November 25, 2008

11/25: Judging Obama By The Company He Keeps

Liberal bloggers continue to discuss the apparent lack of progressives in Pres.-elect Barack Obama's cabinet. Chris Bowers is concerned about the policy implications of Obama's picks, as he thinks it's unlikely that Obama "has hired a bunch of centrists not to take their advice seriously in any way, but instead to make them institute a progressive agenda which he has already decided upon." Other liberal bloggers are holding their fire, as they don't believe that Obama's policies will necessarily reflect the ideological composition of his cabinet. Markos Moulitsas writes: "I still can't bring myself to care too much about individual Obama cabinet picks. He will be judged by his actions, not who enacts his agenda."

Meanwhile, conservative bloggers are surprised and pleased by many of Obama's appointments thus far. Hugh Hewitt and Larry Kudlow -- both of whom fiercely criticized Obama during the presidential campaign -- are praising the Pres.-elect's economic team. Philip Klein thinks Obama's appointments shed light on the type of President he'll be:

"I spent the election doing a lot of speculating over whether Obama would merely be a center-left president in the [Bill] Clinton mold -- i.e., one who enjoys short-term political success while failing to seriously advance liberalism -- or whether he would actually be a transformational liberal leader who creates enduring big government institutions a la FDR and LBJ. Having been able to take a look at some of his early appoint[ments], right now, it's looking more and more like the Clinton model."

OBAMA: How Much Do His Appointees Matter?

Open Left's Bowers is frustrated by the lack of progressives in Obama's cabinet: "Obama's current cabinet picks, or his rumored to be leading choices, are almost entirely Republicans or DLC 'New' Democrats. To put my complaint more succinctly, it is a centrist cabinet lacking any clear progressives. While there are at least three examples of progressives scoring senior staff positions within the White House, the same cannot be said, as of this writing, of the cabinet picks. If this really is going to be an administration that listens to diverse voices, we need representation in both areas. Right now, progressives are not represented in the new cabinet."

Like Matthew Yglesias and Jane Hamsher, Daily Kos' Moulitsas is more concerned with the policies that Obama implements than the composition of his cabinet: "I still can't bring myself to care too much about individual Obama cabinet picks. He will be judged by his actions, not who enacts his agenda."

digby offers her thoughts: "There's a lot of chatter in the blogosphere about Obama not picking enough progressives for his cabinet. [...] I tend to see this in a couple of ways. First, as I said, I think Obama was pretty clear during the campaign that he was not an ideologue but rather a pragmatic technocrat. [...] If it were normal times, we might expect him to fulfill the Village's 'center-right' domestic dreams based upon where the center of political gravity has been these last few years. But these are not normal times and conservative economics are completely inoperative in a severe economic crisis. So, he's likely to be more liberal in that area than any of us ever dreamed he'd be, as will all of his neo liberal economic advisors. There is just no other choice available than massive government intervention, which is a fundamentally liberal concept. The only question is if they will be competent at carrying out liberal economic policies, or if they will persist in the current program of badly structured bailouts of badly run companies."

digby continues: "On foreign policy Obama campaigned on getting out of Iraq, escalating in Afghanistan and setting the world's mind at ease that the United States is no longer a rogue superpower, and I have no reason to believe that's not going to be the way it goes. I would worry a lot about the military -- they tend to give youthful Democrats a hard time -- but as with the economy, the military is falling apart too, so they may have limited choices there as well. We'll see. The world is in crisis on all fronts and it was conservative philosophy and policies that brought us here. They have nothing to offer but more crisis, so by default liberalism is on the rise. What lucky duckies we all are."

OBAMA II: Praise From The Right

Several conservative bloggers are praising Obama's economic team:

