The Obama Presidency - 2008 & 2012

[Edward64]

Just read that Obama is considering Hillary Clinton for Sec of State. Assuming there can be a good working relationship between the 2 and Hillary can wait her turn in 8 yrs, I think she would be great. This brought me to ask what has Condi Rice done lately and honestly, without doing some deep research, I don't think she has been in the news or produced much of anything.

This got me thinking about the Obama presidency as a whole. Going into the election and reading post-election comments, there are extremely high expecation of what Obama will accomplish ... from righting the economy, ending the war in Iraq, capturing OBL, having the world love us again etc.

Outside of the economy which seems to be on cruise control to somewhere, what are your hopes and predictions?

My hopes are


Some massive overhaul for healthcare to fix the problem. Not sure if socialized 100% coverage is the right solution but something beyond $5K tax credits needs to be done.
Serious Energy program. Encourage alternate fuels etc. Not sure what the solution is but with gas back down to < $2, I am concerned this will no longer be the focus.
Stabilize Iraq. Militarily for sure, not sure about politically. Refocus on Afghanistan and get that SOB (preferably dead).
Improve world opinion of the US. I think Hillary and Bill and accomplish this!

[SFL Cat]

More of what we have now...For all the talk of change, I'm seeing mostly faces who were associated with the Clinton administration.

I think we stay in Iraq for at least another year, maybe two, although with Obama in command, the coverage isn't so negative. Still might rile up the anti-war ranks, though.

Since Obama is already talking about canceling Bush's drilling initiative executive order...so much for energy independence. Once OPEC gets its act together, we'll see $4-$5 per gallon gas prices again someday.

If Obama and Dems cut the military, like they're already talking about, I think Afghanistan falls back into Taliban hands as we simply decide the lumps just aren't worth taking if we don't plan on securing victory and pull out like the Russians did in the 80s. Osama Bin Ladin, if he is still alive and reemerges, becomes a messianic figure to Muslim radicals around the world for defeating the western Satan.

I think the Dems try to make a massive grab at nationalizing just about everything not already nationalized and it blows up in their face (like Healthcare in the 90s did) as the economy stays in a funk for the next two to three years. They'll lose their grip on at least one of the houses in Congress. If Obama governs as a centrist, he probably wins reelection. If he he goes hardcore left, he is essentially the black Jimmy Carter, and is a one-term president.

[DaddyTorgo]

Since Obama is already talking about canceling Bush's drilling initiative executive order...so much for energy independence. Once OPEC gets its act together, we'll see $4-$5 per gallon gas prices again someday.



:banghead: DOMESTIC OIL DRILLING DOES NOT EQUAL ENERGY INDEPENDENCE!!! HOW MANY TIMES DO I HAVE TO SAY IT!!!

EPIC MOTHERFUCING FAIL!!! :banghead:

[SFL Cat]

:banghead: DOMESTIC OIL DRILLING DOES NOT EQUAL ENERGY INDEPENDENCE!!! HOW MANY TIMES DO I HAVE TO SAY IT!!!

EPIC MOTHERFUCING FAIL!!! :banghead:

Let me rephrase, Independence from foreign supply, or at least supply from sources not necessarily friendly to our interests.

[Butter]

I think the Dems try to make a massive grab at nationalizing just about everything not already nationalized and it blows up in their face (like Healthcare in the 90s did) as the economy stays in a funk for the next two to three years.

OBAMA WANTS TO REDISTRIBUTE UR MONEYZ!

If the economy starts to snap out of the funk it has been in by 3 years from now, Obama wins in a landslide beyond this one in 2012.

[DaddyTorgo]

Let me rephrase, Independence from foreign supply, or at least supply from sources not necessarily friendly to our interests.

you obviously missed my rants on this in the election threads during the debates.

offshore domestic oil drilling would not provide a drop of oil that would find its way into american gas tanks within something like 10 years. the problem is that we don't have the rigs and drilling supplies to exploit offshore oil fields at the moment, and producing and deploying them then doing the drilling and refining would take that long.

now it IS true, and i do admit, that there is oil in ANWR that we could access sooner than that. I will also admit that I am not up to speed on exactly how much oil is up there and what type of effect it would have on gas prices in the short/intermediate term, but my impression has been that it's not massively significant (although let me state again, i don't know, so feel free to post objective scientific research proving me wrong). I believe i've heard scientists say it would be a drop-in-the-bucket compared to what we currently use, and certainly not a long-term answer.

the solution to energy independence is not drilling (either offshore or ANWR). It lies principally in the domestic (and later military) use of alternative energy sources.

[chesapeake]

Iraq: Withdrawal within 2 years, with many of these troops shifting to Afghanistan. We declare complete and total victory and move on.

Defense: One long-term new weapons program gets scuttled along with Star Wars as the Administration is forced to reallocate resources towards more basic procurement and readiness issues. Otherwise we'll just have some neat gizmos in the pipeline with no actual capacity to fight a war. Anyone who thinks we will be cutting defense spending in the near future after a withdrawal from Iraq is letting Rush do their thinking for them.

Health Care: Within the first 100 days, Congress passes an expansion of SCHIP that will cover just about every child. Next year, Congress tries to fix the outstanding problems left with the half-assed prescription drug benefits the GOP approved a few years back. They declare complete and total victory and leave the rest of the health care problem until the second term, when they hope to have more money to effect greater change.

Education: Modest revision of No Child Left Behind Act takes 2 more years, but leaves the testing regime fundamentally intact with more carrots and less stick. They declare complete and total victory and move on.

Energy: In addition to what has already been done, next year additional tax breaks and other federal incentives will be passed to encourage the development of alternative energy sources. Contrary to popular belief, the ban on offshore drilling in extremely sensitve areas will not be restored because they do not have the votes in Congress to sustain an effort by the President to renew it.

Foreign Policy: Our relationship with Russia worsens, more their fault than ours. We continue to favor the Israelis in pretty much everything, but gain enough credibility with the Palestinians and other actors in the region that we can attempt to broker negotiations, but success is very unpredictable. Talks with Iran are sluggish and ultimately produce little because the Russians and the Chinese screw us, just like they have been for years. Chavez loses some regional traction, discovering that Obama doesn't generate the same bad feelings that Bush did.

[chesapeake]

I will also admit that I am not up to speed on exactly how much oil is up there and what type of effect it would have on gas prices in the short/intermediate term, but my impression has been that it's not massively significant (although let me state again, i don't know, so feel free to post objective scientific research proving me wrong). I believe i've heard scientists say it would be a drop-in-the-bucket compared to what we currently use, and certainly not a long-term answer.

If you could wave a magic wand and put an active platform over every spot where we believe there to be oil AND oil was actually in that spot, we would improve domestic supply from approximately 33% of our consumption to, optimistically, 36%.

If you wave your magic wand and put up working platforms on the spots where we believe to oil exists and oil companies already hold leases but haven't troubled themselves to start working on, you might reach 45%. Meaning that they have a lot more oil in hand already than they would get by digging up ANWR.

[DaddyTorgo]

If you could wave a magic wand and put an active platform over every spot where we believe there to be oil AND oil was actually in that spot, we would improve domestic supply from approximately 33% of our consumption to, optimistically, 36%.

If you wave your magic wand and put up working platforms on the spots where we believe to oil exists and oil companies already hold leases but haven't troubled themselves to start working on, you might reach 45%. Meaning that they have a lot more oil in hand already than they would get by digging up ANWR.

thank you sir. I do appreciate your insight. Do you have a source for this, because I am constantly having to have this conversation with people IRL as well as online and would love to have a source.

[DaddyTorgo]

True, but "Drill, Baby, Drill" is nicer on a t-shirt.

didn't i see some bumper-sticker that was like "drill baby drill - start in mccain's 7 backyards" ?

[chesapeake]

thank you sir. I do appreciate your insight. Do you have a source for this, because I am constantly having to have this conversation with people IRL as well as online and would love to have a source.


Online, no. I sat in on a briefing by the Minerals Management Service, the federal agency that the government and the oil companies use to figure out what resources we have where. You might be able to find the briefing materials or some such on their website at mms.gov.

[Big Fo]

True, but "Drill, Baby, Drill" is nicer on a t-shirt.

http://www.threadpit.com/store/watermark/drill_baby_drill.gif

[DaddyTorgo]

Online, no. I sat in on a briefing by the Minerals Management Service, the federal agency that the government and the oil companies use to figure out what resources we have where. You might be able to find the briefing materials or some such on their website at mms.gov.

that's hot. i'm just going to quote "a friend who sat in on a briefing by the minerals management service" then.

[GrantDawg]

More of what we have now...For all the talk of change, I'm seeing mostly faces who were associated with the Clinton administration.

I think we stay in Iraq for at least another year, maybe two, although with Obama in command, the coverage isn't so negative. Still might rile up the anti-war ranks, though.

Since Obama is already talking about canceling Bush's drilling initiative executive order...so much for energy independence. Once OPEC gets its act together, we'll see $4-$5 per gallon gas prices again someday.

If Obama and Dems cut the military, like they're already talking about, I think Afghanistan falls back into Taliban hands as we simply decide the lumps just aren't worth taking if we don't plan on securing victory and pull out like the Russians did in the 80s. Osama Bin Ladin, if he is still alive and reemerges, becomes a messianic figure to Muslim radicals around the world for defeating the western Satan.

I think the Dems try to make a massive grab at nationalizing just about everything not already nationalized and it blows up in their face (like Healthcare in the 90s did) as the economy stays in a funk for the next two to three years. They'll lose their grip on at least one of the houses in Congress. If Obama governs as a centrist, he probably wins reelection. If he he goes hardcore left, he is essentially the black Jimmy Carter, and is a one-term president.


I lost two IQ points just reading this.

[GrantDawg]

Iraq: Withdrawal within 2 years, with many of these troops shifting to Afghanistan. We declare complete and total victory and move on.

Defense: One long-term new weapons program gets scuttled along with Star Wars as the Administration is forced to reallocate resources towards more basic procurement and readiness issues. Otherwise we'll just have some neat gizmos in the pipeline with no actual capacity to fight a war. Anyone who thinks we will be cutting defense spending in the near future after a withdrawal from Iraq is letting Rush do their thinking for them.

Health Care: Within the first 100 days, Congress passes an expansion of SCHIP that will cover just about every child. Next year, Congress tries to fix the outstanding problems left with the half-assed prescription drug benefits the GOP approved a few years back. They declare complete and total victory and leave the rest of the health care problem until the second term, when they hope to have more money to effect greater change.

Education: Modest revision of No Child Left Behind Act takes 2 more years, but leaves the testing regime fundamentally intact with more carrots and less stick. They declare complete and total victory and move on.

Energy: In addition to what has already been done, next year additional tax breaks and other federal incentives will be passed to encourage the development of alternative energy sources. Contrary to popular belief, the ban on offshore drilling in extremely sensitve areas will not be restored because they do not have the votes in Congress to sustain an effort by the President to renew it.

Foreign Policy: Our relationship with Russia worsens, more their fault than ours. We continue to favor the Israelis in pretty much everything, but gain enough credibility with the Palestinians and other actors in the region that we can attempt to broker negotiations, but success is very unpredictable. Talks with Iran are sluggish and ultimately produce little because the Russians and the Chinese screw us, just like they have been for years. Chavez loses some regional traction, discovering that Obama doesn't generate the same bad feelings that Bush did.

But this sounds more likely.

[GrantDawg]

Oh, and I love the people slaming Obama for Clinton appointees. Who was going to get, Bush's people? Clinton was slammed (and rightly so after the first two years) for hiring people with no experience. It caused a good many problems early on. So Obama is picking some people who know the White House and what is needed (and had worked for a very successfull President). Of course this is politics. If he makes a dumb move, slam him. If he makes a smart move, slam him by making it look dumb.

[path12]

I lost two IQ points just reading this.

I just read SFLCat's posts in order to find out what Rush and his ilk are spouting.

[Cringer]

Well, I expect a good portion of Oprah's money to be given to me.

[Senator]

I want my President check.

[Vegas Vic]

Pay my mortgage and put gas in my tank.

[MrDNA]

Unclusterfuck. Please.

[Edward64]

Oh uh. Going downhill fast.

[larrymcg421]

*Stem cell research executive order reversed. I hope this is the first thing he does.

*Gitmo closed. End of human rights abuses.

*Lots of liberal justices on the federal courts.

*A more thoughtful foreign policy. Listening to a wide variety of opinions instead of just a select few.

*Strengthened middle class that powers us out of the recession.

*More qualified people in important posts like FEMA director.

[st.cronin]

*Stem cell research executive order reversed. I hope this is the first thing he does.

*Gitmo closed. End of human rights abuses.

I agree with both these.

Also, Wisconsin plays in a Rose Bowl or two.

[stevew]

On the serious note, I hope he'll be much more proactive than the Bush administration was on a lot of common sense issues. The Bush administration bungled way too much shit.

[Izulde]

Destroy the Patriot Act and No Child Left Behind.

I'd love to see affirmative action die off too, but I know that won't happen.

Make some inroads to lowering the high costs of health care and higher education.

Edit: National decriminalization of marijuana. Pipe dream, I know.

[GrantDawg]

Destroy the Patriot Act and No Child Left Behind.

I'd love to see affirmative action die off too, but I know that won't happen.

Make some inroads to lowering the high costs of health care and higher education.

Edit: National decriminalization of marijuana. Pipe dream, I know.

1. Probably not. Scaling back the Patriot Act and increasing funding of NCLB is much more likely.

2. Not gonna happen.

3. My guess they will take a swing at both of those. I don't know if they'll be successfull.

4. Definite pipe dream. Re-thinking the whole "War on drugs" would be a good thing, but it isn't likely to ever happen.

[Tasan]

I lost two IQ points just reading this.

So just because its a dissenting opinion, it makes your intelligence drop? I'm thinking maybe those two points had already gone away when you decided not to even consider opposing viewpoints. This is why I hate even wading into these threads. Nobody on either side has respect for the others point of view, it just has to be stupid.

[lungs]

Edit: National decriminalization of marijuana. Pipe dream, I know.

A pipedream for now as in being able to go to the local convenience store and buying a pack of Marlboro Joints, but decriminalization is occurring in plenty of places in America. As in, possessing small amounts of marijuana is not a criminal offense.

The District Attorney in Dane County, Wisconsin (which contains Madison, of course) decided last year that he will no longer actively prosecute possession of less than 25 grams. Municipalities inside of Dane County can and do implement their own ordinances against possession but these usually amount to petty fines.

I live in a neighboring county to Dane, and possession inside of my county is classified as a misdemeanor. But municipalities have their own ordinances which are the same small fines. So in essence, if you're going to get caught, it's better to get caught in a municipality with their own ordinance because they you don't have to go through the misdemeanor charges which you'll likely need to go through probation to get it expunged (ie: piss tests!).

Paying a small fine is no big deal if you ask me. If you happen to get caught I guess it's pretty much like paying a tax. But the government would do better in collecting that tax by legalizing, regulating, and taxing it. Right now the government is losing money (through imprisonment and enforcement) on something they could be making money on.

Use the tax revenue to stop the real problems out there like meth.

[GrantDawg]

So just because its a dissenting opinion, it makes your intelligence drop? I'm thinking maybe those two points had already gone away when you decided not to even consider opposing viewpoints. This is why I hate even wading into these threads. Nobody on either side has respect for the others point of view, it just has to be stupid.



Ummm...no? Because the comments have no bearing realism and facts. I have a feeling if Arles or some other person with an opposing view point posted, I wouldn't have made that comment. I respect most people that have an opposing view point. It doesn't mean I can't call an idiot post an idiot post.

There are plenty of good posters on all sides of the issues. And then there are idiot Kool-aid drinkers on all sides as well.

[Schmidty]

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2338/2416902518_6ba78daa2f.jpg?v=0

[Edward64]

Interesting news on one of my top issues - healthcare reform (hopefully 'real' and comprehensive as opposed to the $5K tax credit). Looks like Daschle is going to be the person driving it.

Obama aides say Clinton 'on track' for secretary of state job - CNN.com (http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/11/20/transition.wrap/index.html)

The sources, who are in a position to know, said that Daschle negotiated that he would also serve as the White House health "czar" -- or point person -- so that he would report directly to the president. This would guarantee that Daschle -- not White House staffers -- would be writing the health care plan that Obama submits to Congress next year.

"I hope to have the plan enacted by next year, and then it will take several years to implement," Daschle said as he waited in Washington to board a plane bound for Obama's hometown of Chicago, Illinois.

Asked if the United States, in the current economic climate, can afford to reform its health care system, Daschle said, "We can't afford not to do it. If we do nothing, we'll be paying twice as much on health care in 10 years as we do today."

[albionmoonlight]

Daschle as HHS secretary demonstrates that Obama is serious about the health care issue. Not because Daschle has any particular knowledge in the area. But because he can actually get things through Congress.

I imagine that Obama and a bunch of guys in green eyeshades will actually write the plan, and Daschle's one and only job will be to get the votes on the hill for it.

[albionmoonlight]

Oh, and as for hopes, I'll be happy with lots of non-neocon judicial appointments and a restoration of the Executive Branch as a co-equal branch of government subject to (and not above) Constitutional restrictions.

[QuikSand]

I predict many more opportunities for the people who enjoy the intensely political threads at FOFC to continue getting off.

