411 Politics Fact or Fiction: Week 117 - Obama's Picks, Reid's Future, Rahm's Status, More
Posted by Brandon Crow on 01.24.2009
Welcome to Politics Fact or Fiction, Week 117. Or, if you're like millions of Americans—and those around the world—you'd prefer this week be christened "WEEK 1 UNDER PRESIDENT OBAMA." Damn, that sounds great, doesn't it? President Obama!
Ok, enough revelry for now. We have four years, possibly eight, to suckle all the goodness. Let's get to this week's F or F. For Week 1 Under Obama, we welcome Peter Nguyen, who's become a cornerstone in F or F, as well as one of 411 Politics' new columnists, Scott Williams.
Ding! Ding!
1. Harry Reid, the majority leader of the Senate, has begun fundraising as well as interviewing for a campaign manager for his reelection bid in 2010, which is expected to be a really tough, uphill fight. Harry Reid should be ousted because he has been a weak, and often, ineffective leader.
Peter Nguyen: FACT. Harry Reid has neither the fortitude, nor the vision, to lead Democrats in the Senate. He has repeatedly failed to call the Republicans' bluff when they merely threaten to filibuster a bill favored by the majority, ignoring the entire point of this last-ditch procedural tool.
In addition, he usually is more interested in negotiating his way out of a difficult situation rather than leading his way out of it. Also, he lacks charisma and that inspirational quality that one of the most powerful politicians in the country should have. Finally, he is a moderate, pro-life Democrat who does not truly represent the heart of the party.
Scott Williams: FICTION. I don't have a problem with Reid being Senate Majority Leader. Would he be a good presidential candidate? Probably not. But that doesn't mean he hasn't been effective as minority leader and majority leader in the Senate for the Democrats.
He fought vigorously against the privatization of social security. He also fought hard to ensure the Patriot Act that eventually did pass in 2006 did not expand and broaden the scope of an already flawed and constitutionally suspect law (the way Republicans wanted). He supports comprehensive immigration reform and tried hard to get it passed in 2007. And he did everything he could to try to stop the expansion of the war in Iraq, short of pulling troop funding.
In the new Senate, his two, top, immediate priorities will be SCHIP expansion legislation and getting stem cell research passed; this signals those will move forward rapidly and regardless of any Republican opposition. A vote on SCHIP expansion could come real soon.
Last fall, when the House of Representatives, could not get an economic bailout package passed (when it was obvious it was either action or Great Depression II), Reid accepted the responsibility of beginning the process in the Senate; he got a package passed in a 74-25 vote. Shortly thereafter, the package passed in the House as well.
And he's scrappy to say the least. He's called Alan Greenspan a "political hack"; Clarence Thomas an "embarrassment"; characterized Sarah Palin as "shrill"; not to mention calling Bush a "loser", a "liar", "the worst President we've ever had", and just generally trashing GW publicly.
He's a solid, moderate Democrat; well liked and respected in the Senate. He knows how government works. And will be a very good ally for Barak Obama as majority leader. Folks might not like every single thing about this man, but he's been there on the issues that matter the most, to a majority of Democrats, in almost every conceivable way.
0 for 1. Oh, oh…a rocky start!
2. Despite the easy criticism of Rahm Emmanuel being a "foul-mouthed hard ass," he will make an excellent Chief of Staff.
Peter Nguyen: FACT. I hate to admit it, but this is a FACT. Emmanuel is the perfect complement to Obama's non-confrontational, collegial style, because he will work the other angle when the Obama's more cordial methods do not work.
The chief-of-staff job requires a person who can manage and direct some of the biggest egos in government, and that calls for an extremely confident person. In addition, as a former congressional leader, he will help Obama get his way in Congress on matters which mean the most to him and require legislative approval.
Unfortunately, Emmanuel's slick back-door style may, at some point, taint the White House. As well, his win-at-all-costs philosophy while at the Democratic Campaign Congressional Committee has resulted in the successful election of conservative "Democrats" which cost the party part of its soul. Don't look for Emmanuel to be the conscience of the presidency.
Scott Williams: FACT. Emanuel seems to be the prototypical political staff manager. Tough minded. Hard-nosed. Hyperactive. Attack oriented. Results driven. Everything you would need in a White House Chief-of-Staff.
One of the crucial roles of that job is negotiating with Congress on the President's agenda. And it's just obvious the man LOVES working politics. The negotiating. The arm twisting. The back room deals.
But don't be fooled. While his personality credentials seem a good fit, he brings much more to the table than just himself.
Emanuel is from Chicago. So is Obama. He's a personal friend of Barack Obama. And, Emanuel considers Obama's chief strategist and senior advisor, David Axelrod, to be one of his closest friends. The three of them together in the White House, operating AS close friends, regardless of what you might have heard about Obama building a "Team of Rivals," represents very much an overarching and common vision about where the nation should be headed.