• NRO's Kudlow: "[ex-Treasury Sec. Larry] Summers, [NY Fed Bank Pres. Timothy] Geithner, and [Berkeley econ Prof. Christina] Romer will all recommend no tax hikes in a recession. Maybe for Keynesian reasons; maybe a nod to supply-siders. Obama talked about a liberal-conservative consensus. But what's especially encouraging is the appointment of Ms. Romer, who easily could serve as CEA head in a Republican administration (just like Geithner could have been [John] McCain's Treasury man). [...] In fact, there is no question that Obama's economic team is right of center. All three are market-oriented. They're also pro-free-trade. Hopefully Summers and Geithner maintain the Robert Rubin King Dollar policy of the Clinton years. And if Ms. Romer can stop tax hikes, that will help the greenback even more."
• Townhall's Hewitt: "The economics side of Team Obama is impressive, and the GOP should be worried that the president-elect intends to talk left and govern right. They should be really, really worried if the senior members of the team start appearing on new media, confident of their views and eager to engage. (No sign of that to date.) The GOP is convinced the Dems will overreach, and it will probably come in the area of cap-and-trade, card-check, plaintiffs' bar gifts etc, crippling the economic growth that the incoming free-marketeers endorse. Watch for the first clash of the punish-the-rich lefties and the folks who actually know how the markets work."

Conservative bloggers are also pleased that Obama adviser David Axelrod said that Obama may delay his pledge to repeal Bush's tax cuts for families earning more than $250,000 a year, and may instead "allow those cuts to expire in 2010":

• NRO's Jim Geraghty: "If accurate, this is fabulous news for several reasons. For starters, it means Obama will be avoiding the bad decision of taking money out of taxpayers' pockets at the exact moment the U.S. economy needs it the most. Second, if you're going to raise taxes, you want to do it far away from Election Day as possible. Obama and the Democrats, politically, would be best off raising taxes as early as possible. Congressional Republicans can, even from the minority, spend much of the summer and fall of 2010 loudly arguing in favor of extending the tax cuts -- in what will be, at best, an economy that just emerged from a recession, or an economy still sluggishly plodding or worse."
• Townhall's Carol Platt Liebau: "Holding off on a pledge to 'soak the rich' makes good sense. What's most noteworthy (aside from the breaking of another left-pleasing campaign promise) is the implicit concession that underlies it: That tax increases (yes, even those on 'the rich') only stifle economic growth -- thereby reducing the number of jobs that can be created and the amount of money circulating in private enterprise (thereby helping more people earn better livings). And that hurts everyone, 'rich' and poor alike. By making the right decision -- delaying the implementation of his tax increases -- President-elect Obama has essentially admitted that tax increases are bad for the economy. So why would you ever raise them?"

AmSpec Blog's Klein is relieved: "I spent the election doing a lot of speculating over whether Obama would merely be a center-left president in the Clinton mold -- i.e., one who enjoys short-term political success while failing to seriously advance liberalism -- or whether he would actually be a transformational liberal leader who creates enduring big government institutions a la FDR and LBJ. Having been able to take a look at some of his early appoint[ments], right now, it's looking more and more like the Clinton model. As Jim [Antle] noted, there is already growling among the left because Obama has steered clear of radical progressive appointments thus far. Also, while what we know of the economic stimulus package thus far should be disconcerting to conservatives -- a $500-$700 billion price tag, plenty of room for pork in infastructure and environmental handouts -- none of it seems to be creating any lasting institutions that will be with us when the economy recovers, and/or irreversible during any future conservative administration. Obama also left open the possibliity that he wouldn't raise taxes on those making over $250,000 until the tax cuts are set to expire in 2011."

BARNES: Finally, A Progressive Appointment!

While many liberal bloggers remain upset about the lack of progressives in Obama's cabinet, they were pleased to learn that Obama has appointed Melody Barnes -- a former Executive VP at the Center for American Progress -- to serve as Director of the Domestic Policy Council for his administration:

• Yglesias: "This hasn't been a very high-profile role under the Bush administration since [George W.] Bush doesn't really believe in domestic policy aside from tax cuts, but for an administration that's trying to play a constructive role in American life it's a very important job. [...] Barnes has some of the liberal credentials that people have seen lacking in some other Obama appointments. She served as Chief Counsel to [MA Sen.] Ted Kennedy on the Senate Judiciary Committee from 1995 to 2003, was CAP's Executive Vice President for Policy, and then left to join Obama's campaign as policy director."
• Al Giordano: "The most interesting news out of the press conference just concluded by President-elect Obama was the appointment of an unabashed progressive, Melody Barnes, to head the Domestic Policy Council. [...] Want to get an idea of how progressive she is? Read this: In January of 2007, prior to President Bush's state of the union address, Barnes wrote this essay for the Washington Post, What a Progressive President Might Say."
• MyDD's Josh Orton: "Yes, there have been some announcements and appointments that haven't exactly been music to a progressive's ears. But worth it to note when Obama appoints a true progressive to a significant position of power. Certainly easier than concocting one of those 'secret progressive' theories. Actual progressives are better."
• Ezra Klein: "Barnes has been one of the chief architects of CAP's domestic policy program, and in that, she's created a formidable and decidedly impressive organization. Most everyone I know who has worked with her says great things. She also worked for Kennedy for some time, so the politics trend in a clearly progressive direction. On the other hand, Barnes was also one of Obama's top domestic policy advisers, and I didn't think that the campaign, particularly in the primaries, had a terribly sound domestic policy operation. Still, probably a good choice."