I hope to personally be strong enough to steer clear of them, as my own involvement has rarely contributed anything positive for me, and likely for the "discussion," either.

[GrantDawg]

I predict many more opportunities for the people who enjoy the intensely political threads at FOFC to continue getting off.

I hope to personally be strong enough to steer clear of them, as my own involvement has rarely contributed anything positive for me, and likely for the "discussion," either.

Not true at all on at least the part you contribute role. You are always one of the better posters to read.

[ISiddiqui]

It appears Hillary has accepted Obama's (informal, right now) offer to be SecState:

Clinton to Accept Secretary of State Job - The Caucus Blog - NYTimes.com (http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/11/21/clinton-to-accept-secretary-of-state-job/)

[CamEdwards]

Oh, and as for hopes, I'll be happy with lots of non-neocon judicial appointments and a restoration of the Executive Branch as a co-equal branch of government subject to (and not above) Constitutional restrictions.

If Obama makes the executive less powerful, I will be the first to stand up and applaud. I don't have high hopes on that... not many men refuse the power available to them.

[flere-imsaho]

More of what we have now...For all the talk of change, I'm seeing mostly faces who were associated with the Clinton administration.

I'd like to see you substantiate this claim.

Osama Bin Ladin, if he is still alive and reemerges, becomes a messianic figure to Muslim radicals around the world for defeating the western Satan.

Just out of curiosity, what kind of figure do you think OBL is now to muslim radicals?

[SFL Cat]

I'd like to see you substantiate this claim.

John Podesta, who is overseeing the Obama transition team, is a former Clinton White House Chief of Staff.

Rahm Emmanuel, who will serve as Obama’s Chief of Staff, is a former Clinton aide.

The president-elect’s choice for Attorney General, Eric Holder, served in the Clinton administration as deputy attorney general under Janet Reno.

Peter Orszag, who has been picked to head Obama’s Office of Management and Budget, worked at the Clinton White House as a special assistant to the president at the National Economic Council.

Robert Reich, Former Secretary, U.S. Dept of Labor under Clinton, is a high-level economic advisor to Obama

Bill Richardson, a former Clinton Secretary of Energy was considered for Secretary of State and seems to now be a leading candidate for Secretary of Labor

And then, of course, there’s Hillary. The former first lady and current junior senator from New York has been asked about the Secretary of State position. And if she gets the job, I guess we get Bill back by association.


Just out of curiosity, what kind of figure do you think OBL is now to muslim radicals?

Oh, he's something of a messianic figure now, no doubt. But imagine how much more he would be if he could claim, "Not only did I kick the a$$ of the Godless communists in Russia, I've also whupped the great Satan of the West, the USA, and driven them from Allah's land."

[SFL Cat]

Heh. Bob Woodward doesn't like Hill as SoS

Woodward Knocks Clinton SoS Choice
(http://www.mediabistro.com/fishbowlDC/television/woodward_knocks_clinton_sos_choice_101501.asp)

[GreenMonster]

I'd like to see you substantiate this claim.



Rahm Emanuel new Chief of Staff - Former Clinton Advisor

Eric Holder new Attorney General - Former Clinton Deputy Attorney General

Janet Napolitano top choice for Homeland Security Director - Former Arizona Attorney General appointed by Clinton

Tom Daschle tapped as Secretary of Health and Human Services - Former Senate Minority Leader and Clinton sock puppet.

Bill Richardson is top choice to be Secretary of Commerce - Former Clinton Ambassador to the United Nations and later Secretary of Energy as well.

Hillary Clinton new Secretary of State - Well

[GrantDawg]

Rahm Emanuel new Chief of Staff - Former Clinton Advisor

Eric Holder new Attorney General - Former Clinton Deputy Attorney General

Janet Napolitano top choice for Homeland Security Director - Former Arizona Attorney General appointed by Clinton

Tom Daschle tapped as Secretary of Health and Human Services - Former Senate Minority Leader and Clinton sock puppet.

Bill Richardson is top choice to be Secretary of Commerce - Former Clinton Ambassador to the United Nations and later Secretary of Energy as well.

Hillary Clinton new Secretary of State - Well


Again, you'd be hard pressed to find a qualified Democrat over the age of 35 that hadn't been appointed by Clinton to some position while he was president. Again, if he appointed people with no experienced, he would be killed (like Clinton was), but if he appoints people with experience, then he's just bringing in "Clinton people." Who'd you think he'd tap, Bush's people?

[flere-imsaho]

John Podesta, who is overseeing the Obama transition team, is a former Clinton White House Chief of Staff.

I'm not sure why this is a problem. It seems reasonable that a CoS from the most recent Democratic administration would have a big advisory role in this transition. There's a ton of nuts-and-bolts stuff to sort out.

Rahm Emmanuel, who will serve as Obama’s Chief of Staff, is a former Clinton aide.

Emmanuel is the pick because of his tactical legislative record in the House, not because of his ties to Clinton. You're seeing what you want to see here.

The president-elect’s choice for Attorney General, Eric Holder, served in the Clinton administration as deputy attorney general under Janet Reno.

Heaven forbid we pick someone who is qualified for the job.

Peter Orszag, who has been picked to head Obama’s Office of Management and Budget, worked at the Clinton White House as a special assistant to the president at the National Economic Council.

Again, a nuts-and-bolts job - it's a good idea to give it to someone who can hit the ground running and obviously you're not going to give it to someone from the Bush Administration. Plus, this is the guy who's run the CBO since 2007. Sounds like an ideal choice.

Robert Reich, Former Secretary, U.S. Dept of Labor under Clinton, is a high-level economic advisor to Obama

Virtually every high-level advisor to Obama on important issues has been in the Democratic forefront for some time, so it's ridiculous to expect they wouldn't have some ties to Clinton. Besides, Reich in particular is defined as considerably more than just Clinton's former Secretary of Labor.

Bill Richardson, a former Clinton Secretary of Energy was considered for Secretary of State and seems to now be a leading candidate for Secretary of Labor

The guy who stabbed Hillary in the back to endorse Obama? This is your example?

Janet Napolitano top choice for Homeland Security Director - Former Arizona Attorney General appointed by Clinton

If you're going to disqualify every attorney general appointed by Clinton, you're going to disqualify a lot of really good candidates.

Tom Daschle tapped as Secretary of Health and Human Services - Former Senate Minority Leader and Clinton sock puppet.

Now you're just making shit up.

Face it, you guys are seeing what you want to see.


Besides, the fact of the matter with most of these appointments is that for these, at the highest organizational level, you want people with name recognition and connections, so they can get to work in Washington (or wherever their remit is) as soon as possible.

If you really want to see change, look at the lower level, the people who are going to do the work behind the scenes and the meritocrats who are actually going to run these organizations. Austan Goolsbee, Arne Duncan, Joel Klein, Valerie Jarrett, Robert Gibbs, etc....

I notice you both fail to mention Tim Geithner. Is the president of the New York Fed unqualified because he worked as an aide to both Robert Rubin & Larry Summers?

Or is he perhaps missing from your lists because you've copied those lists from right-wing blogs in the hours before Geithner was announced as the new Treasury Secretary? ;)


Oh, he's something of a messianic figure now, no doubt. But imagine how much more he would be if he could claim, "Not only did I kick the a$$ of the Godless communists in Russia, I've also whupped the great Satan of the West, the USA, and driven them from Allah's land."

Afghanistan is "Allah's land"?

[Schmidty]

Go team go!!!!

[SFL Cat]

Afghanistan is "Allah's land"?

Well, if you want to get technical about things, the whole world belongs to Allah. It's just so happens most of it is currently in the hands of us infidels.

[SFL Cat]

Now you're just making shit up.

Face it, you guys are seeing what you want to see.

Naw...I see a lot of Democrat insiders who were there during the Clinton administration. So, instead of change you can believe in, the campaign slogan should have been -- more of the same...only with OUR guys.

[JonInMiddleGA]

I'm just hoping that Bill is appointed to, say, ambassador to the U.N.

The apoplexy would be fun to watch.

[ISiddiqui]

Face it, you guys are seeing what you want to see.

You asked him to substantiate his claim that the people Obama are putting in are Clinton people and he did so. No need to go moving goalposts just because you got shown up.

Now if you said it didn't care, that's one thing... but you told him "prove it" and he did.

[st.cronin]

I'm just hoping that Bill is appointed to, say, ambassador to the U.N.

The apoplexy would be fun to watch.

It will never happen, but... white house press secretary would be most amusing.

[Chief Rum]

It will never happen, but... white house press secretary would be most amusing.

How about intern coordinator? White House cigar room operator? Official White House food tester?

[larrymcg421]

I'm surprised people are making such a big deal about Obama appointing people that worked for Clinton. He was in charge for 8 years and he was a Democrat. So alot of the people that have experience in different fields that will want to work for Obama had also worked in the Clinton administration. Now, I think it's pretty faulty to argue that everyone that worked for Clinton is a "Clinton" person just because they worked in his administration. Especially since many of them (Richardson, Holder) actually endorsed Obama over Hilary.

And really, some of these examples are just lame. Napolitano? Just because she was a US Attorney under Clinton? That's quite a stretch.

And Daschle is a ridiculous link. I mean, we're not even trying to have an honest debate if we're going to try to connect the dots like that. Give me a break.

I don't think anyone expected Obama to appoint Ray from the Walgreen's pharmacy to HHS. He's going to appoint people that are capable for the job (i.e. no Brown/FEMA situation), and that likely means some of them got experience working at some level in the Clinton administration.

[Chief Rum]

I'm surprised people are making such a big deal about Obama appointing people that worked for Clinton. He was in charge for 8 years and he was a Democrat. So alot of the people that have experience in different fields that will want to work for Obama had also worked in the Clinton administration. Now, I think it's pretty faulty to argue that everyone that worked for Clinton is a "Clinton" person just because they worked in his administration. Especially since many of them (Richardson, Holder) actually endorsed Obama over Hilary.

And really, some of these examples are just lame. Napolitano? Just because she was a US Attorney under Clinton? That's quite a stretch.

And Daschle is a ridiculous link. I mean, we're not even trying to have an honest debate if we're going to try to connect the dots like that. Give me a break.

I don't think anyone expected Obama to appoint Ray from the Walgreen's pharmacy to HHS. He's going to appoint people that are capable for the job (i.e. no Brown/FEMA situation), and that likely means some of them got experience working at some level in the Clinton administration.

He's supposed to be the candidate for change, isn't he? This isn't change. This is just going down the same road we went down 16 years ago. If they were so great, Gore would have breezed to the Presidency in 2000, but they were not, just more of the same (and same BS we got from Bush II, BTW, who brought us rehashes of Bush I).

Heck, the policies of the Clinton administration had a big hand in the loosening of lending restrictions that are basically at the core of what we're going through today in the economy, and this is the same group of people who didn't talk Clinton into taking care of OBL while they had good chances in the late 90s. These are the people we want back?

I want to see new blood in there, outside the box thinkers who really can create change. Not the SOS.

[larrymcg421]

Who says he still can't be the candidate for change? That doesn't mean he has to pick inexperienced people. He should still pick people that have experience at running departments or working in a field, so they can effectively implement the policies he wants. That list is mostly filled with people that worked in Clinton's administration at some point.

The point I was making was that not everyone who worked for Clinton is a "Clinton" person. They could have wildly differed with him on policy. The fact that many of them endorsed Obama suggests that may have been the case. For example, Reich was actually outspoken in his criticism of Clinton during the campaign, and favors much more central planning in the economy, which is probably why Obama listens to his advice.

I mean, the way people are complaining makes me think that Carville was appointed Chief of Staff and Begala was named Press Secretary, and Gates will be dropped in favor of Wesley Clark.

[larrymcg421]

If they were so great, Gore would have breezed to the Presidency in 2000, but they were not, just more of the same


Oh, and I wanted to respond to this point, which I think is pretty inaccurate. Clinton left office with pretty high approval ratings. Gore noticeably distanced himself from Clinton during the campaign, and this is probably what cost him the election.

[Edward64]

Well my #1 and #4 are coming along. Hillary seems to be the shoe-in for Sec of State. Although I do not know if she/Bill can pull it off, I do know if anyone can do it, its them. They can change world opinion of the US to nicely complement the Obama factor.

Don't really know how qualified/good the Geithner nomination is, but I think the market has spoken on Paulson/Bernanke's plans and the lack of confidence in them. As I said in other threads, sure they didn't start the slide, but they are responsible for managing and mitigating it ... it happened on their watch and they have so far been ineffective.

[Big Fo]

I'm surprised people are making such a big deal about Obama appointing people that worked for Clinton.

You shouldn't be. The knives are already out.

[GrantDawg]

I'm just hoping that Bill is appointed to, say, ambassador to the U.N.

The apoplexy would be fun to watch.


I heard he still wants to be the Ambassador to the Bahamas. "Party on!"

[GrantDawg]

You asked him to substantiate his claim that the people Obama are putting in are Clinton people and he did so. No need to go moving goalposts just because you got shown up.

Now if you said it didn't care, that's one thing... but you told him "prove it" and he did.


Actually, he didn't change the goal-post. He showed how loose the connections he was claiming were. Anyway, just the Right-wing talking point of the day. Two weeks after the inauguration we'll be on to something else.

[Jas_lov]

Interesting to see the arguments against Obama shift from "he's an extremist" to "he's just more of the same." No matter who Obama named to his cabinet he would get criticized either way by the same people.

One thing you could argue is why is Obama giving powerful positions to people he thought had bad judgement? Wasn't that one of his biggest arguments against Clinton?

[molson]

Interesting to see the arguments against Obama shift from "he's an extremist" to "he's just more of the same." No matter who Obama named to his cabinet he would get criticized either way by the same people.

One thing you could argue is why is Obama giving powerful positions to people he thought had bad judgement? Wasn't that one of his biggest arguments against Clinton?

It goes both ways all over politics, on all sides.

No matter who Obama appointed would be defended by his supporters, and opposed by his detractors. That's it. I think Jas lov is absolutely right that he'd be criticized if he picked "out there" people that had somehow avoided big jobs in the party under Clinton. It's also true that Obama supporters would either be excited about "real change coming to Washington", or "change from the last 8 years", depending on what Obama chose. People (with rare exception) can't get past those initial allegiances and never have a contrary opinion to them.

I'm guilty of that too, in that I absolutely lean against Obama and look first at the critical angle whenever he does anything. But I feel like I can at least then reach a "second stage" where I can try to get past my bias and see things with a little clarity. I think Obama's picks are a home run thus far.

People like me, who didn't vote for him, who are stunned that someone with such minuscule credentials (outside of good speaking skills - the thing that got him the nomination) is actually president, should be THRILLED that he's going with experienced people. I want the country to succeed first, and while I don't feel Obama is guy for the job, I'd be even more freaked out if he had all these crazy appointments. At this point, a third term of Clinton would be fine by me.

[SFL Cat]

Anyway, just the Right-wing talking point of the day.

With the appropriate left-wing talking point of the day counter. :)

[Buccaneer]

flere, flasch, et al: you guys still don't see your selves as being no different (i.e., playing the partisan game), do you?

[Chief Rum]

You shouldn't be. The knives are already out.

Exactly, Big Fo, I'm not sure why larry should be surprised. We just went through eight seemingly endless years of partisan Bush bashing and criticism and analysis at every turn. Why on Earth do Dems think Obama should get--or deserves--a free pass?

[RedKingGold]

As someone looking for a labor law job, I'm hoping the Employee Free Choice Act (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Employee_Free_Choice_Act) gets passed into law.

Not that I favor union over management rights, but passing the EFCA will be the first major revision to the NLRA since its enactment and will likely result in a lot more work for all labor attorneys.

[Edward64]

As someone looking for a labor law job, I'm hoping the Employee Free Choice Act (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Employee_Free_Choice_Act) gets passed into law.

Not that I favor union over management rights, but passing the EFCA will be the first major revision to the NLRA since its enactment and will likely result in a lot more work for all labor attorneys.
Sorry, can you sum it up for us? What does EFCA do?

[RedKingGold]

Sorry, can you sum it up for us? What does EFCA do?

To sum it up, the EFCA would make three specific changes to private sector labor relations.

#1 - Unions will be certified as a bargaining representative for employees if a majority (51%) signs "cards" which states their approval of the petitioning union. Current law has a lower standard for "card check" (30%) to show "presumption" of majority support, however, the employer can challenge the presumption by a secret ballot. Arguably, the secret election allows employers greater access to employees to persuade them to vote no on the secret election. The EFCA would essentially eliminate the secret ballot election.

#2 - Once union satisfies "card check", the employer and new bargaining representative have 90 days to work out an initial collective bargaining agreement or go to binding arbitration/mediation. If an agreement goes to mediation, employees will not have an attempt to approve the agreement before it goes into effect.

#3 - Larger penalties (including punitives) against employers if found to violate the act. Under the current NLRA, employees only recovery if employer violates the act is reinstatement and back pay.

In effect, these changes would likely:

-Provide for more unfair labor practice charges - In modern times, more employees are bringing employment discrimination claims or other private suits against employers for supposed wrongful behavior because recovery is larger. By allowing employees to seek larger remedies under the NLRA, it opens up potential charges.