He's also worked in the White House before; as advisor to President Clinton. While there, he worked on some of Clinton's most important priorities, such as NAFTA and healthcare. So he has White House experience already, and brings with him the contacts with both the Clintons and with the folks that made up the Clinton administration at that time.
Moreover, he DOES have political management experience on his resume. He was a member of Congress, and had to manage his own staff of course. But he was also, chair of the DCCC (Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee), and subsequently, the chair of the House Democratic Caucus. And in those roles, Emanuel is generally considered to be the architect of the present day Democratic majority in the House of Representatives. Plus, he has all the contacts in Congress that comes along with filling those crucial positions in the Democratic Party. He knows "The Hill". And they know him.
So, he seems perfect for the job of White House Chief-of-Staff.
As long as he keeps the "foul-mouthed hard ass" part of him under a degree of control, he should be just fine.
1 or 2. Rahm Emmanuel gets too much credit for the Democratic majority. It was actually Howard Dean's 50 State strategy—which Emmanuel opposed until it started working—that built up the Democratic base at the local levels, and eventually brought them the congressional majority.
Switch!
3. Barack Obama picking elected officials from crucial swing states like Arizona and Colorado will end up hurting the Democrats more than help them.
Scott Williams: FICTION. You could make an argument that Obama's election and subsequent cabinet appointments have already hurt the Democrats relative to the controversy over who will replace Hillary Clinton in New York. Up until four days ago, there was tension in New York over whether or not Caroline Kennedy or Andrew Cuomo would get the nod. Or the scandal that ensued over Obama's replacement pick: Burris and the Blagojevich impeachment.
But the appointments of folks like Vilsack from Iowa, Salazar from Colorado, Napolitano from Arizona, or even the aborted Richardson pick from New Mexico, in my mind at least, can only serve to help the Democrats solidify the gains they've made in those states. There is a psychological component at work here, in that those states that DID flip for Obama in 2008, will have a voice in the new administration. It's something for those states to be proud of and point to as concrete evidence their hard work and support has paid dividends.
Peter Nguyen: FICTION. Elevating Democrats from crucial swing states serves only to send the message to voters in those states that they will have access to power by plugging into the Democratic apparatus. Also, because Democratic majorities are just now coalescing in these swing states, there are many young, up-and-coming Democrats who can fill the vacancies caused by these Obama appointments and further build the strength and reach of the party.
In the end, the access that these swing states get by sending their representatives into the Obama administration will be outweighed by the power vacuums that are created and can be readily filled.
2 for 3. I guess I'm the only one around here who thinks that Obama may have plucked the the leadership a little bare in these swing states.
4. CA's Attorney General, Jerry Brown is challenging the passage of Proposition 8, and is openly claiming he will not enforce it. Brown is correct, if not legally then morally, in his stance.
Scott Williams: FACT. Most people that know me know my stand on this issue. Limiting the right of marriage to only those that belong to Group A, while at the same time, denying that same right from folks in Group B or C, is discrimination. Pure and simple. It's indefensible in the same way that Jim Crow laws that limited voting rights or laws that denied racially mixed couples from marriage were indefensible.
So Brown is correct in his stand on moral grounds. Hence, the FACT response.
But having said that, Prop 8 is now the law of the land in California. That might change in the near future. But right now, it's the law. And as Attorney General, it's Brown's job to support and enforce the law.
If he can't, due to moral concerns, he should resign, and take up the fight from a position that does not compromise the office of Attorney General.
Peter Nguyen: FACT. Brown MAY be correct legally and he definitely is correct morally. His legal theory that the majority cannot restrict basic, core rights to a particular group when that right is codified in the state constitution has merit. In addition, if "rights" cannot be enforced equally and without prejudice, are they truly rights or are they actually privileges for some and not for others?
Morally, Brown is on high ground and will be judged favorably by history, a fact not likely lost on him. To prevent people of any stripe from forming legal unions with those they love based upon the personal likes and dislikes of the majority is despicable and dangerous.
How many times have we cried out for conscientious leadership by people who are willing to take a courageous stand and lead by example? Well, that is what Brown is doing and he should be admired for it.
By the way, Proposition 8 is not the "law of the land" until it passes constitutional muster. Therefore, I believe Brown is free to exercise his discretion and judgment as an elected official whether to support it in court.
Let the LDS Church (whose founders pioneered non-traditional marriage in this country) fight for Proposition 8 in court; we do not need a representative of the people supporting hate when it already unfortunately has so many natural advocates.
3 for 4. Some good answers from both.
So, after a rocky start, these two go 3 for 4. Next week, we'll be back with Week 118, four new questions and two new participants. Stay tuned.
No comments:
Post a Comment