy is set by industry since the person who is supposed to do that doesn't have a clue?

Not only does Chu have a clue, he's a Nobel-prize winning scientist and is already working under the auspices of the Department of Energy at Lawrence Berkeley National Lab. A scientist, ya'll. As the Secretary of Energy. Oh. My. Gawd.

Steven Chu sounds like a great pick for Secretary of Energy to me. Hopefully, unlike Raul Grijalva for Interior, this one won't fall through in favor of a Blue Dog. There are other possibilities, and none of them can even come close to bringing the expertise of Chu.

Ask a question (and vote on the best questions) to the Obama transition team

essaywhuman — Wed, 10 Dec 2008 20:25:13 GMT

Over at change.gov, the transition team has opened a new section of the website where you can submit a question of 250 characters or less, where it then is made public. People vote on the best questions, and because they are public, it will be difficult for them to duck answering a question. here is the link: http://change.gov/page/content...
I am very glad for this, this is a remarkable step towards transparency. Already there are questions about a ton of different things, mostly focusing on the economy, green technology, taxes, gay marriage, relationship with Blago, and I even saw one about the birth certificate from "Nobama4me". Democracy!

Simple Dramas Packaged For Consumption

Chris Bowers — Tue, 09 Dec 2008 22:53:30 GMT

As far as the whole "the left vs. Obama" narrative goes, this passage from Greg Sargent is on the money (emphasis mine):

The problem here is this bizarre need to decide one way or the other whether the entire left is or isn't irrevocably dismayed with the Obama presidency and whether it has or hasn't completely given up hope on it.
This is fairly straightforward. Some liberals have concerns about this or that particular appointment or this or that particular policy statement. They're voicing those concerns. That doesn't make "the left" as a whole unhappy with Obama's entire presidency. Those same liberals are happy about other things Obama's doing, and many of them are generally optimistic. Believe it or not, people can simultaneously entertain more than one opinion about Obama's evolving administration.

The problem here is the desire that the news orgs have to tell a simplistic story about those poor, sad, delusional lefties whose silly idealism blinded them to Obama's "pragmatism" and "centrism."

Developing a one-line description of what "the left" think about the entire Obama administration is a silly enterprise lacking any investigative seriousness. It is, instead, an attempt to create a simple drama pitting two not very well fleshed out characters ("the left" and "the Obama administration") against one another. Dozens of news organizations have sought to use me as one of those characters, recycling two quotes of mine from three weeks ago as somehow representative of a vast anti-Obama uprising among foolish, idealist, hard-left bloggers.

Of course, not only is such a narrative too simplistic in its depiction of "the left," which is a vast and diverse institution, it isn't even an accurate portrayal of me. I, like "the left," think a lot of different things about "the Obama transition." Further, the Obama transition, like "the left," is a vast an ongoing process that cannot be accurately described in a single sentence. There are many constituent parts of the Obama transition, which is in the process of hiring 8,000 people. There are many internal debates within the transition, which is not a monolithic reflection of the inside of Obama's mind. There are debates inside and outside the Obama campaign. Not only is that a good thing, but those debates also tend to be over specific appointments and policies, rather than vagaries about "the left" or "pragmatism."

I don't know why so many news organizations are struggling to pay their bills these days, but I can't imagine that using people to fit into a simplistic, pre-established narrative about something that is actually complex--and very important--is helping that much. Granted, my little media outlet is far smaller and generates far less revenue than most, so perhaps I don't have the secret to media profitability. However, I think news consumers are better informed and smarter than they are often given credit for being by news producers. This belief comes from having to deal directly with many of the people who consume my website on a daily basis. If you write something that is inaccurate, then some of them will know it is inaccurate, and tell you right away, every single time you do it. Although there are exceptions, devolving into the simplistic is often the same as devolving into the inaccurate, and it might be turning off a lot of consumers who now have the ability to consume news elsewhere.