-NLRA would need to expand to include arbitration/mediation under #2 above, thus opening up a new "section" of the NLRB and more job opportunities.

-Where it is easier for a union to become a certified bargaining representative, it will likely result in more unions meaning more charges, meaning more work for people in the neutral sector.

-Finally, as EFCA would arguably shift the balance of power closer to 50-50, lots of current case-law would need to be re-examined and re-decided.

Supposedly, the cloture count is now up to 58 for the Act, notwithstanding undecided election results. Obama was an original cosponsor of the bill.

[larrymcg421]

Exactly, Big Fo, I'm not sure why larry should be surprised. We just went through eight seemingly endless years of partisan Bush bashing and criticism and analysis at every turn. Why on Earth do Dems think Obama should get--or deserves--a free pass?

I don't see where I suggested he should get a free pass. I said I was surprised he was being attacked on this specific issue, because many of the arguments were flawed. And it's not only Republicans doing it. Obama's being attacked from both sides on this one.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Obama's being attacked from both sides on this one.

Heck, until I saw the last couple of pages of this thread, I didn't even realize anybody on the right was remotely critical of the appointments (from the standpoint of picking experience vs unknowns).

Because of the extreme differences in anticipated policy, programs, and point of view I doubt I'd approve of the selection of any of them for dogcatcher general BUT from the standpoint of "what makes sense given Obama's political position" I'd say he's probably done better than I would have expected with this phase so far. Going to some people who know which exit to take to get to their office just makes sense AFAIC.

[Buccaneer]

Which was more than what Clinton did on many of his first appointments.

[ISiddiqui]

Arguably, the secret election allows employers greater access to employees to persuade them to vote no on the secret election.

Or rather it would allow those employees who signed the cards under great pressure to vote against it in secret if they really don't want a union.

But you don't have to listen to me, listen to former Senator George McGovern (no conservative):

YouTube - George McGovern on the Employee Free Choice Act (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=afjp4Cx-3W0)

[RedKingGold]

Or rather it would allow those employees who signed the cards under great pressure to vote against it in secret if they really don't want a union.

But you don't have to listen to me, listen to former Senator George McGovern (no conservative):

YouTube - George McGovern on the Employee Free Choice Act (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=afjp4Cx-3W0)

Right, that's why I said "arguably". Could be argued both ways, really.

The Act is not without criticism by liberals and support by conservatives. It is posisble that amendments to the EFCA will need to be made to ensure it passes filibuster.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Which was more than what Clinton did on many of his first appointments.

In fairness to Bill (can't believe I'm saying that), I don't believe he had as much first term access to people with experience as the ruling party as Obama has today. It's only been 8 years since the Clinton administration, whereas it was 12 since the last Dem for Clinton and even that one was the ineptitude of the Carter admin so there wasn't a lot of viability there anyway.

[ISiddiqui]

And prior to the Carter disaster, it had been 8 years since a Dem President (LBJ). So hard for Clinton to pick experience.

[Dutch]

Heck, until I saw the last couple of pages of this thread, I didn't even realize anybody on the right was remotely critical of the appointments (from the standpoint of picking experience vs unknowns).

Because of the extreme differences in anticipated policy, programs, and point of view I doubt I'd approve of the selection of any of them for dogcatcher general BUT from the standpoint of "what makes sense given Obama's political position" I'd say he's probably done better than I would have expected with this phase so far. Going to some people who know which exit to take to get to their office just makes sense AFAIC.

Obama is definately following in George W. Bush's footsteps as far as building an experienced team from previous administrations and snubbing change. So far, he's more like GWB than Clinton!

[RainMaker]

I was a big supporter of Obama and voted for him in the election. I'm a little upset with his selections too.

The whole idea behind Obama and "change" was that it would end the politics as usual crap in Washington. That these Washington insiders would be thrown to the curb in favor of fresh ideas. But all Obama has done is appointe Washington insiders to every job. The change is simply in the letter next to the person's name.

I have no doubt that the new people being appointed are more competent than what's there now. But it's still not going to change much in Washington. We're still seeing the old boys club mentality and "I scatch your back you scratch mine" setup. I think we'll still see the cronyism and corruption, just from the other side of the aisle. Obama had a great opportunity to end this crap, to truly move forward in another direction. Instead, he's simply knocking us back a little further in time to the Clinton years.

[RainMaker]

I'm also heavily against the appointment of Eric Holder. Being someone who works in the technology and internet field, Holder has heavily advocated restrictions on net content. He has advocated regulations for how we can interact online. I just think that's the wrong approach to the internet and puts the U.S. at a disadvantage.

Not to mention he's an old Clinton cronie.

[CraigSca]

The whole idea behind Obama and "change" was that it would end the politics as usual crap in Washington. That these Washington insiders would be thrown to the curb in favor of fresh ideas. But all Obama has done is appointe Washington insiders to every job. The change is simply in the letter next to the person's name.

Exactly. It's a fallacy to believe that Obama is really going to change Washington D.C. In order to get within sniffing distance of the presidency, you have to sell your soul 50 times over to lobbyists, and the good ol' boys club (choose your party here, it really doesn't matter). If he does create true change, I will personally be all over it, but I doubt it will really happen. In the meantime, I'll just be sickened by the partisan politics of the next four (probably eight) years played out on both sides and wonder why we thought it would be any different than the last eight.

[Edward64]

Bill Richardson for Commerce. Not sure what Commerce does (who is the current Commerce Sec?) but IMO he scapegoated Wen Ho Lee during his Energy days. But I guess better Commerce as a consolation than Sec of State.

[Edward64]

Change comes from the top. I hear the pundits here concern about Clinton retreads and how this may impact Obama ... but honestly, during this critical stage of our economy and 2 wars, I want the most experienced giving counsel and pushing through Obama's plan.

Other than for Hillary, I think the others are with the program.

[Galaxy]

Change comes from the top. I hear the pundits here concern about Clinton retreads and how this may impact Obama ... but honestly, during this critical stage of our economy and 2 wars, I want the most experienced giving counsel and pushing through Obama's plan.

Other than for Hillary, I think the others are with the program.

However, why not doesn't Obama just say that in his campaign. It's not like that the economy and the wars just happen. They been going on for quite a while. I actually don't mind a few, experience veteran DCers, but at least bring in some new faces and ideas if your going to center your whole campaign on that.

[Buccaneer]

"Change" in Washington DC had been a fallacy all along. The federal system has gotten so big and so entrenched that there is no way anyone can "throw out the insiders", esp. when two parties dominate the political process and we just switch from one to another. But the Dems can defend it all they want because the main goal was to get the opposition out of power.

[Flasch186]

Well I cant wait to see those on the right come in and give Kudos to the Obama Presidency for his willingness to NOT accelerate the expiration of the Bush tax cuts thus keeping the promised increase of taxes on the wealthy and cap gains from occurring during this difficult time. This stands in contrast to what McCain stated would happen if Obama won and I just want to see if those on the right admit their surprise and happiness. Im happy but the question is will those who stood one side be willing to admit when theyre wrong? It it looks like Obama is putting together an allstar cast of experts in perhaps just the right positions too. This has the potential to be a very good presidency when it is looked back upon. I hope that's true for all of our sake.

[Galaxy]

Well I cant wait to see those on the right come in and give Kudos to the Obama Presidency for his willingness to NOT accelerate the expiration of the Bush tax cuts thus keeping the promised increase of taxes on the wealthy and cap gains from occurring during this difficult time. This stands in contrast to what McCain stated would happen if Obama won and I just want to see if those on the right admit their surprise and happiness. Im happy but the question is will those who stood one side be willing to admit when theyre wrong? It it looks like Obama is putting together an allstar cast of experts in perhaps just the right positions too. This has the potential to be a very good presidency when it is looked back upon. I hope that's true for all of our sake.

Just a question (and for all in general), do you think Obama is in a difficult position in this being his first term. If he really gets down to doing what he said he would do, could he have people say, "This isn't what we want, or it's too liberal (or whatever it could be)? If he is more moderate in what he does, and not delivering on some of his promises (or make scale them back), could he turn off those swing voters and even some of those on the left who are critizing him now (for his cabinet picks, and for moving to the center more) as he goes up for re-election in 2012?

[ISiddiqui]

Well I cant wait to see those on the right come in and give Kudos to the Obama Presidency for his willingness to NOT accelerate the expiration of the Bush tax cuts thus keeping the promised increase of taxes on the wealthy and cap gains from occurring during this difficult time. This stands in contrast to what McCain stated would happen if Obama won and I just want to see if those on the right admit their surprise and happiness. Im happy but the question is will those who stood one side be willing to admit when theyre wrong? It it looks like Obama is putting together an allstar cast of experts in perhaps just the right positions too. This has the potential to be a very good presidency when it is looked back upon. I hope that's true for all of our sake.

That's interesting spin. I'm glad he's not going to end the Bush tax cuts immediately, but McCain was attacking Obama on his CAMPAIGN PROMISES. I'd think this would be more surprise and shock for those who backed Obama, who thought he'd reverse the Bush tax cuts immediately, like he implied he was. Instead Obama has basically accepted McCain's argument during the campaign, while fighting against what he's doing now.

[Fighter of Foo]

I was a big supporter of Obama and voted for him in the election. I'm a little upset with his selections too.

The whole idea behind Obama and "change" was that it would end the politics as usual crap in Washington. That these Washington insiders would be thrown to the curb in favor of fresh ideas. But all Obama has done is appointe Washington insiders to every job. The change is simply in the letter next to the person's name.

I have no doubt that the new people being appointed are more competent than what's there now. But it's still not going to change much in Washington. We're still seeing the old boys club mentality and "I scatch your back you scratch mine" setup. I think we'll still see the cronyism and corruption, just from the other side of the aisle. Obama had a great opportunity to end this crap, to truly move forward in another direction. Instead, he's simply knocking us back a little further in time to the Clinton years.

Not to pick on you specifically, but I think a lot of Obama supporters didn't get very far past, "articulate" and "Not Bush" when they became supporters in the first place.

For anyone who was paying attention, and as mentioned by several people here, none of what Obama is doing is remotely surprising whatsoever.

[Flasch186]

That's interesting spin. I'm glad he's not going to end the Bush tax cuts immediately, but McCain was attacking Obama on his CAMPAIGN PROMISES. I'd think this would be more surprise and shock for those who backed Obama, who thought he'd reverse the Bush tax cuts immediately, like he implied he was. Instead Obama has basically accepted McCain's argument during the campaign, while fighting against what he's doing now.

I love the fact that he is pragmatic and realistic....and able to 'flip flop' when the environment changes. Goes against the GOP spin of how things would be under Obama (if he continues his tack to the center).

[ISiddiqui]

It also goes against Obama's spin during the campaign ;).

[albionmoonlight]

I'd rather he appoint smart people with experience than outsiders qua outsiders. So, I'm cool.

[Fighter of Foo]

I'd rather he appoint smart people with experience than outsiders qua outsiders. So, I'm cool.

Vote Democrat. We're for war, torture & corruption too, and we're good at it.

Sounds like a winning slogan to me.

[SFL Cat]

Vote Democrat. We're for war, torture & corruption too, and we're good at it.

Sounds like a winning slogan to me.

I like it!

Vote Republicrat.

[RainMaker]

Not to pick on you specifically, but I think a lot of Obama supporters didn't get very far past, "articulate" and "Not Bush" when they became supporters in the first place.

For anyone who was paying attention, and as mentioned by several people here, none of what Obama is doing is remotely surprising whatsoever.

I agree. Since we aren't given much in terms of choices, I think people just vote against the party/person that has fucked things up. I really don't think this election was as sophisticated as some make it out to be. It was Republicans fucking things up for 8 years and everyone saying lets see what the other guys can do. We'll be back in this spot again someday.

[RainMaker]

Change comes from the top. I hear the pundits here concern about Clinton retreads and how this may impact Obama ... but honestly, during this critical stage of our economy and 2 wars, I want the most experienced giving counsel and pushing through Obama's plan.

Other than for Hillary, I think the others are with the program.

The "most experienced" guys got us into this mess.

[SFL Cat]

That would be my dream job! Run a company into the ground, and then get a multi-million dollar severence package from the shareholders for my efforts! :)

[miked]

That would be my dream job! Run a company into the ground, and then get a multi-million dollar severence package from the shareholders for my efforts! :)

Congrats, you just described about 50% of our country's CEOs.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

I'm beginning to wonder how many of Obama's campaign promises will even come to pass at this point. His tax plan is reportedly going to be on hold indefinitely due to the downturn in the economy. Also, it appears that his advisors are considering holding off on many of the terrorism policy rollbacks after the massive attacks in India. Policy makers are concerned that a rollback of some pieces of the Patriot Act and Homeland Security changes may not be the correct move. They're worried that the terrorists are using these attacks to test how far they can go with Obama.

[JPhillips]

But...but... he's a radical Marxist.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

But...but... he's a radical Marxist.

Well, it's not really of his choice. He'd love to implement many of the policies that he promised during the campaign, but as I stated before the election, it wasn't likely at all that he'd be able to implement many of his policies as they simply don't make any sense related to real-world politics. As radical as many of Obama's suggested policies are, it appears that radicals from the other side of the world may hog-tie him for the most part. As a result, we're going to get a presidency for the next 4 years where not much 'change' actually occurs. I think the same would have been true of a McCain presidency.

[JPhillips]

Good. As long as he's still a secret radical I'm cool.

[Edward64]

Huh? Other than for the infrastructure section, the rest sounds weak to me. If that's his energy plan, I'm very disappointed.

Most Emailed News Stories (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1208/16258.html)

President-elect Barack Obama added sweep and meat to his economic agenda on Saturday, pledging the largest new investment in roads and bridges since President Dwight D. Eisenhower built the Interstate system in the late 1950s, and tying his key initiatives – education, energy, health care –back to jobs in a package that has the makings of a smaller and modern version of FDR's New Deal marriage of job creation with infrastructure upgrades.

The president-elect also said for the first time that he will “launch the most sweeping effort to modernize and upgrade school buildings that this country has ever seen.”

“We will repair broken schools, make them energy-efficient, and put new computers in our classrooms,” he said in the address.

The president-elect is bringing new elements of his domestic agenda into his economic recovery plan, committing to a path toward giving every American access to an electronic medical record as part of an “economic recovery plan ... that won’t just save jobs, it will save lives.”

Obama had talked in the campaign about lowering health care costs by investing in electronic information technology systems, but not in the context of the economy.

Now, his key initiatives – education, energy, health care – are all being tied back to jobs.

“When Congress reconvenes in January, I look forward to working with them to pass a plan immediately,” Obama says in the address. “We need to act with the urgency this moment demands to save or create at least two and a half million jobs so that the nearly two million Americans who’ve lost them know that they have a future. And that’s exactly what I intend to do as president of the United States.”

Obama had committed just before Thanksgiving to saving or creating 2.5 million jobs in the next two years, more than twice his campaign promise of 1 million new jobs over an unspecified period. But he didn’t say how he would do it. On Saturday, he began to spell it out, offering "five key parts" of his economic plan:

—ENERGY: “[W]e will launch a massive effort to make public buildings more energy-efficient. Our government now pays the highest energy bill in the world. We need to change that. We need to upgrade our federal buildings by replacing old heating systems and installing efficient light bulbs. That won’t just save you, the American taxpayer, billions of dollars each year. It will put people back to work.”

—ROADS AND BRIDGES: “[W]e will create millions of jobs by making the single largest new investment in our national infrastructure since the creation of the federal highway system in the 1950s. We’ll invest your precious tax dollars in new and smarter ways, and we’ll set a simple rule – use it or lose it. If a state doesn’t act quickly to invest in roads and bridges in their communities, they’ll lose the money.”

—SCHOOLS: “[M]y economic recovery plan will launch the most sweeping effort to modernize and upgrade school buildings that this country has ever seen. We will repair broken schools, make them energy-efficient, and put new computers in our classrooms. Because to help our children compete in a 21st century economy, we need to send them to 21st century schools.”

—BROADBAND: “As we renew our schools and highways, we’ll also renew our information superhighway. It is unacceptable that the United States ranks 15th in the world in broadband adoption. Here, in the country that invented the Internet, every child should have the chance to get online, and they’ll get that chance when I’m president – because that’s how we’ll strengthen America’s competitiveness in the world.”

(Incoming White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel had talked about expanding broadband access, but this is the first time the transition has formally proposed it.)

—ELECTRONIC MEDICAL RECORDS: “In addition to connecting our libraries and schools to the Internet, we must also ensure that our hospitals are connected to each other through the Internet. That is why the economic recovery plan I’m proposing will help modernize our health care system – and that won’t just save jobs, it will save lives. We will make sure that every doctor’s office and hospital in this country is using cutting edge technology and electronic medical records so that we can cut red tape, prevent medical mistakes, and help save billions of dollars each year.”

[Edward64]

Shinseki as VA secretary. I don't think we know the full accurate story but I do remember him as standing up to Rumsfelds optimistic projects for the occupation of Iraq. Glad Shinseki has landed somewhere.

[Galaril]

I'm beginning to wonder how many of Obama's campaign promises will even come to pass at this point. His tax plan is reportedly going to be on hold indefinitely due to the downturn in the economy. Also, it appears that his advisors are considering holding off on many of the terrorism policy rollbacks after the massive attacks in India. Policy makers are concerned that a rollback of some pieces of the Patriot Act and Homeland Security changes may not be the correct move. They're worried that the terrorists are using these attacks to test how far they can go with Obama.