Bowers still has concerns: "There are three senior White House staff in the progressive mold. While it is a decent progressive start to filling out the White House senior staff, one question that remains to be seen is if these senior staff appointments really are the equivalent, in terms of power, to the cabinet appointments that so far have unanimously gone to centrists. I have heard from sources that I trust that this absolutely is the case, but the lack of progressivism within the cabinet leaves me feeling wary. It seems important to me to have progressive voices in both areas, given that with Rahm Emanuel and Lawrence Summers, it is hardly the case that White House senior staff will be dominated by progressives. Minority representation in the White House senior staff, and no representation in the various cabinet departments, is simply not adequate. It's not a total shutout, but it isn't enough."

RNC CHAIR: The State Of The Race

Conservative bloggers are discussing the various candidates seeking the RNC chairmanship:

RedState's Erick Erickson urges the RNC not to engage in tokenism: "I hear that Ken Blackwell, the former Secretary of State of Ohio, is seriously considering throwing his hat into the ring for RNC Chairman against [ex-MD LG] Michael Steele. Blackwell is active in the NRA, the National Taxpayers Union, and also is a big Club for Growth fan. Some of the people I talked to this morning said that Blackwell, like Steele, is a fresh face for the GOP, but unlike Steele conservatives tell me they know where Blackwell stands on issues. Now all we need is [ex-OK Rep.] J.C. Watts to throw his hat in the ring if we're just out looking for an African-American to go up against Obama instead of looking for the most qualified guy. Republicans should not be engaged in this level of 'me-too-ism' that most people find disingenuous anyway."

Meanwhile, Townhall's Matt Lewis argues that Steele isn't the outsider whom he pretends to be: "Steele has positioned himself as an outsider who wants to shake things up at the RNC. However, the fact that his campaign is being run by the same people who have been running things for years now, seems to undermine his 'change'/reform message (this is sort of like Barack Obama selling 'change' and then hiring Rahm Emanuel -- a consummate insider) [...] A new chairman who surrounds himself with staffers and consultants who are invested in the conventional wisdom of the past -- will likely fail to revolutionize anything."

In a separate post, Lewis critiques the other rumored candidates:

• "Mike Duncan: (Current RNC Chair) -- Regardless of how good he is, I cannot fathom why anyone would want to stick with a Bush loyalist who ran the RNC these last several years. It just defies logic. [...]
• Saul Anuzis: (MI Chair) -- Anuzis is well-connected in the conservative movement. However, during his tenure, Michigan has gone more and more Democratic. Of course, this is hardly his fault. Still, I cannot see why you would send a manager to the big leagues who hasn't turned around his minor league team.
• Chip Saltsman: (Fmr. [Mike] Huckabee campaign manager) -- [...] I have heard that just prior to Huckabee's dropping out of the presidential race, the Washington Times killed a story about how Huckabee was staying in the campaign in order to help provide income for Saltsman's consulting firm. While this is surely a rumor, it may again surface if he becomes a serious contender for this chairmanship..
• Katon Dawson: (SC Chair) -- Granted, South Carolina is already a conservative state, but Dawson has been very successful there. Dawson also seems to be a competent, shrewd, and tough pol (South Carolina is famous for this) -- something we desperately need in our leaders these days. On the downside, I've heard from several Republicans who are worried about electing a white southerner -- with a southern accent -- to go head-to-head against the first African American president..."

DE SEN: Who The Heck Is That?