Though many Americans wouldlike to believe the whole revolves around us the plain truth is some things just happen regardless of us or how we think/feel about them. So I tend to disagree that these attacks had anything at all to do with us.

[Subby]

Well, it's not really of his choice. He'd love to implement many of the policies that he promised during the campaign, but as I stated before the election, it wasn't likely at all that he'd be able to implement many of his policies as they simply don't make any sense related to real-world politics. As radical as many of Obama's suggested policies are, it appears that radicals from the other side of the world may hog-tie him for the most part. As a result, we're going to get a presidency for the next 4 years where not much 'change' actually occurs. I think the same would have been true of a McCain presidency.
The best part is that you are going to be cluelessly and harmlessly yammering away in cyberspace for the next eight years while President Obama actually gets shit done.

Your Internet addiction = good for America!

[flere-imsaho]

Shinseki as VA secretary. I don't think we know the full accurate story but I do remember him as standing up to Rumsfelds optimistic projects for the occupation of Iraq. Glad Shinseki has landed somewhere.

Well, basically he's the guy who put together a plan for Iraq that postulated force levels of up to 500,000 troops. After saying as much when testifying before Congress, he was chewed out publically by both Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz.

This was, however, only one in a series of disagreements he had with Rumsfeld.

[flere-imsaho]

Huh? Other than for the infrastructure section, the rest sounds weak to me. If that's his energy plan, I'm very disappointed.

Most Emailed News Stories (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1208/16258.html)

I wonder how much detail, though, one can put in a press release. ;)

[Flasch186]

Well, it's not really of his choice. He'd love to implement many of the policies that he promised during the campaign, but as I stated before the election, it wasn't likely at all that he'd be able to implement many of his policies as they simply don't make any sense related to real-world politics. As radical as many of Obama's suggested policies are, it appears that radicals from the other side of the world may hog-tie him for the most part. As a result, we're going to get a presidency for the next 4 years where not much 'change' actually occurs. I think the same would have been true of a McCain presidency.

Forgive me for pointing out that almost ALL of the shit you spouted on about during the election and in the days since the election have turned out to be total bunk.

[molson]

The best part is that you are going to be cluelessly and harmlessly yammering away in cyberspace for the next eight years while President Obama actually gets shit done.



I really hope he "gets shit done" (as long as it's good shit). But I'm facinated by the optimism. Charisma is an amazing force.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

I really hope he "gets shit done" (as long as it's good shit). But I'm facinated by the optimism. Charisma is an amazing force.

Agreed. These two articles profoundly demonstrate that the more things change, the more they stay the same.........

8 years ago:

Cheney Denies &#x27;Talking Down&#x27; Economy for Political Gain : Talk of Recession Strains Transition - International Herald Tribune (http://www.iht.com/articles/2000/12/22/bush.2.t_5.php)

Yesterday:

My Way News - Obama: Economy to get worse before it improves (http://apnews.myway.com/article/20081207/D94TUJ4O0.html)

The only real difference is the spin on what is basically the same situation. It's all the same in the end. There were people making posts just like Subby and Flasch 8 years ago on the other side. It's silly, but not unexpected. They're just caught up in the moment. It happens to the best of people.

[Flasch186]

i point to my post a few posts above. You have totally been discredited when it comes to anything political especially any sort of speculation or prognostication.

[JPhillips]

Agreed. These two articles profoundly demonstrate that the more things change, the more they stay the same.........

8 years ago:

Cheney Denies &#x27;Talking Down&#x27; Economy for Political Gain : Talk of Recession Strains Transition - International Herald Tribune (http://www.iht.com/articles/2000/12/22/bush.2.t_5.php)

Yesterday:

My Way News - Obama: Economy to get worse before it improves (http://apnews.myway.com/article/20081207/D94TUJ4O0.html)

The only real difference is the spin on what is basically the same situation. It's all the same in the end. There were people making posts just like Subby and Flasch 8 years ago on the other side. It's silly, but not unexpected. They're just caught up in the moment. It happens to the best of people.

Where do you pull these from? It's not a big deal as we all borrow from other sites, but you have a habit of posting without citation. I have a hard time believing that you saw an AP article and said to yourself, "Hey that reminds me of an International Herald Tribune article from eight years ago."

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Where do you pull these from? It's not a big deal as we all borrow from other sites, but you have a habit of posting without citation. I have a hard time believing that you saw an AP article and said to yourself, "Hey that reminds me of an International Herald Tribune article from eight years ago."

These two articles were posted over at the Wizbang blog. I don't agree with all of their opinion in the blog, but the articles are a good reference.

[Flasch186]

reference for what?

[Senator]

I refer back to the title of this thread.

I hope I get my "President check" before Christmas.

I predict I won't.

[flere-imsaho]

The Obama Presidency - hopes and predictions

Personally, I'm hoping for a little bit less of this: (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/12/opinion/12schweich.html?_r=1&em=&pagewanted=print)

“YOU know you have arrived when you get interviewed by the 29-year-old instead of the 22-year-old,” the 57-year-old foreign service officer said to me with a laugh. It was late 2005, and this three-time ambassador had just been interviewed for a top post at the Department of State.

Her interviewer was part of a large corps of 20-somethings — some were in their early 30s — who ran the Office of Presidential Personnel. Many of them were sons or daughters of supporters of President George W. Bush. Others had connections through congressmen. With few exceptions, they had one thing in common: very little experience and a very big attitude.

Another top foreign service officer called me after his interview to be ambassador to a volatile African country. “The problem was,” he told me, “the kid interviewing me could not pronounce the name of the country I was being interviewed for. It made for an awkward interview until he just started saying ‘the country we are considering you for.’”

President-elect Barack Obama has chosen an all-star cabinet with great promise. But the next level of appointments — assistant secretaries, deputy assistant secretaries and ambassadors — are just as important. These people will brief the cabinet officials as they confront harrowing domestic and foreign policy challenges. We need competent people in these positions. And to get those people, we need experienced screeners, interviewers and decision-makers in the Office of Presidential Personnel.

My own experience is typical. I had three jobs in the Bush administration: ambassador for counternarcotics and justice reform in Afghanistan, deputy assistant secretary of state for international law enforcement affairs and chief of staff of the United States mission to the United Nations.

For two of these jobs, my appointment was preceded by an effort by a 20-something in personnel to place an unqualified friend in the job. (In the third instance, the State Department went out of its way to avoid the personnel office by appealing directly to a senior assistant to the president.) For one of the jobs, two State Department officials, John Bolton and Anne Patterson, had to intervene.

In the worst cases, the “kids” — as many of us called them — would search for a candidate and eventually conclude, like Dick Cheney when he was the head of George W. Bush’s vice presidential search team, that they were the best candidates for the jobs.

The problems that resulted occasionally made the news. There was small bit of outrage in 2005 when a 30-something personnel employee picked herself to head the new Immigration and Customs Enforcement division of the Department of Homeland Security. (Her tenure included the publication of a photograph online of her standing next to an employee, who was costumed in blackface and a prisoner’s uniform, during a Halloween party that she hosted.)

Similarly, the inexperience of Monica Goodling, the former liaison to the White House at the Justice Department, contributed to the politics-based hiring of career lawyers and helped create a demoralizing scandal from which the department still has not fully recovered. But there were many other such stories that stayed below the radar screen.

In fairness to the Bush administration, for which I retain a great deal of admiration, putting young campaign workers and connected college graduates into White House personnel positions is nothing new. And some of them, like Stuart Holliday and Dina Powell, who ran President Bush’s personnel office for a while, were true professionals.

But if our new president wants to make an important change to how government works, he should fill the personnel office — and the liaison offices to the White House at the various executive branch departments — with a combination of veteran government employees and human resources experts. That’s the way to ensure that the best people get the jobs that will shape our country for the next four years.

:jawdrop:

[Dutch]

My hope is that Obama is the exception and not the norm of Illinois Democrats.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Geez, my hope is beginning to be that Obama's cabinet doesn't have any more skeletons in the closet. Looks like Rahm may not be the only one who Obama failed to adequately check his background. Another one of Obama's cabinet is a main player in a new 'pay to play' investigation.......

"Pay To Play" Probe Hits New Mexico, Washington Post: Gov. Bill Richardson's Office Investigated Over Political Contributor's $1.4M State Contracts - CBS News (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/12/16/politics/washingtonpost/main4671020.shtml)

"Pay To Play" Probe Hits New Mexico
Washington Post: Gov. Bill Richardson's Office Investigated Over Political Contributor's $1.4M State Contracts

WASHINGTON, Dec. 16, 2008

A federal grand jury is investigating whether a financial firm improperly won more than $1.4 million in work for the state of New Mexico shortly after making contributions to political action committees of Gov. Bill Richardson (D).

The probe focuses on whether the governor's office urged a state agency to hire CDR Financial Products. The probe is in a highly active stage at a time when President-elect Barack Obama has chosen Richardson as his nominee for secretary of commerce, according to two sources familiar with the investigation.

The grand jury in Albuquerque is expected to hear testimony today from several key witnesses, including officials at Richard's political action committees and bankers at J.P. Morgan who worked with CDR on the state's investments.

The inquiry is part of a long-running nationwide investigation into "pay-to-play" practices in local government bond markets. In other cities, federal investigators are questioning whether financial firms have lavished politicians with money and gifts in exchange for fee-paying work advising municipal and local governments on investments. Authorities indicted the mayor of Birmingham, Ala., this month on charges of taking hundreds of thousands of dollars in gifts and loans from a firm that led the city into toxic investments and massive bankruptcy.

In the New Mexico case, the FBI and federal prosecutors are investigating how CDR, based in Beverly Hills, Calif., won lucrative fees from the New Mexico Finance Authority in 2004 soon after donating $100,000 to two Richardson organizations.

From 2003 to 2004, CDR Financial gave $75,000 to Sí Se Puede, which paid for expenses at the Democratic National Convention in 2004. CDR's president and founder, David Rubin, also gave $25,000 to Moving America Forward, which funded Richardson's efforts to register Hispanic and American Indian voters.

Rubin was generous to Obama's campaign as well, giving $29,000 to help elect the senator to the White House. Yesterday, the Obama transition office declined to comment on the development.

Gilbert Gallegos, a spokesman for Richardson, said the governor was "aware of questions surrounding some financial transactions at the New Mexico Finance Authority" and expected state officials to cooperate fully. Gallegos declined further comment.

The U.S. attorney's office in New Mexico also declined to comment on the investigation, which began in the summer. Several Finance Authority board members have publicly confirmed being interviewed by the FBI. Paul Kennedy, an attorney for Richardson's former chief of staff, David Harris, confirmed that his client had been interviewed by the FBI in the summer but declined to comment further.

CDR's attorney, Richard Beckler, declined to answer questions about the probe's focus.

"CDR has always tried to abide by these byzantine campaign finance regulations and is cooperating fully with this investigation," Beckler said in a telephone interview yesterday.

CDR made $1.48 million advising the authority on interest-rate swaps and refinancing of funds related to $1.6 billion in transportation bonds issued by the agency, state officials confirmed. Interest-rate swaps are financial contracts based on the value of commodities, loans or other assets, and debtors sometimes use them to lower borrowing costs. But many swaps have recently proven unwise as the assets upon which they were based plummeted in value.

The state hired CDR after requesting proposals for a bond adviser on Dec. 30, 2003. Sources familiar with the investigation said CDR initially did not make the list of the top three bidders. But the authority committee considering the bids redid the selection process and split some work, eventually hiring CDR for a part.

Committee Chairman Rick Homans was Richardson's economic development secretary at the time. He is now Richardson's taxation and revenue secretary and has declined to comment.

[astrosfan64]

you obviously missed my rants on this in the election threads during the debates.

offshore domestic oil drilling would not provide a drop of oil that would find its way into american gas tanks within something like 10 years. the problem is that we don't have the rigs and drilling supplies to exploit offshore oil fields at the moment, and producing and deploying them then doing the drilling and refining would take that long.

now it IS true, and i do admit, that there is oil in ANWR that we could access sooner than that. I will also admit that I am not up to speed on exactly how much oil is up there and what type of effect it would have on gas prices in the short/intermediate term, but my impression has been that it's not massively significant (although let me state again, i don't know, so feel free to post objective scientific research proving me wrong). I believe i've heard scientists say it would be a drop-in-the-bucket compared to what we currently use, and certainly not a long-term answer.

the solution to energy independence is not drilling (either offshore or ANWR). It lies principally in the domestic (and later military) use of alternative energy sources.

Since you no nothing about this please stop talking. We have plenty rigs and drilling supplies for offshore. The problem is when oil drops to lower rates, it no longer worth the expense of drilling. The oil field is predicting a 50% drop in the amount of rigs this year from last in the north american drilling fields.

We just had our budget cut by about 1/3 for the next year.

[JPhillips]

Geez, my hope is beginning to be that Obama's cabinet doesn't have any more skeletons in the closet.

Insincerity, thy name is MBBF.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Insincerity, thy name is MBBF.

Actually, I was being sincere. I'd much rather we be able to discuss policies. Given the Obama attacks over the vetting of Palin, you would think that he would have done a better job on his end. It's obviously concerning.

[sterlingice]

Insincerity, thy name is MBBF.

He's even sincere enough to place it in multiple threads:
Front Office Football Central - View Single Post - Illinois governor arrested on corruption charges....... (http://www.operationsports.com/fofc/showpost.php?p=1906005&postcount=70)

SI

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

He's even sincere enough to place it in multiple threads:
Front Office Football Central - View Single Post - Illinois governor arrested on corruption charges....... (http://www.operationsports.com/fofc/showpost.php?p=1906005&postcount=70)

SI

Obviously, that was in response to a question, not a post meant to double post.

[sterlingice]

Obviously, that was in response to a question, not a post meant to double post.

Obviously, there's a great deal of sincerity going around this morning

SI

[JPhillips]

MBBF: You've been looking for any way to discredit Obama for months. That's fine, but at least drop the "wishing him the best" act.

[astrosfan64]

Rooting against the president?

I don't understand how people can do that. Our country is in shambles right now and whether you wanted McCain to win or Obama should not matter at this point. I hope Obama does well, because we as a country need him to do well.

So everyone who is hating on him, just need to STFU and get with the program. If he sucks he will be gone in four years and our country will be in worse shape. But, we need him to do well if we want our country to recover.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Rooting against the president?

I don't understand how people can do that. Our country is in shambles right now and whether you wanted McCain to win or Obama should not matter at this point. I hope Obama does well, because we as a country need him to do well.

So everyone who is hating on him, just need to STFU and get with the program. If he sucks he will be gone in four years and our country will be in worse shape. But, we need him to do well if we want our country to recover.

Agree with all of this. It's simply unheard of to think that people on this board or anyone in the general public would every root against a president. I can't remember the last time that's ever happened.

[Flasch186]

MBBF, did you ever admit to being completely wrong on the elections thread?

lemme see...

nope.

credit = zero

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

I'm sure that Flasch's Truth Watch(TM) is just finalizing data on the criminal investigations in Chicago and New Mexico. He's never ducked an issue before. I'm certain he'll get to the bottom of these current issues. He's always been a person that seeks the truth regardless of party affiliation, and I respect him for that.

[Flasch186]

lets see

the prosecutor has arrested the accused
the pres-elect team has investigated
the prosecutor asked that the report be delayed and confirmed that the president elect and his team aren't being implicated

not sure what else you want from that other than the same thing I said about Troopergate:

I hope EVERYONE cooperates fully and the TRUTH comes out.

I feel fairly confident though that the President isn't going to start a parallel investigation and refuse to cooperate with Fitzgerald, if he does Ill be sure to lump him in the same category as the other people who do so.

you do want the same right? In all things, right?

Is that what you wanted? Pretty clear huh? exactly the same as Troopergate? You, however, were VERY VERY wrong, completely biased, and never ever admitted it even when empirical un-partisan information blew up in your face. that's just crazy IMO

[Buccaneer]

You guys realize that this continuing partisan bickering make both sides look like fools? Flasch/JPhillip/etc., don't get too cocky. You never have and still don't sound any different than MBBF/etc..

[JPhillips]

Buc: This is going to sound a lot bitchier than I intend it to be, but here goes. For all of your concern about other folks' behavior there's almost no one here more set in their ways than you are. I gather you see yourself as beyond partisanship, but even if that's true, you're a rather inflexible ideologue at this point.

I don't have a problem with your inflexibility and I'm willing to stipulate that I'm just as inflexible(age and parenting does that to a guy). I honestly don't have a problem with an adversarial relationship when it comes to politics as I think the genuine disagreements should be aired out. If we're ever going to change our minds it will be because of passionate argument, not deferential silence.

I try to only call people out when I believe they aren't being honest, and that's what I did with MBBF. I don't have a problem with him being opposed to Obama, but concern trolling is just a way to obfuscate reality. I obviously don't agree with MBBF on substance, but that's something we can argue over if there is an attempt by both sides to show our cards.

As for looking like a fool, perhaps, but as long as I'm deemed honest about my intentions I can live with that. I'm happier letting the world see me for who I am, warts and all, than I would be pretending to bathe in the warm waters of ambivalent and apathetic centrism. At the end of the day I think you believe the same thing.

[molson]

It's interesting, both sides think that the other sides' approach to an argument is "wrong" - they feel that way, of course, because they're so sure they're "right".

Disagreeing is "trolling", agreeing is something else, because hey, you can't be trolling if you're right.

[JPhillips]

molson: I think you misunderstand the term "concern trolling". That's when you feign concern for someone or something that you in fact have no concern for. It seems pretty obvious based on his history that MBBF isn't really concerned for Obama.

[Buccaneer]

As for looking like a fool, perhaps, but as long as I'm deemed honest about my intentions I can live with that. I'm happier letting the world see me for who I am, warts and all, than I would be pretending to bathe in the warm waters of ambivalent and apathetic centrism. At the end of the day I think you believe the same thing.

JPhillips, I do agree with that. I think I should not have lumped you with Flasch but instead, should put in Flere. :)

I actually don't think what I believe would be called bi-partisanship or centrism or beyond partisanship. It's probably an attitude that the current red/blue partisans are equally wrong. :) Since the summer, I have seen a constant stream attacking the opposition and being defensive about one side. You can call that passionate arguing but in the end, it is really about changing parties while we continue to accept federal government solutions and increasing powers. I cannot accept that and those that argue for it. Or something like that.

[st.cronin]

Bill Richardson is filthy.

[SFL Cat]

Politician = filthy

[RedKingGold]

Vote Ron Paul!

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

I try to only call people out when I believe they aren't being honest, and that's what I did with MBBF. I don't have a problem with him being opposed to Obama, but concern trolling is just a way to obfuscate reality. I obviously don't agree with MBBF on substance, but that's something we can argue over if there is an attempt by both sides to show our cards.

I actually was be honest about Obama. I REALLY would prefer that we don't have any scandals in the White House at this point. Obviously, I might have a small dab of sarcasm involved in my comments, but I was being very truthful in my feeling that I hoped Obama didn't end up in any political scandals.

Thus far, from a policy standpoint, I've been very happy that most of the Obama policies are moderating before our very eyes.

[TroyF]

Rooting against the president?

I don't understand how people can do that. Our country is in shambles right now and whether you wanted McCain to win or Obama should not matter at this point. I hope Obama does well, because we as a country need him to do well.

So everyone who is hating on him, just need to STFU and get with the program. If he sucks he will be gone in four years and our country will be in worse shape. But, we need him to do well if we want our country to recover.



Actually, I really don't think it matter what exactly the president does. A lot of the current mortgage crisis were due to policies put into place before GW took office. Nor were the .coms turning to crap something Bush could have prevented. The world economy is suffering and that isn't strictly a GW problem either. I think you could put a retarted monkey in office, and these issues will clear themselves up. I'm not all that concerned with the "program." I'm more concerned about what his policies are going to do for the long haul, not the short term.

[sterlingice]

I think you could put a retarted monkey in office

Nah, we've already tried that and it badly didn't work

SI

[RainMaker]

Rooting against the president?

I don't understand how people can do that. Our country is in shambles right now and whether you wanted McCain to win or Obama should not matter at this point. I hope Obama does well, because we as a country need him to do well.

So everyone who is hating on him, just need to STFU and get with the program. If he sucks he will be gone in four years and our country will be in worse shape. But, we need him to do well if we want our country to recover.

Some people treat politics as a sport. They have their team and they root against the other. The country is secondary to their competitive nature.

It's an ironic twist since they are the ones who would like you to believe that they care more about their country because of their involvement in politics while in fact they aren't.

[Edward64]

Bill Richardson is filthy.
I agree.

[Arles]

Actually, I really don't think it matter what exactly the president does. A lot of the current mortgage crisis were due to policies put into place before GW took office. Nor were the .coms turning to crap something Bush could have prevented. The world economy is suffering and that isn't strictly a GW problem either. I think you could put a retarted monkey in office, and these issues will clear themselves up. I'm not all that concerned with the "program." I'm more concerned about what his policies are going to do for the long haul, not the short term.
Agreed. My biggest fear in all this is we get so caught up in ensuring no one ever gets laid off or loses their retirement in the market that we remove many of the incentives that make the US what it is.

There's a tight line we are about to walk between showing some compassion to people in tough times and trying to remove all risk from American life. It seems like most of the fear has been associated with straying too far from the first direction, but little has been devoted to worrying about the second. In 8 years, we will all have made it through this either way, I just hope we don't do long term damage to our fiscal/economic system to stave off a few years of pain (that we probably won't avoid anyway).

EDIT - And for those in the republican/democrat horse race, I would be just as worried about the above if McCain had been elected.

[Edward64]

Just read that Obama is considering Hillary Clinton for Sec of State. Assuming there can be a good working relationship between the 2 and Hillary can wait her turn in 8 yrs, I think she would be great. This brought me to ask what has Condi Rice done lately and honestly, without doing some deep research, I don't think she has been in the news or produced much of anything.

This got me thinking about the Obama presidency as a whole. Going into the election and reading post-election comments, there are extremely high expecation of what Obama will accomplish ... from righting the economy, ending the war in Iraq, capturing OBL, having the world love us again etc.

Outside of the economy which seems to be on cruise control to somewhere, what are your hopes and predictions?

My hopes are


Some massive overhaul for healthcare to fix the problem. Not sure if socialized 100% coverage is the right solution but something beyond $5K tax credits needs to be done.
Serious Energy program. Encourage alternate fuels etc. Not sure what the solution is but with gas back down to < $2, I am concerned this will no longer be the focus.
Stabilize Iraq. Militarily for sure, not sure about politically. Refocus on Afghanistan and get that SOB (preferably dead).
Improve world opinion of the US. I think Hillary and Bill and accomplish this!


I guess I should have added a fifth ...

5. Stabilized and peacefull Middle East.

[flere-imsaho]

I guess I should have added a fifth ...

5. Stabilized and peacefull Middle East.

You might as well ask for world peace, an end to hunger and poverty and, heck, ponies for everyone. :p

[ISiddiqui]

Well he is an Obama supporter, I'm sure he already has ;)

[flere-imsaho]

I'll have you know I put in my order for a pony before the election. If I don't get one by January 21st, I'm going to be pissed.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

I'll have you know I put in my order for a pony before the election. If I don't get one by January 21st, I'm going to be pissed.

No winged unicorns in stock?

[Buccaneer]

I'll have you know I put in my order for a pony before the election. If I don't get one by January 21st, I'm going to be pissed.

I remembered that. Problem is they gave away the ponies to the financial execs, auto execs, labor leaders and those that got bad mortgages. No pony for you.

[flere-imsaho]

ECONOMY

Hopes:

U.S. out of recession by early 2010.
DOW back over 10,000 by 2011.
The Obama team figures out how to get Wall Street to finally resolve all the bad debts out there (the weakness of the American economy isn't addressed in full until this is, in my opinion).
In 2009, an Obama "reconstruction" plan passes Congress that is designed to rebuild the U.S. for the 21st century. It includes:

Substantial investment in R&D efforts for "21st century" industries, such as technology, biotechnology, pharma, green technologies, etc....
Infrastructure upgrades (roads, rail, ATC, internet backbone)

Better regulatory powers, and a will to use them intelligently, at the SEC.


Predictions:

U.S. out of recession by late 2010.
DOW goes back over 10,000 during primary season for 2012 elections.
Wall Street never really figures out how much bad debt is out there, but by late 2010 there's enough faith that the "Big 3" (Citibank, JP Morgan Chase, Bank of America) have cleared the bulk of the liabilities that the country starts to lift out of its 2-3 year malaise in the financial markets.
Chrysler fails and its parts are bought up by competitors (foreign & domestic). Ford ends up needing that line of credit, but turns out OK. GM is kept on life support by the government through 2010 and restructuring starts to pay off in 2011.
A short-term stimulus package of tax breaks and generalized pork is passed in early 2009.
A long-term "reconstruction" package is finally passed in mid/late-2009 and demonstrates the first serious test of Obama's influence over Congress. Relations are soured between the White House and the Democratic leadership in Congress over the latter's lack of willingness to pass legislation over the objections of vocal minorities amongst the GOP in Congress. This drives the liberal blogosphere absolutely ballistic. The "reconstruction" package contains some forward-looking initiatives, but is also at least half pork.


SUPREME COURT

Hopes: Stevens (age: 88, reason: age), Ginsburg (75, health), Scalia (72, age), Kennedy (72, age), Breyer (70, age), and Souter (69, age/desire to retire) all retire and are replaced by young (around 50), brilliant, accomplished and just-left-of-center progressive justices. Furthermore, Thomas experiences an epiphany and changes from a reliable but incomprehensible right-wing vote to a reliable but still incomprehensible left-wing vote. Roberts decides he doesn't want to be remembered as a Chief Justice who was always in the minority and so migrates to the center. Alito doesn't change, and becomes a bitter, disillusioned man.

Predictions: Early retirements for Stevens, Ginsburg and Souter. Easy confirmations for replacements who are young (50s), left-of-center but not radical, and possess very good credentials. Later retirements for Kennedy and Breyer. More difficult confirmation for replacements due to aforementioned ineptitude of Democratic leadership in Congress and increasing hostility between them and Obama White House. Eventual replacements are confirmed with good majorities (think Roberts) and are still young (50s), left-of-center but not radical, and possess very good credentials. In these later confirmations especially, the influence of "moderate" Republicans such as John McCain and Olympia Snowe are significant.

FOREIGN POLICY

Hopes:

Majority of U.S. troops out of Iraq by 2010 in advance of current plan due to unexpected improvement in security and political stability.
Resurgent Afghanistani government and invigorated Pakistani administration, with U.S. and NATO backing, rout Taliban in border regions. Afghanistan secure enough by early 2012 to start withdrawing U.S. troops.
During the above operations OBL is mortally wounded by shrapnel but lives for a few days before dying. His body is discovered by Pakistani troops who overrun his position. Later, a video of OBL during his last days taken by a lapsed militant surfaces and shows a mentally enfeebled, ranting, humiliated, and afraid OBL. Negative impact to AQ recruitment & fundraising is significant.
The Obama administration manages to engage again-Russian President Putin on a number of military and economic concords, with the result being a less-aggressive Russia and a more open state-influenced quasi-free market state.
The Obama administration convinces China to institute real regulatory oversight for its factories so they stop sending deadly toys, drugs and food to the U.S.
Obama & Clinton manage, in 2011, to broker a "Good Friday"-type (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Good_Friday_Agreement) in Israel/Palestine.
Responding to backchannel overtures by the U.S., the Iranian Supreme Council do not support Ahmadinejad in the 2009 Presidential Election, and instead allow a "reformer" (by Iranian standards) to win the Presidency. By 2012, in response to further backchannel overtures by the U.S., the Iranians wind up their nuclear program and begin to open up their society.


Predictions:

U.S. troops leave Iraq on schedule in 2011 but Iraqi state remains tenuous and violence/security comes and goes.
A renewed emphasis on Afghanistan pushes the Taliban back and the situation by 2012 is a three-way on-and-off conflict between U.S.-supported Afghanistanis, the Taliban, and Pakistan in the border regions.
OBL is found dead by U.S. special forces. The U.S. claims he died of renal failure. Most of the Islamic world feels it's likely the soldiers killed him. No one ever finds out the truth.
Obama's charisma on the world stage isolates again-Russian President Vladimir Putin, who continues to intimidate neighbors and run Russia as a quasi-authoritarian state. Despite this, the Obama administration, through backchannel diplomacy, is able to engage Russia more often at the U.N. Security Council on various issues and is able, more than once, to play Russia off against China.
Nothing significant happens in relations with China.
Obama gets Iran to re-commit to a serious weapons inspection program, but there continue to be problems.
Following what's essentially a pitched war between Israel and Hamas in 2009 and 2010, Obama & Clinton broker a "cessation" agreement between the two (who have, by this time, very war-weary populaces) in 2011. It doesn't solve anything permanently, but gets the violence to stop and sets the stage for long-term shuttle talks that are still underway in 2013.


POLITICS

Hopes: Obama and Biden (Biden especially) work deftly with Democratic leaders in Congress to develop cohesive democratic voting majorities that deliver lots of progressive legislation. A thoroughly demoralized GOP loses even more seats in Congress in 2010, as the Democrats gain a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate.

Predictions: Democratic leadership in Congress continues to be weak and division in Democratic ranks is exploited by activist Republicans in Congress (more noticeable in the House) who attack legislation relentlessly and mercilessly. An Obama White House becomes increasingly frustrated with Democratic leadership and tension increases greatly in 2009 and 2010. In 2010 the GOP gains seats in the House, and many seats are won by activist "social conservatives". Despite this the Democrats pick up just enough seats in the Senate to go over 60, but the outlook for preserving those gains in 2012 looks especially bleak.


I could probably go on, but those are probably my major thoughts. Oh, and we all get ponies (hope), er, a 0.001% tax rebate (prediction). :D

[flere-imsaho]

No winged unicorns in stock?

Winged unicorns are a lot more work than you think. The upkeep on that horn, for instance, gets expensive. So no, just a pony for me.

I remembered that. Problem is they gave away the ponies to the financial execs, auto execs, labor leaders and those that got bad mortgages. No pony for you.

Well, crap.

[flere-imsaho]

FWIW, my predictions related to the Senate are based on an analysis of the seats in play for 2010. In this year there's still very little defense for the Democrats to play, and a number of Republicans who can be targeted/could be vulnerable.

Regardless of what happens, though, things start to look difficult for Democrats in the Senate from 2012 onward, with a lot of defense to play. I think it's quite likely that the GOP could be back in a slim majority by 2014, especially if the country is still in a poor economic state.

[sterlingice]

Interesting read, flere. It may be end up being completely wrong ;), but it's as good a read as exists in the thread so far.

SI

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

I'm surprised this hasn't been mentioned yet, but Bill Richardson has now taken his name out of consideration for a cabinet position. Obama's aides are saying that Richardson wasn't forthcoming about the grand jury investigation during his vetting promise.

[Flasch186]

Im glad he pulled out, while I like to wait for end of investigations (instead of parallel investigations if youre wondering) before the culmination of results, it is an unnecessary distraction.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Leon Panetta for the CIA spot? Umm ... WTF?

First pick I've seen that really had me bewildered, most of the rest I can at least find rhyme or reason for whether I approve of/agree with them or not, but this one? Bizarre.

[Buccaneer]

Agreed. The first choice that I think was bad. The intelligence community was nearly destroyed under Clinton (imo) and Panetta was part of that. It must have been a favor that Obama had to pay back.

While I can understand the pick for Labor (another favor he had to cash), I hate that one. The rest are fine.

[RainMaker]

It is a puzzling move. I guess some have been saying that Panetta will simply be the face of the CIA and that he'll let the real intelligence experts run it.

[flere-imsaho]

The guesses I've seen indicate that the Obama team thinks the CIA needs a management restructuring and that this is a strong point on Panetta's resume.

I'm not sure I agree with that (the latter, I am sure that the CIA needs a once-over from a management perspective), but at least it's somewhat logical.

[RainMaker]

The Sanjay Gupta pick is interesting. The guy would certainly make a good face for the country's health movements, but his beliefs on universal healthcare seem to go against Obama.

The trouble with Sanjay Gupta - Paul Krugman Blog - NYTimes.com (http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/01/06/the-trouble-with-sanjay-gupta/)

[Vegas Vic]

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/jWWWj2QDkj8&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/jWWWj2QDkj8&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

[Edward64]

Watching some news clips on Obama and his train trip. I've obviously noticed this earlier but it seemed so much more evident now with the waning days of Bush's presidency (melancholy?) ... the difference between how Obama and Bush give speechs are like night and day.

[EagleFan]

Haven't read every single post in the thread but glancing it over and surprised there is no mentin of the "A" word in the thread. Am I the only one who feels that assasination is a valid prediction for what may happen during his term?

I know this is probably going to draw a lot of flack but I have to think it is a very valid prediction. There are enough whacko groups out there that would like to see this happen and some of them are just crazy enough to try it.

I personally hope this does not happen as it's about the last thing the country needs. It would only splinter the country at a time when the country can't afford that to happen. This fact alone increases the number of groups who would be willing to try it.


Now for my hopes:

- No assasination, or even known attempt. let's get to working on fixing the current state of the country and not have to worry about another problem.
- Get the economy back on it's feet. not really something that is directlytied to Obama but at least him being elected has given some people a positive feel so let's ride that feeling to getting the economy straight.
- Companies learn that paying the top exectives and insane salary is not the answer. these executives need to be held responsible for that they do and not be given buyouts in the event that they get "fired" ("if you fail you'll get 5 million" isn't exactly and incentive to produce).
- Health care costs do not continue to skyrocket. using common sense alone can help these costs (like the number of people who go the emergency room just because they have a stomach virus or flu).
- Fix the prisons. this has been something I have always wanted to see. granted there are some crimes for which people should never see the light of day again but for others we need to make sure that we are not just punishing but rehabilitating. it helps society more if the person coming out of prison is better prepared to be part of society instead of being trained to become a better criminal.
- Stop the flow of jobs out of our borders. eliminate any tax breaks given to companies who ship jobs out of the country. add tax breaks for companies who keep all their jobs in the country. add tax penalties for companies which ship jobs out of the country. to get the country on it's feet you need joe average to be employed and capable of supporting himself.
- Alternate fuel sources. something that is realistic and not going to just raise the cost of automobiles and will also be reliable. let's find a way to cut that cord so we can eliminate the need to pacify middle eastern countries because of their oil supply.
- NCAA football playoff system. the BCS is a sooner-like fraud.