Liberal bloggers are critical of DE Gov. Ruth Ann Minner's decision to appoint VP-elect Joe Biden's former CoS Ted Kaufman to fill Biden's Senate seat until a 2010 special election:

• FiveThirtyEight's Nate Silver: "I am not much of a fan of this decision. Kaufman may well make for a perfectly competent senator -- as a former chief of staff, he'll probably know his way around the Hill better than half the people who actually hold office there. And I don't have a problem in general with the idea of appointing a placeholder, as I've advocated that [Gov.] Rod Blagojevich should do in Illinois. But I think there ought to be some minimum threshold of public stature for a senate appointee -- preferably an elected official like [DE Sec/State Harriet Smith] Windsor or for that matter Minner herself, particularly when the appointment is made by an outgoing, retiring governor who is no longer accountable to public opinion. Kaufman, who did not even have a Wikipedia page until two weeks ago, does not really meet that threshold."
• Daily Kos' Kagro X: "Clearly this was something Biden worked out for himself. Kaufman's obviously a key guy for Biden, so they must have an understanding. [...] But typically, I think, you want to try to avoid the 'who?' question when you're appointing people to the Senate. Just a thought."
• MyDD's Todd Beeton: "So who is this guy, other than a Biden ally? There doesn't seem to be much to go on other than that being a Biden ally is probably the most important thing there is to know about him."
• Delaware Liberal's Jason330: "There are 2 ways to look at this Ted Kaufman thing: (1) You can say that Ted Kaufman is qualified to serve two years in the Senate, that he will (like LBJ) serve out his predecessor's term in honor of the man whose shoe (he will state) he has no hopes of filling. And you can say that with this pick Ruth Ann Minner has done the right thing in not installing a Senator, but is allowing the voters to choose in two years. (2.) You can say that the above rationalization is is transparent bullshit and that Joe Biden has now rigged the seat for Beau Biden. Unless you are a child you know which one is correct and which one is spin..."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Getting Out Of Iraq

The Atlantic's Ross Douthat:

"In a rare harmonic convergence, the Hillary-to-State news has Daniel Larison and Michael Goldfarb arguing along similar lines, joining the chorus of voices who see Obama's likely national-security appointments as a blow to those who hoped for a real progressive turn in foreign policy. Having basically made this argument myself, let me offer one thought by way of counterpoint -- namely, that foreign policy is one arena where progressives might (might!) end up being well-served by having their agenda implemented by other people.

By 'their agenda' I mean specifically the withdrawal from Iraq, which Chris Hayes, the world's smartest progressive, has long insisted is the one issue where Obama absolutely has to deliver for the left if he doesn't want to provoke a full-scale progressive revolt. As Iraq has grown more stable and the rest of the world more chaotic, it's become easy to lose sight of just how difficult disentangling ourselves from our Mesopotamian occupation may turn out to be. [...] It's very easy to imagine a scenario in which the withdrawal from Iraq ends up dominating the foreign-affairs side of the ledger in Obama's first term, and not necessarily in a good way. And by putting the job in the hands of [Def. Sec.] Robert Gates and Hillary Clinton -- a Republican appointee and a primary-season rival who attacked him from the right on foreign policy -- Obama has effectively given realists and liberal hawks partial ownership of whatever happens in Iraq between now and 2011. In a best-case scenario for progressives, Gates and Clinton will play the role [ex-Sec/State] Colin Powell played in the run-up to the Iraq War (except with a better final outcome, obviously): Their association with the policy will help keep non-progressives on board when things get dicey, and then once the job is done they'll be pushed aside and someone like Susan Rice will take over Obama's post-occupation foreign policy."

LEST WE FORGET: 26-Year-Old To See Every Asshole He Ever Went To High School With On Night Before Thanksgiving

From The Onion:

"NEW YORK -- For the fifth straight year, Jordan McCabe will return home for the holidays and spend the night before Thanksgiving running into every smug and unlikable asshole he ever went to high school with, the 26-year-old reported Monday.

The trip back home, scheduled for later this week, will reportedly bring McCabe face-to-face with an endless string of pricks from his past, each of whom he will have to engage in awkward conversation, and generally pretend to be happy about seeing again. [...]

Though he will initially intend to stay at home with his parents, grandparents, and other relatives, McCabe told reporters that after spending approximately five hours in their company, he will grow antsy, borrow his father's car, and drive to nearby Marleybone Pub. There, McCabe expects to bump into at least five insufferable assholes in the first three minutes."

Posted by Ian Faerstein at November 25, 2008 12:28 PM