[RainMaker]

My biggest hope for the Obama Presidency would be the return of competence to our government. We've seen over the last 8 years Bush appoint political lackeys who have no business running specific parts of government (hello Brownie!). The Justice Department has turned into a laughing stock. Whether I agree with the people in power or not, lets just get back to having the brightest minds in control. Not someones fucking roommate from college.

[Buccaneer]

Interesting week under the intense microscope that is going to be the Obama presidency.

The Executive Orders were no surprise and fully expected.

There were two quips from Obama in his meeting yesterday that sounded very immature and stupid to me:


"You can't just listen to Rush Limbaugh and get things done," he told top GOP leaders


I don't listen to that arrogant blowhard but for a president to single him out is no better than a grade school taunt, "you can't my friend if you're friends with him". Limbaugh should not be that important enough for a president to single him out.

Instead, he should have said, "I do not want anyone to believe in the failure of the presidency, thus the country. We need to get things done, which was why I built a team of rivals and ended the calls to petty partisanship."

In other words, taking the high road instead of name-calling partisanship.


While discussing the stimulus package with top lawmakers in the White House's Roosevelt Room, President Obama shot down a critic with a simple message.

"I won," he said, according to aides who were briefed on the meeting. "I will trump you on that."


He's right, but his words were very wrong and immature. Instead, he should have said, "As president, the decision to include such proposal is mine. The merits of which can be debated in Congress."

Instead, he essentially went, "Neener neener."

From Campbell Brown, CNN:

You see, what happened is, there is this former lobbyist for a big defense contractor called Raytheon. His name is William Lynn.

President Obama wants him to be deputy defense secretary. So, the Obama administration wants a waiver to its own rule.

That basically means they are saying, we will mostly put tough new restrictions on lobbyists, except when we won't.

Really? Is this how it is going to be?

Please, please don't make us all any more cynical than we already are, Mr. President.


Haven't we had enough of the Exectuive Branch breaking rules to suit their needs?

[bob]

Stop the flow of jobs out of our borders. eliminate any tax breaks given to companies who ship jobs out of the country. add tax breaks for companies who keep all their jobs in the country. add tax penalties for companies which ship jobs out of the country. to get the country on it's feet you need joe average to be employed and capable of supporting himself.

So here's my problem with this kind of thinking given this era of globalization (btw, I certainly don't like the idea of offshoring jobs):

What's an American firm? A company with headquarters in the US? A company that makes products entirely in the US? How do you define that. Start taxing the hell out of firms and they will "move" entirely outside of the US.

People can't have it both ways - you can't bitch and moan about companies going overseas because of cost cutting ways and then buy stuff made overseas at Walmart b/c that's the cheapest price available. And if you are restricted from competing by moving jobs overseas b/c of punitive taxes, American firms will be at a huge cost disadvantage in the global marketplace and will all go belly up.

[EagleFan]

So here's my problem with this kind of thinking given this era of globalization (btw, I certainly don't like the idea of offshoring jobs):

What's an American firm? A company with headquarters in the US? A company that makes products entirely in the US? How do you define that. Start taxing the hell out of firms and they will "move" entirely outside of the US.

People can't have it both ways - you can't bitch and moan about companies going overseas because of cost cutting ways and then buy stuff made overseas at Walmart b/c that's the cheapest price available. And if you are restricted from competing by moving jobs overseas b/c of punitive taxes, American firms will be at a huge cost disadvantage in the global marketplace and will all go belly up.

There needs to be common sense logic built into this. Obviously if you are a store that is opening a branch in another country you are going to be employing people from that country.

I'll use my company as an example. Our "leadership" has funneled development jobs off to India though we are a US based company. We cannot sell our product in India as casino gaming is outlawed in the country and there is not anything close to being in the works to change that.

The excuse is that we can hire X number more developers per US resource but the turnover rate is so great that we are not gaining anything from this as the rate of development and quality of the product has dropped severely.

Any of the developers that are good enough to keep end up being brought to the US to work with visas (at US salaries which kind of ruins the whole "we are saving money in salaries" idea).

Over the past two years we have lost in the area of 1000 years of casino experience and that has been replaces with Indian resources with 0 casino experience, and worse yet most are fresh out of school and have no real world development experience. The IT field is seen as the "easy money" field in India and because of tht there are people graduating with degrees because they can memorize some terms but do not have the mindset to apply these terms in practice.


I guess the big picture problem still goes back to the people running the corporations not being held accountable for their decisions. They make decisions based on how they can sell the idea to the share holders even if the idea is not ultimately in the best interest of the company. Then when things go wrong and the company has to cut costs it's the people who need their jobs the most who get screwed while the CEO's sit back and collect their obscenely inflated checks. How does the CEO get "punished" for running the corporation poorly? Millions in stock options and a contract buyout. That'll teach 'em...


Sorry for the rant, just getting a little fed up with the business as usual crap going on and seeing good people lose their jobs because they are being replaced over seas.


I just hope those that are supporting the idea of change and improving the country also know they have to get off their butts to make this happen and don't think that Obama is just going to wave a magic wand and make it happen so they don't have to do anything.


Also, it's not our responsibility to make sure the other countries of the world are employed. We need to look after ourselves first before we look outside our borders. If your own family is starving THAT is your priority, not the family across the street.

[Edward64]

Pretty neat, an unanticipated Obama 'hope' that may rank pretty high up there as far as domestic, long-term impact. Some possible holes in the study but still interesting.

Lab Notes : An 'Obama Effect' on Blacks' Test Scores? (http://blog.newsweek.com/blogs/labnotes/archive/2009/01/23/an-obama-effect-on-blacks-test-scores.aspx)
The results varied according to when the students took the test. Before the convention and in early October, the performance gap was as wide as ever: white students got a median score of 12.1 compared to blacks’ 8.8 before the convention; the scores were 12.9 and 8.4, respectively, in early October. But just after Obama’s convention speech, and just after election day, “when Obama’s stereotype-defying accomplishments garnered national attention,” as the researchers put it, there was a remarkable effect. Among students who watched Obama’s speech, blacks’ and whites’ scores were statistically equal (10.3 vs. 12.1) after the acceptance speech and 9.8 vs. 11.1 after election day. The difference is considered statistically insignificant--that is, likely due to chance.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Haven't read every single post in the thread but glancing it over and surprised there is no mentin of the "A" word in the thread. Am I the only one who feels that assasination is a valid prediction for what may happen during his term?

Not at all, but I hope you get a better reaction than I got for mentioning that a few weeks (months?) ago.

FWIW, I believe the unprecedented level of security in DC this past week might be an indication that you & I aren't the only people who have this on the list of significant possibilities.

[Edward64]

The excuse is that we can hire X number more developers per US resource but the turnover rate is so great that we are not gaining anything from this as the rate of development and quality of the product has dropped severely.

Any of the developers that are good enough to keep end up being brought to the US to work with visas (at US salaries which kind of ruins the whole "we are saving money in salaries" idea)..
I'm in the IT consulting industry and have seen the technical jobs go offshore (good thing PM's and SME's are still needed onsite). It has been my experience that offshore does ultimately produce the necessary 'blended rate' to make us competitive and one-way-or-another, the job gets done even factoring the issues of turnover, language etc.

My issue with offshoring is that I believe we should keep some key intellectual capital within the US. I don't have a clean description of intellectual capital but think development of Oracle DB/SaaS Apps vs development of latest version of Quicken/compilers/games. As time goes by and as other countries catch up the definition changes.

[sterlingice]

So here's my problem with this kind of thinking given this era of globalization (btw, I certainly don't like the idea of offshoring jobs):

What's an American firm? A company with headquarters in the US? A company that makes products entirely in the US? How do you define that. Start taxing the hell out of firms and they will "move" entirely outside of the US.

People can't have it both ways - you can't bitch and moan about companies going overseas because of cost cutting ways and then buy stuff made overseas at Walmart b/c that's the cheapest price available. And if you are restricted from competing by moving jobs overseas b/c of punitive taxes, American firms will be at a huge cost disadvantage in the global marketplace and will all go belly up.

I don't understand this argument some of these arguments again US protectionism.

1) It's not as if those firms are being taxed horribly as it is. Yes, the percentage is high. However, with lots of corporate loopholes, the corporate taxes in this country aren't nearly as high as they are being made out to be. When you can deduct all levels of crap- I imagine that with a good tax lawyer, corporations are paying much less than they would in other countries. Or they are at least competitive because it's not as if these companies are staying here just for name's sake. If they could save a buck and move to, say, the Cayman Islands for a corporate account, they would have already.

2) A lot of companies could only exist in this country. It's not as if you could open up a Starbucks in China and charge $5 a cup of coffee when their middle class makes barely $10K per year.

3) I do strongly agree with the first part of the final sentiment- people love to complain about service or selection and then go for the cheapest price. Search my history and I'm sure I've used my Ultimate Electronics/Best Buy analogy a couple of times. However, I disagree with the second- see my second point. Look at what Microsoft or most major pharmaceutical companies do- they sell at one price here and then substantially less in other places.

SI

[Klinglerware]

2) A lot of companies could only exist in this country. It's not as if you could open up a Starbucks in China and charge $5 a cup of coffee when their middle class makes barely $10K per year.



Price-tiering is of course a little different, but they are all over the place...

Starbucks International Sites (http://www.starbucks.com/region.asp)

Starbucks plans China expansion, 80 new stores to open in 2008 | China Briefing News (http://www.china-briefing.com/news/2008/04/22/starbucks-plans-china-expansion.html)

[flere-imsaho]

My issue with offshoring is that I believe we should keep some key intellectual capital within the US. I don't have a clean description of intellectual capital but think development of Oracle DB/SaaS Apps vs development of latest version of Quicken/compilers/games.

I agree with this. I'd like the government to get more involved in R&D grants for tech. Maybe have the government get a bit into the VC game, in some way.

[Galaxy]

Not liking this move by Obama on allowing states to set its own auto emission requirements.

Obama to let states set auto emission rules - CNN.com (http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/01/26/obama.emissions/index.html)

[JPhillips]

Not liking this move by Obama on allowing states to set its own auto emission requirements.

Obama to let states set auto emission rules - CNN.com (http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/01/26/obama.emissions/index.html)

Why? Isn't this a great example of state's rights?

[JPhillips]

Price-tiering is of course a little different, but they are all over the place...

Starbucks International Sites (http://www.starbucks.com/region.asp)

Starbucks plans China expansion, 80 new stores to open in 2008 | China Briefing News (http://www.china-briefing.com/news/2008/04/22/starbucks-plans-china-expansion.html)

I'm a little ashamed to say that I bought a Starbucks tea at the Forbidden City. I think I read, though, that that store has been closed.

[Galaxy]

Why? Isn't this a great example of state's rights?


It would be a huge blow to an auto industry that your trying to save.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Interesting reads about the Gitmo executive order. It appears the order was done to satisfy the liberal base while not actually changing much of anything. The executive order actually still allows for the same torture that was done in the Bush Administration when needed.

Jack Bauer Exception: Obama's Order Wants It Both Ways on Interrogations - WSJ.com (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123267082704308361.html)

A walkthrough of the executive order section by section......

President Obama: Close Gitmo! | A Soldier's Perspective (http://www.soldiersperspective.us/2009/01/24/president-obama-close-gitmo/)

[Klinglerware]

I'm a little ashamed to say that I bought a Starbucks tea at the Forbidden City. I think I read, though, that that store has been closed.

Yeah, they are literally all over the place. Expressway rest stops in the Philippines? Yep they've got 'em. Lunch meeting with my clients in Chile? No problem, we can grab a quick sandwich and frappucino at Starbucks downstairs...

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Looks like Obama has taken even more behind the scenes shortcuts regarding torture and holding terrorists. The Bush administration was hammered for sending detained terrorists to other countries to be detained and tortured (also called renditions). Turns out that Obama is actually going to INCREASE that policy.

Hot Air » Blog Archive » Surprise! Obama expands renditions (http://hotair.com/archives/2009/02/01/surprise-obama-expands-renditions/)

So yeah, he's shutting down Gitmo, but he's also effectively increasing the amount of torture on the detainees. They'll be more poorly treated in other countries, but at least the blood's not on our hands, right? It'll be interesting to see if the same liberals that decried this tactic will blast Obama for increasing the use of this policy rather than reducing it.

[Flasch186]

I see Blog (also the appropriate Hot Air) in the link so Ill pass. Show me a legitimate link and we all can either get on board with you or leave you on your island.

[flere-imsaho]

The blog post references a L.A. Times article: Obama preserves renditions as counter-terrorism tool - Los Angeles Times (http://www.latimes.com/news/la-na-rendition1-2009feb01,0,7548176,full.story)

Edit: Having said that, the blog post makes a lot of assumptions that the L.A. Times article treats very differently.

Edit #2: For instance:

Looks like Obama has taken even more behind the scenes shortcuts regarding torture and holding terrorists.

The L.A. Times article's assessment is that Obama's executive order actually limits pretty much everything considerably more than Bush's policy, but keeps open an option for short-term, "transitory" rendition which is, admittedly, a big grey area.

To quote the article:

Under executive orders issued by Obama recently, the CIA still has authority to carry out what are known as renditions, secret abductions and transfers of prisoners to countries that cooperate with the United States.

Current and former U.S. intelligence officials said that the rendition program might be poised to play an expanded role going forward because it was the main remaining mechanism -- aside from Predator missile strikes -- for taking suspected terrorists off the street.

Emphasis mine.

"Hot Air", however, takes this statement and transforms it into:

Obama has had a sudden revelation as President that renditions are more necessary than ever, if the CIA can’t hold these subjects at Gitmo or its own secret sites

Next, a rationale from (supposedly) an Obama Administration source:

"Obviously you need to preserve some tools -- you still have to go after the bad guys," said an Obama administration official, speaking on condition of anonymity when discussing the legal reasoning. "The legal advisors working on this looked at rendition. It is controversial in some circles and kicked up a big storm in Europe. But if done within certain parameters, it is an acceptable practice."

One provision in one of Obama’s orders appears to preserve the CIA's ability to detain and interrogate terrorism suspects as long as they are not held long-term. The little-noticed provision states that the instructions to close the CIA's secret prison sites "do not refer to facilities used only to hold people on a short-term, transitory basis."

And not everyone "on the left" is immediately against this:

"Under limited circumstances, there is a legitimate place" for renditions, said Tom Malinowski, the Washington advocacy director for Human Rights Watch. "What I heard loud and clear from the president's order was that they want to design a system that doesn't result in people being sent to foreign dungeons to be tortured -- but that designing that system is going to take some time."

Malinowski said he had urged the Obama administration to stipulate that prisoners could be transferred only to countries where they would be guaranteed a public hearing in an official court. "Producing a prisoner before a real court is a key safeguard against torture, abuse and disappearance," Malinowski said.

Still, intelligence veterans doubt there's a significant place of value in America's policy for renditions going forward:

CIA veterans involved in renditions characterized the program as important but of limited intelligence-gathering use. It is used mainly for terrorism suspects not considered valuable enough for the CIA to keep, they said.

"The reason we did interrogations [ourselves] is because renditions for the most part weren't very productive," said a former senior CIA official who spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitive nature of the subject.

The most valuable intelligence on Al Qaeda came from prisoners who were in CIA custody and questioned by agency experts, the official said. Once prisoners were turned over to Egypt, Jordan or elsewhere, the agency had limited influence over how much intelligence was shared, how prisoners were treated and whether they were later released.

"In some ways, [rendition] is the worst option," the former official said. "If they are in U.S. hands, you have a lot of checks and balances, medics and lawyers. Once you turn them over to another service, you lose control."

Of course, "Hot Air" takes issue with these conclusions:

Frankly, I think the US does a better job of treating its detainees than anywhere a rendition program would deliver them, but without a Gitmo or CIA holding site, that’s the only way to ensure that we can get any intelligence that will protect the US.

To summarize, here's "Hot Air's listing of interrogation venues in terms of effectiveness:

1. Torture by U.S. at Gitmo/secret CIA holding sites
2. Torture by foreign governments at U.S.'s behest
3. Legal interrogation by U.S. at U.S. sites

Here's CIA veterans' listing of interrogation venues in terms of effectiveness (note they don't mention Gitmo):

1. Legal interrogation by U.S. at U.S. sites
2. Torture by foreign governments at U.S.'s behest

And anyway, the policy is evolving and not final yet:

In his executive order on lawful interrogations, Obama created a task force to reexamine renditions to make sure that they "do not result in the transfer of individuals to other nations to face torture," or otherwise circumvent human rights laws and treaties.

So anyway, read the L.A. Times article, not the blog.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

I see Blog (also the appropriate Hot Air) in the link so Ill pass. Show me a legitimate link and we all can either get on board with you or leave you on your island.

There's an article link to the LA Times. I'm assuming that paper is right up your alley given your previous stances in political threads.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

The blog post references a L.A. Times article: Obama preserves renditions as counter-terrorism tool - Los Angeles Times (http://www.latimes.com/news/la-na-rendition1-2009feb01,0,7548176,full.story)

Edit: Having said that, the blog post makes a lot of assumptions that the L.A. Times article treats very differently.

Agreed, but that's to be expected given that it's the LA Times. It's a conservative blog citing a liberal newspaper article. Both of them have an inherent bias.

[sterlingice]

Agreed, but that's to be expected given that it's the LA Times. It's a conservative blog citing a liberal newspaper article. Both of them have an inherent bias.

How is it a liberal newspaper article? Is it because it's in newspaper print?

Never mind, I should know my audience here: "Paper bad. Fox News good."

SI

[flere-imsaho]

I've made edits to my post which expand on that.

I'll leave it as an exercise for the reader to determine which source is reporting the news and which source is using misguided assumptions to make spurious conclusions based on a sliver of the news.

:D

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

How is it a liberal newspaper article? Is it because it's in newspaper print?

SI

It's an article in a liberal newspaper. That suit your nitpicking better?

Listen, as a supporter of Bush's terrorism policies, I couldn't be happier about the decision. I'm just surprised that there's not more outrage by the liberal supporters that Obama is failing to follow through with most of his promises regarding torture. Perhaps their motives weren't as sincere as we previously thought.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

I'll leave it as an exercise for the reader to determine which source is reporting the news and which source is using misguided assumptions to make spurious conclusions based on a sliver of the news.

:D

Agreed. It's a wonder the LA Times is even considered a valid news source at this point. ;)

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

Mizzou, you must go through life constantly surprised by things based on the number of times you post that you're surprised on this board.

[flere-imsaho]

I'm just surprised that there's not more outrage by the liberal supporters that Obama is failing to follow through with most of his promises regarding torture.

That's probably because Obama has, in fact, followed through with most of his promises regarding torture.

[Senator]

When do I get my president's check?

[JPhillips]

This is a good summary of what's actually in the Presidential order. From Hilzoy:

If the LA Times is right to claim that the Obama administration has left open the possibility of extraordinary renditions, that would be a huge problem. However, I don't think it is. Here it helps to have spent some time reading the actual orders. The order called "Ensuring Lawful Interrogations" contains the following passage:

"Sec. 6. Construction with Other Laws. Nothing in this order shall be construed to affect the obligations of officers, employees, and other agents of the United States Government to comply with all pertinent laws and treaties of the United States governing detention and interrogation, including but not limited to: the Fifth and Eighth Amendments to the United States Constitution; the Federal torture statute, 18 U.S.C. 2340 2340A; the War Crimes Act, 18 U.S.C. 2441; the Federal assault statute, 18 U.S.C. 113; the Federal maiming statute, 18 U.S.C. 114; the Federal "stalking" statute, 18 U.S.C. 2261A; articles 93, 124, 128, and 134 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. 893, 924, 928, and 934; section 1003 of the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005, 42 U.S.C. 2000dd; section 6(c) of the Military Commissions Act of 2006, Public Law 109 366; the Geneva Conventions; and the Convention Against Torture. Nothing in this order shall be construed to diminish any rights that any individual may have under these or other laws and treaties."

Part 1, Article 3 of the Convention Against Torture states:

"1. No State Party shall expel, return ("refouler") or extradite a person to another State where there are substantial grounds for believing that he would be in danger of being subjected to torture.

2. For the purpose of determining whether there are such grounds, the competent authorities shall take into account all relevant considerations including, where applicable, the existence in the State concerned of a consistent pattern of gross, flagrant or mass violations of human rights."

Obama orders people to comply with the Convention Against Torture, and that Convention states that we cannot return people to states where there are substantial grounds to believe that they will be tortured. And nothing the Obama administration has done to date suggests to me that they would engage in the kinds of creative reading of legal documents that would allow them, say, to disregard Egypt's long record of torture in making this determination.

Moreover, Obama's Executive Order also establishes a commission one of whose goals is:

"to study and evaluate the practices of transferring individuals to other nations in order to ensure that such practices comply with the domestic laws, international obligations, and policies of the United States and do not result in the transfer of individuals to other nations to face torture or otherwise for the purpose, or with the effect, of undermining or circumventing the commitments or obligations of the United States to ensure the humane treatment of individuals in its custody or control."

So in addition to announcing that the administration will obey the Convention Against Torture, the administration will also study not whether to send detainees off to be tortured, but how to ensure that our policies are not intended to result in their torture, and will not result in their torture. This seems to me like a very clear renunciation of the policy of sending people to third countries to be tortured. His executive order also precludes any kind of secret detention of prisoners, and thus "secret abductions and transfers of prisoners":

"All departments and agencies of the Federal Government shall provide the International Committee of the Red Cross with notification of, and timely access to, any individual detained in any armed conflict in the custody or under the effective control of an officer, employee, or other agent of the United States Government or detained within a facility owned, operated, or controlled by a department or agency of the United States Government, consistent with Department of Defense regulations and policies."

Note that this has no exceptions for short-term detainees whom we quickly hand off to someone else.

[DaddyTorgo]

bawhaha


JPhillips wins.

[Flasch186]

There's an article link to the LA Times. I'm assuming that paper is right up your alley given your previous stances in political threads.

naw, but Flere sure lit it up didnt he :lol:

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

This is a good summary of what's actually in the Presidential order. From Hilzoy:

You're right. It's an excellent summary. It notes the following:

"1. No State Party shall expel, return ("refouler") or extradite a person to another State where there are substantial grounds for believing that he would be in danger of being subjected to torture.

2. For the purpose of determining whether there are such grounds, the competent authorities shall take into account all relevant considerations including, where applicable, the existence in the State concerned of a consistent pattern of gross, flagrant or mass violations of human rights."

All of that is VERY subjective and assumes that the U.S. government has full disclosure of what occurs overseas in other countries. Even in cases where they do have a high level of disclosure, there still is no guarantee of a decrease of torture. The increase in exportation of these suspects takes the direct monitoring of independent groups that is done at Gitmo to places where direct monitoring likely will not be allowed.

"to study and evaluate the practices of transferring individuals to other nations in order to ensure that such practices comply with the domestic laws, international obligations, and policies of the United States and do not result in the transfer of individuals to other nations to face torture or otherwise for the purpose, or with the effect, of undermining or circumventing the commitments or obligations of the United States to ensure the humane treatment of individuals in its custody or control."

In regards to any studies done by the government, count me as unimpressed. There's a laundry list of studies that were done by the government on various issues where they 'thoroughly' talked through an issue and totally failed to address the real problem. A glaring example is the sub-prime mortgage mess we're currently in.

[JPhillips]

I'd agree that the possibility exists of continuing the Bush extraordinary rendition practice. However, at this point we have ample text that says the opposite, no evidence that any loophole has been exploited, and a consistent tone about ending detention/interrogation policies that may be in violation of US or international law.

If there's a story here at all it's simply that the possibility exists of Obama doing the opposite of what he's said. If that comes to pass it will be a big deal, but until it does I don't see any smoke here.

[JPhillips]

dola

It's almost beyond my ability to understand how the same people that a few months ago spent all their time yelling that Obama was a radical, Marxist, terrorist lover now spend all their time yelling that Obama isn't anything like the radical, Marxist, terrorist lover that Democrats thought he was.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

I'd agree that the possibility exists of continuing the Bush extraordinary rendition practice. However, at this point we have ample text that says the opposite, no evidence that any loophole has been exploited, and a consistent tone about ending detention/interrogation policies that may be in violation of US or international law.

If there's a story here at all it's simply that the possibility exists of Obama doing the opposite of what he's said. If that comes to pass it will be a big deal, but until it does I don't see any smoke here.

That's basically correct. We don't have any smoke or loophole exploits because he's just started his term. We'll obviously have to wait a couple of years to get a feel for how it's actually implemented by Obama's staff.

Here's the problem for Obama politically as I see it.

1. He has not unilaterally rolled back the torture policies of Bush. That may upset some who wanted a much broader brushstroke on this issue.

2. Although he did not fully rollback the torture policies, he has come out with the executive order and made sure to claim success with the order. As a result, any attack on the U.S. during his term will be immediately tied to the rollback of those policies, whether it's fair or not (or even relevant).

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

dola

It's almost beyond my ability to understand how the same people that a few months ago spent all their time yelling that Obama was a radical, Marxist, terrorist lover now spend all their time yelling that Obama isn't anything like the radical, Marxist, terrorist lover that Democrats thought he was.

Agreed. The radical left is probably wondering exactly what they elected while the radical right is counting their blessings that his policies aren't nearly as black and white as he claimed during the electoral process.

[Buccaneer]

One of my fears appears to be coming true.


Utah's congressional delegation is calling President Obama's decision to move the U.S. census into the White House a purely partisan move and potentially dangerous to congressional redistricting around the country.

Rep. Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, told FOX News on Monday that he finds it hard to believe the Obama administration felt the need to place re-evaluation of the inner workings of the census so high on his to-do list, just three weeks into his presidency.

"This is nothing more than a political land grab," Chaffetz said.

Rep. Rob Bishop, R-Utah, told the Salt Lake Tribune that the move "shouldn't happen." He and Chaffetz are trying to rally Republicans "before its too late."

"It takes something that is supposedly apolitical like the census, and gives it to a guy who is infamously political," Bishop said of Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel, who would be tasked with overseeing the census at the White House.

The U.S. census -- a counting of the U.S. population -- is conducted every 10 years by the Commerce Department. Its results determine the decennial redrawing of congressional districts

As a matter of impact, the census has tremendous political significance. Political parties are always eager to have a hand in redrawing districts so that they can maximize their own party's clout while minimizing the opposition, often through gerrymandering.

The census also determines the composition of the Electoral College, which chooses the president. If one party were to control the census, it could arguably try to perpetuate its hold on political power.

The results of the census are also enormously important in another way -- the allocation of federal funds. Theoretically, a political party could disproportionately steer federal funding to areas dominated by its own members through a skewing of census numbers.

At this point the White House doesn't seem willing to say what Emanuel's role will be in overseeing the census, and White House officials say census managers will work closely with top-level White House staffers, but will technically remain part of the Commerce Department.

But critics say the White House chief of staff can't be expected to handle the census in a neutral manner. Emanuel ran the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee in the 2006 election, and he was instrumental in getting Democrats elected into the majority.

"The last thing the census needs is for any hard-bitten partisan (either a Karl Rove or a Rahm Emanuel) to manipulate these critical numbers. Many federal funding formulas depend on them, as well as the whole fabric of federal and state representation. Partisans have a natural impulse to tilt the playing field in their favor, and this has to be resisted," Larry Sabato, the director of the Center for Politics at the University of Virginia, told FOX News in an e-mail.

Critics note that the method of counting can skew the census. Democrats have long advocated using mathematical estimates, a practice known as "sampling," to count urban residents and immigrants. Republicans say the Constitution requires a physical head count, which entails going door-to-door.

In 2000, Utah, which has three congressmen, was extremely close to landing a fourth House seat based on U.S. Census numbers, but the nation's most conservative state fell short by a few hundred votes because the Census Bureau wouldn't count Mormon missionaries from Utah serving temporarily overseas.

The GOP took the case to the U.S. Supreme Court, but was ultimately unsuccessful. Utah leaders had hoped the 2010 census would rectify the problem, but now worry that they will lose again if the census is managed by partisans.

When Obama nominated New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson to be commerce secretary -- he was later forced to withdraw -- he indicated that Richardson would be in charge of the census.

The decision to move the census into the White House was announced just days after Obama named New Hampshire Sen. Judd Gregg, a Republican, to be his commerce secretary. Gregg has long opposed "sampling" by the census and has voted against funding increases for the bureau.

Sabato said moving the census "in-house" will likely set up a situation where neither the Commerce Department nor the White House will know exactly what is going on in the Census Bureau. He said the process is "too critical to politics for both parties not to pay close attention."

"I've always remembered what Joseph Stalin said: 'Those who cast the votes decide nothing. Those who count the votes decide everything.' The same principle applies to the census. Since one or the other party will always be in power at the time of the census, it is vital that the out-of-power party at least be able to observe the process to make sure it isn't being stacked in favor of the party in power. This will be difficult for the GOP since I suspect Democrats will control both houses of Congress for the entire Obama first term," Sabato said.

FOX News' Bill Sammon and Shannon Bream contributed to this report.



I have worked with Census data off and on for 30 years, as well as studied the methodologies for counting and their political ramifications. There have always been political crap going on with Census data but at least keeping it in Commerce, you can count some measure of neutrality (or balancing). But to have the White House (and esp. Rove2: Emanuel) controlling the output, that would be stupid. I guess we'll see if anything comes of this and if it does, will it be ignored with the WH not being held accountable?

[JPhillips]

Dr. President Obama,

Use fewer sentences.

Thanx. Bye.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Dr. President Obama,
Use fewer sentences.
Thanx. Bye.

Didn't whatshisname from Good Morning America, Gibson, say something about this was expected to last 10 minutes or so before it started?

[RainMaker]

Agreed, but that's to be expected given that it's the LA Times. It's a conservative blog citing a liberal newspaper article. Both of them have an inherent bias.

Don't you think the "liberal bias" crap should stick to the mouth-breathers in the sticks? The article has no bias in it and simply reports facts. To compare Hot Air to Greg Miller is ridiculous. Miller is a reporter and his articles shouldn't be deemed "bias" simply because the paper he writes for has a liberal lean in their editorial section.

If there is something false in his article, then say it. But the "media bias" crap should be saved for the low IQ Rush crowd.

[RainMaker]

Agreed. The radical left is probably wondering exactly what they elected while the radical right is counting their blessings that his policies aren't nearly as black and white as he claimed during the electoral process.

I don't think either side is happy, and never will be. The radical left and right are just people who turned government into a sport. It's not about the policies and not about whats best for the country. It's about winning the game. Rush said it best when he said he hopes Obama fails. The same can be said for the left who didn't oppose a moronic war hard enough because they knew they cared more about their political lives than American lives.

[JonInMiddleGA]

But the "media bias" crap should be saved for the Rush crowd.

I agree ... because the reality of it is completely wasted on worthless liberal spawns of Satan who aren't fit to inhabit a planet with even remotely decent human beings. No sense wasting pearls before swine like that. Starting with the reality that the only way they avoid doing evil is by accident, since that's their very nature.

[JPhillips]

Didn't whatshisname from Good Morning America, Gibson, say something about this was expected to last 10 minutes or so before it started?

No, the ten minutes was for the opening statement.

[Galaxy]

Dr. President Obama,

Use fewer sentences.

Thanx. Bye.

Wasn't his best performance. It took him forever to get to the points (which I'm not what they were). I love the "tough" questions that look well, scripted.

[JPhillips]

I'd also like to see the WaPo reporter who asked about steroids be the last extraordinary rendition.

[RainMaker]

I agree ... because the reality of it is completely wasted on worthless liberal spawns of Satan who aren't fit to inhabit a planet with even remotely decent human beings. No sense wasting pearls before swine like that. Starting with the reality that the only way they avoid doing evil is by accident, since that's their very nature.

Oh yes, because there is such a difference between conservatives and liberals these days. Both sides are so messed up in the "game" they don't even know who is who. Bush was praised by guys like Rush and Hannitty while being more liberal than Jimmy Carter on most of his policies.

[ISiddiqui]

re: rendition

Political Punch: Obama Administration Maintains Bush Position on 'Extraordinary Rendition' Lawsuit (http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2009/02/obama-administr.html)


The Obama Administration today announced that it would keep the same position as the Bush Administration in the lawsuit Mohamed et al v Jeppesen Dataplan, Inc.

The case involves five men who claim to have been victims of extraordinary rendition -- including current Guantanamo detainee Binyam Mohamed, another plaintiff in jail in Egypt, one in jail in Morocco, and two now free.

They sued a San Jose Boeing subsidiary, Jeppesen Dataplan, accusing the flight-planning company of aiding the CIA in flying them to other countries and secret CIA camps where they were tortured.

A year ago the case was thrown out on the basis of national security, but today the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals heard the appeal, brought by the ACLU.

A source inside of the Ninth U.S. District Court tells ABC News that a representative of the Justice Department stood up to say that its position hasn't changed, that new administration stands behind arguments that previous administration made, with no ambiguity at all. The DOJ lawyer said the entire subject matter remains a state secret.

[flere-imsaho]

I agree ... because the reality of it is completely wasted on worthless liberal spawns of Satan who aren't fit to inhabit a planet with even remotely decent human beings. No sense wasting pearls before swine like that. Starting with the reality that the only way they avoid doing evil is by accident, since that's their very nature.

Not one of your more lucid moments, Jon.

[Dutch]

Helen Thomas failed to deliver.

[Schmidty]

I'm really disappointed so far. And concerned.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Not one of your more lucid moments, Jon.

Erm, read the post the led to mine again. I thought the thread had moved into "suddenly insert random hyperbole into the mix with as much venom as possible" territory & I was just trying to do my part.

[Ajaxab]

Wasn't his best performance. It took him forever to get to the points (which I'm not what they were). I love the "tough" questions that look well, scripted.

+1 Admittedly, I only heard the first two 'answers' to the questions he received, but those responses were full of rabbit trails and linguistic sleight of hand. The whole change thing is going to dog Obama as long as he's president, but it would be nice, for a change, to see answers to a question rather than long-winded reviews of what we already know.

[flere-imsaho]

Erm, read the post the led to mine again. I thought the thread had moved into "suddenly insert random hyperbole into the mix with as much venom as possible" territory & I was just trying to do my part.

Ah, I can see it in that context.

:D

[Raiders Army]

Well, four of Obama's nominees have withdrawn (and it should have been five (i.e. Geithner)). Judd Gregg finally came to his senses and won't shovel the shit that Obama spews.

I'd say Obama's administration is in shambles already and he's not doing very well at all considering by how much he won the election.

[SFL Cat]

I wouldn't go as far as saying his administration is in a shambles...

but I would say he's certainly looking less messianic than he did in the general...and he certainly hasn't ushered in the openness and change he was talking about.

Of course, Pelosi and Reid certainly aren't making his job any easier.

[Raiders Army]

Let me amend that to say that his administration is in shambles already considering by how much he won the election.

[Galaxy]

I wouldn't go as far as saying his administration is in a shambles...

but I would say he's certainly looking less messianic than he did in the general...and he certainly hasn't ushered in the openness and change he was talking about.

Of course, Pelosi and Reid certainly aren't making his job any easier.

I don't get the power trips that Pelosi and Reid are on. They seem to be the cancer of the party.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Of course, Pelosi and Reid certainly aren't making his job any easier.

Did anybody think they were going to?

And I don't mean that from a "Pelosi & Reid are blithering idiots" standpoint, I mean from a "isn't that cute, little Barrack won the election. Now run along & let the grown ups take care of business" sort of way.

Winning the election was just part of his battle, to actually run things he's going to have to overthrow a fairly entrenched portion of his own party.

[JPhillips]

I don't get the power trips that Pelosi and Reid are on. They seem to be the cancer of the party.

They're the leaders of a co-equal branch of government. I know we've gotten used to seeing the Congress as lackeys of the executive, but Congress should stand up it's self.

[JPhillips]

Well, four of Obama's nominees have withdrawn (and it should have been five (i.e. Geithner)). Judd Gregg finally came to his senses and won't shovel the shit that Obama spews.

I'd say Obama's administration is in shambles already and he's not doing very well at all considering by how much he won the election.

Let's see, in less than a month in office he will sign a stimulus that's very close to what he asked for in January, the Fairpay Act, and an expansion of S-Chip. I know Republicans want him to fail, but he's on a pretty good roll for the first month on the job.

[JPhillips]

One of my fears appears to be coming true.



I have worked with Census data off and on for 30 years, as well as studied the methodologies for counting and their political ramifications. There have always been political crap going on with Census data but at least keeping it in Commerce, you can count some measure of neutrality (or balancing). But to have the White House (and esp. Rove2: Emanuel) controlling the output, that would be stupid. I guess we'll see if anything comes of this and if it does, will it be ignored with the WH not being held accountable?

Or maybe not:

“As they have in the past, White House senior management will work closely with the Census Director given the number of decisions that will need to reach the President’s desk," White House spokesman Ben LaBolt said in a written statement.

"This administration has not proposed removing the Census from the Department of Commerce and the same Congressional committees that had oversight during the previous administration will retain that authority.”

In a letter to President Obama earlier this week, House Republicans urged him to reconsider his plan, calling it an "unprecedented politicization of the Census" that would "open the door to massive waste and abuse in the expenditure of taxpayer funds, billions of which are distributed on the basis of Census data.”

"There is no legitimate historical precedent for placing the nonpartisan, apolitical Census Bureau under the control of political operatives on the White House staff,” the letter said.

But Kenneth Prewitt, who served as Census director from 1998 to 2001, said he worked with White House staff during the 2000 Census on budgeting, advertising and outreach efforts. In an e-mail, Prewitt said he never met with anyone "more senior than a deputy chief of staff, except once when I met with the entire cabinet on how each member could assist in the large outreach effort then underway."

Other former Census directors agreed that coordination with the White House on budgeting and outreach was appropriate while data collection and analysis should be kept separate.

As for potential political interference, “It’s virtually impossible to do something wrong without someone finding out about it,” said Vincent P. Barabba, who ran the 1980 Census. “It’s about as transparent an agency that exists.”

[Buccaneer]

They're the leaders of a co-equal branch of government. I know we've gotten used to seeing the Congress as lackeys of the executive, but Congress should stand up it's self.

Stand up it's self? All Congress knows how to do is to add on more to what Executive or anyone else wants. More expenditures, more pork, more conflicting, overwrought legislation and more expansion of federal bureaucratic powers. The Legislative Branch have been exceeding their constitutional powers for a long time, and no one has had the guts to take them on or to reduce their powers.

[JPhillips]

Regardless of whether or not I or you agree with what Congress does, I think it's healthy that they aren't simply yes men for the current executive.

[Buccaneer]

Other former Census directors agreed that coordination with the White House on budgeting and outreach was appropriate while data collection and analysis should be kept separate.

We'll see if the analysis will continue to be kept separate. Besides, you had me at "White House spokesman". We had not given much credence to what any WH spokespersons have said the previous 16 years and now all of a sudden, they are quoted for credibility??!!?? ;)

[Buccaneer]

Regardless of whether or not I or you agree with what Congress does, I think it's healthy that they aren't simply yes men for the current executive.

Or that Executive simply not sign everything passed by Congress.

[JPhillips]

We'll see if the analysis will continue to be kept separate. Besides, you had me at "White House spokesman". We had not given much credence to what any WH spokespersons have said the previous 16 years and now all of a sudden, they are quoted for credibility??!!?? ;)

Just a little balance to the all Republican quotes in your story.;)

[JPhillips]

Or that Executive simply not sign everything passed by Congress.

At this point almost nothing gets passed that hasn't been pre-negotiated with the executive. Personally, I'd be fine with a little less cooperation between the legislative and the executive.

[Buccaneer]

Just a little balance to the all Republican quotes in your story.;)

I would much rather have quoted a Dem for bringing up these concerns but they apparently aren't much into transparency. :p

At this point almost nothing gets passed that hasn't been pre-negotiated with the executive. Personally, I'd be fine with a little less cooperation between the legislative and the executive.

I wouldn't expect that in a one-party government.

[Buccaneer]

Did I see that the Fairness Doctine is being brought up again? Some of you guys said that I was off my rocker for even thinking that it could be brought up. Or was that yet another attempt to show your balance when you privately hoped that it would come to pass?

"I pledge to you to study up on the 'Fairness Doctrine' so that, one day, I might give you a more fulsome answer," White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said.

[SFL Cat]

The libs can have talk radio and Fox, only if they hand over the NY Times, Washington Post, LA Times, ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, and MSNBC.

[JPhillips]

Fairness Doctrine is the new Beetle Juice.

[Galaxy]

Regardless of whether or not I or you agree with what Congress does, I think it's healthy that they aren't simply yes men for the current executive.

I can agree with on that. However, it almost appears that they are trying to "be" the President, instead of working with him.

[JPhillips]

I can agree with on that. However, it almost appears that they are trying to "be" the President, instead of working with him.

I just don't see it that way. They met the broad outlines of the President as well as many of the specifics.

[sterlingice]

One of my fears appears to be coming true.

I have worked with Census data off and on for 30 years, as well as studied the methodologies for counting and their political ramifications. There have always been political crap going on with Census data but at least keeping it in Commerce, you can count some measure of neutrality (or balancing). But to have the White House (and esp. Rove2: Emanuel) controlling the output, that would be stupid. I guess we'll see if anything comes of this and if it does, will it be ignored with the WH not being held accountable?

Strange how as soon as the White House considers taking the census in house that Gregg runs from Commerce Secretary as fast as he can at the urging of Republican leaders. So, yeah, there wasn't going to be any funny business going on with the census if it had stayed in Commerce :rolleyes:

And major Republicans have never done anything shady to screw with representative government (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_Texas_redistricting#2000.E2.80.932001_evolution_and_DeLay.27s_role).

SI

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

What the hell was Diane Feinstein (sp?) thinking? If you hear confidential information that we're flying Predator aircraft out of a Pakistani base, DON'T SAY IT IN PUBLIC!!!!

Predator drones flown from base in Pakistan, U.S. lawmaker says -- chicagotribune.com (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-090213-pakistan-us,0,1099409.story)

This is going to make relations with Pakistan a whole lot more difficult for Obama.

[flere-imsaho]

They're the leaders of a co-equal branch of government. I know we've gotten used to seeing the Congress as lackeys of the executive, but Congress should stand up it's self.

At this point, I actually think Reid & Pelosi are suffering from PTSD from their time of being overrun by the GOP in Congress and a Bush White House. They're acting as if they're still afraid of their own shadows.

They've got a commanding majority in the House, a majority in the Senate with the ability to flip a few moderate GOP votes as necessary, and a Democrat in the White House. Some of this legislation, to be honest, could have been rammed through much quicker than it has been. Seems like they'd rather draw out the process to amp up the partisan bickering.

I mean, it would be different if there were significant numbers of Republicans close to a compromise with the Democratic position on this bill, but clearly there aren't. All the Republicans in the House voted against it and all but the usual suspects in the Senate voted against it. Why drag it out? Why water it down? You aren't going to get these folks to change their minds anyway.

Ram it through, tell the Press that the GOP doesn't want to help Americans, and call it a day. Politics 101. You wouldn't see Tip O'Neill pulling this kind of shit.

[flere-imsaho]

POLITICS

Hopes: Obama and Biden (Biden especially) work deftly with Democratic leaders in Congress to develop cohesive democratic voting majorities that deliver lots of progressive legislation. A thoroughly demoralized GOP loses even more seats in Congress in 2010, as the Democrats gain a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate.

Predictions: Democratic leadership in Congress continues to be weak and division in Democratic ranks is exploited by activist Republicans in Congress (more noticeable in the House) who attack legislation relentlessly and mercilessly. An Obama White House becomes increasingly frustrated with Democratic leadership and tension increases greatly in 2009 and 2010. In 2010 the GOP gains seats in the House, and many seats are won by activist "social conservatives". Despite this the Democrats pick up just enough seats in the Senate to go over 60, but the outlook for preserving those gains in 2012 looks especially bleak.

A (prediction) Winner is me!!! :D

[Dutch]

The libs can have talk radio and Fox, only if they hand over the NY Times, Washington Post, LA Times, ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, and MSNBC.

Don't forget the Associated Press, Rueters, the AFP, Politico, Yahoo! News/Google News Headlines, and of course, publicly funded NPR.

[ISiddiqui]

Strange how as soon as the White House considers taking the census in house that Gregg runs from Commerce Secretary as fast as he can at the urging of Republican leaders. So, yeah, there wasn't going to be any funny business going on with the census if it had stayed in Commerce :rolleyes:

As Gregg has stated he's not running for re-election, why does he need to please "Republican leaders" in the first place?

You kooky lefties have to get back to reality.

[Swaggs]

My new wish is for someone to challenge Harry Reid for majority leader. Kind of a shame that Hillary left the senate -- she may have had enough political capital to pull it off well.

[sterlingice]

My new wish is for someone to challenge Harry Reid for majority leader. Kind of a shame that Hillary left the senate -- she may have had enough political capital to pull it off well.

That would have been interesting (and favorable)

SI

[Chief Rum]

Strange how as soon as the White House considers taking the census in house that Gregg runs from Commerce Secretary as fast as he can at the urging of Republican leaders. So, yeah, there wasn't going to be any funny business going on with the census if it had stayed in Commerce :rolleyes:

And major Republicans have never done anything shady to screw with representative government (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_Texas_redistricting#2000.E2.80.932001_evolution_and_DeLay.27s_role).

SI

Got it, so it's okay for the Dems to screw with it because the people they'll screw aren't saints either?

Here's an idea: why don't we instead come up with a fair and even way to do this, instead of saying the ends justify the means (since they, well, don't).

[sterlingice]

Got it, so it's okay for the Dems to screw with it because the people they'll screw aren't saints either?

Here's an idea: why don't we instead come up with a fair and even way to do this, instead of saying the ends justify the means (since they, well, don't).

Didn't say that at all. Just said let's not pretend this wasn't a partisan thing to begin with. Considering who funds and executes the census, I'm curious to hear your big "fair and even way to do this"?

Or was "let Gregg run this from inside the Commerce department when he had shown obvious bias in last census" your "fair" idea?

SI

[Flasch186]

Got it, so it's okay for the Dems to screw with it because the people they'll screw aren't saints either?

Here's an idea: why don't we instead come up with a fair and even way to do this, instead of saying the ends justify the means (since they, well, don't).

agree 100%

[cartman]

In his interview after turning down the Commerce post, Gregg had this to say:

"The person that the White House has proposed to manage the Census, Ken Pruitt, did it in 2000 when I was chairman of the Appropriations Committee that had oversight over Commerce Department. And I thought he did an excellent job. So I thought the people were going to be in place to do a pretty good job."

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/QQt_7fOPJBM&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/QQt_7fOPJBM&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

[Chief Rum]

Didn't say that at all. Just said let's not pretend this wasn't a partisan thing to begin with. Considering who funds and executes the census, I'm curious to hear your big "fair and even way to do this"?

Or was "let Gregg run this from inside the Commerce department when he had shown obvious bias in last census" your "fair" idea?

SI

Bucc's quote: Dems bringing census in to WH will bias census results. Bad idea.

Your response to him: Repubs must have had plans to bias things themselves, since Gregg is now pulling out as his Commerce sec. Obvious partisan counterpoint to Bucc's concern about Dem bias.

My response to you: The problem isn't who's being biased. It's that it is biased at all. Your response to Bucc is an implicit support of Dems biasing the census, and you try to justify it by dragging Gregg and Repubs through the mud.

What you should have suggested and failed to do (unlike me) is suggest that there should be an effort to keep the census as unbiased as possible.

Your curiosity about how I would run it will have to go on, because I don't have an answer. If I did, I wouldn't be responding to your partisan slop here, I would be in Washington making a difference. There are smarter people than you or I who can do this. My point is, and it's a point both you and I can definitely grasp, is that this is a process that needs to remain as politically neutral as it can. And in fact, I don't know if Bucc had in mind that Gregg was in line to be the Commerce sec, but his point that running the census out of Commerce is less apt to be influenced than out of the WH is dead on target (which is true, whether the Dems or the GOP are in the WH).

I like how you try to sully me now with your last sentence. That is an ad hominem, calling my bias into question. Good to see you know how to use faulty logical reasoning to make your point, SI. :rolleyes:

I didn't even know Gregg was up for Commerce until reading this thread. Frankly, I don't watch the every day news items for what Obama's doing with his Cabinet. I don't even know who Gregg is actually. My assumption from your responses is that he's a Republican. I don't support either side influencing the census, whether from the WH or the Commerce dept, Dem or GOP.

All I am asking for is that you stop partisan and illogical arguing with Bucc and myself and instead put your support to trying to find an unbiased process for conducting the census (or as unbiased as can be done).

[Buccaneer]

There is a term for that but I can't remember what it is. It's the calculated move of deflecting attacks away from what you personally hope to come true. By deflecting the attacks, you can succeed in acheiving your ends covertly or quietly. This is a good example because many (including those here) would love to have Dem-controlled gerrymandering - to ensure that their opposition stays weak. It is typical political gamemanship but to be defensive against calling what it really is, as have been through much of the 2008 campaigns, becomes laughable or hypocritical.

[RainMaker]

Bucc's quote: Dems bringing census in to WH will bias census results. Bad idea.

Your response to him: Repubs must have had plans to bias things themselves, since Gregg is now pulling out as his Commerce sec. Obvious partisan counterpoint to Bucc's concern about Dem bias.

My response to you: The problem isn't who's being biased. It's that it is biased at all. Your response to Bucc is an implicit support of Dems biasing the census, and you try to justify it by dragging Gregg and Repubs through the mud.

What you should have suggested and failed to do (unlike me) is suggest that there should be an effort to keep the census as unbiased as possible.

Your curiosity about how I would run it will have to go on, because I don't have an answer. If I did, I wouldn't be responding to your partisan slop here, I would be in Washington making a difference. There are smarter people than you or I who can do this. My point is, and it's a point both you and I can definitely grasp, is that this is a process that needs to remain as politically neutral as it can. And in fact, I don't know if Bucc had in mind that Gregg was in line to be the Commerce sec, but his point that running the census out of Commerce is less apt to be influenced than out of the WH is dead on target (which is true, whether the Dems or the GOP are in the WH).

I like how you try to sully me now with your last sentence. That is an ad hominem, calling my bias into question. Good to see you know how to use faulty logical reasoning to make your point, SI. :rolleyes:

I didn't even know Gregg was up for Commerce until reading this thread. Frankly, I don't watch the every day news items for what Obama's doing with his Cabinet. I don't even know who Gregg is actually. My assumption from your responses is that he's a Republican. I don't support either side influencing the census, whether from the WH or the Commerce dept, Dem or GOP.

All I am asking for is that you stop partisan and illogical arguing with Bucc and myself and instead put your support to trying to find an unbiased process for conducting the census (or as unbiased as can be done).

They can't though. To them it's a game, not what's best for the country. It's Yankees vs Red Sox, not what would be the best solution. One of the greatest tricks politicians have ever pulled is to turn Americans against Americans. If you're busy bashing the other team, you don't notice the people looting the vault behind your back.