Wednesday is a good day to abbreviate.
It is possible, I suppose, that the pundits are right and the public didn't really mean it when it elected a liberal Democrat president and gave Democrats even larger majorities in both houses of Congress. Maybe America really wants the same nice, reassuring, centrist thing as always.
But it is also possible that, for once, the public weighed the big issues and gave a clear verdict on the great economic questions of the last few decades. It is likely that we really do want universal health care and some measure of wealth-spreading, and even would like to see it become easier to organize a union in the workplace, however misguided such ideas may seem to the nation's institutions of higher carping.
Thomas Friedman: So now all the lazy pundits are back to writing about the Clintons. How should we feel about that?
Maureen Dowd: If Hillary Clinton gets to be the Mistress of Foggy Bottom, my forlornness when I'm not writing about the Clintons would be alleviated.
David Broder: Not the Clintons!! Nooooo!!! Will no one rid me of this scourge?
Kathleen Parker (apostate):
As Republicans sort out the reasons for their defeat, they likely will overlook or dismiss the gorilla in the pulpit.
Three little letters, great big problem: G-O-D.
I'm bathing in holy water as I type.
To be more specific, the evangelical, right-wing, oogedy-boogedy branch of the GOP is what ails the erstwhile conservative party and will continue to afflict and marginalize its constituents if reckoning doesn't soon cometh.
Brendan Miniter (unrepentent): Forget the RINOs.
Maybe that's because Republicans have looked closely at the election results. The country hasn't so much moved left as it has abandoned a GOP that abandoned its own principles. In Ohio, Barack Obama actually won about 40,000 fewer votes than John Kerry did four years ago. Mr. Obama took Ohio only because John McCain pulled 350,000 fewer votes than George W. Bush did in 2004. Republicans and Republican-leaning voters stayed home.
That's not an endorsement of the ideas of the left. It's a lack enthusiasm for a party that failed to deliver the smaller government it promised in Washington. At least the GOP, in settling on future leaders like Governors Jindal, Sanford and Palin, seems to understand that.
Bwa-ha-ha-ha.
Michael Gerson: When it comes to complex economic issues, leave it to a Bush speech writer to explain why the GOP doesn't suck as much as it appears – and why in the end they'll do the right thing even though they don't want to.
See also Kula2316's Morning Reaction.
Submit this article to The Obama NewsBy video link, President-Elect Barack Obama spoke to a gathering of governors and foreign officials in Los Angeles Tuesday, reiterating his stance on climate policy.
The science is beyond dispute and the facts are clear. ...
My presidency will mark a new chapter in America’s leadership on climate change that will strengthen our security and create millions of new jobs in the process.
That will start with a federal cap and trade system. We will establish strong annual targets that set us on a course to reduce emissions to their 1990 levels by 2020 and reduce them an additional 80% by 2050.
Further, we will invest $15 billion each year to catalyze private sector efforts to build a clean energy future. We will invest in solar power, wind power, and next generation biofuels. We will tap nuclear power, while making sure it’s safe. And we will develop clean coal technologies.
This investment will not only help us reduce our dependence on foreign oil, making the United States more secure. And it will not only help us bring about a clean energy future, saving our planet. It will also help us transform our industries and steer our country out of this economic crisis by generating five million new green jobs that pay well and can’t be outsourced.
But the truth is, the United States cannot meet this challenge alone.
John Broder at The New York Times writes:
Some industry leaders and members of Congress have suggested that Mr. Obama’s climate proposal would impose too great a cost on an already-stressed economy — having the same effects as a tax on coal, oil and natural gas — and should await the end of the current downturn. A bill similar to Mr. Obama’s plan failed to clear the Senate earlier this year, largely because of concerns about its impact on the economy.
The same old, same old from the fossilized powers-that-be.
Some environmental advocates also have critiqued what they've heard from President-Elect Obama previously and what he's repeating in this video: about what they believe are inadequate goals for reducing carbon emissions by 2020, about the prospects for truly "clean" coal, about nuclear power.
My own perspective is that conservation should at least get a shout-out every time climate policy and energy policy are mentioned in one of these speeches, however short. Happily, it's on the agenda, as you can see at the Obama-Biden transition Web site. So there is no reason it should not be mentioned in the speeches.
Most important, the incoming administration should recognize that $15 billion a year over 10 years - $150 billion - isn't nearly enough for the government's portion of funding for clean energy. That's only a single year's U.S. military spending in Iraq and Afghanistan. Dealing with global warming, weaning ourselves off fossil fuels and all the rest of it, is going to take a war-time level of government and private investment. That's both the frame and the reality: Don't call it spending, call it investment in a Green New Deal.
Despite criticisms, Obama has delivered a welcome and timely message in advance of the international negotiations on climate coming up in Poland in two weeks. The crux: Global warming deniers are finally getting the boot instead of the red carpet treatment at the White House. Expect science once again to be respectable in the federal government.
+ + +
The Overnight News Digest is posted and includes the story, Gift card sales seen down 6 percent this holiday.
Submit this article to The Obama NewsTonight's Rescue Rangers are Louisiana 1976, ybruti, HansScholl, dadanation, taylormattd and srkp23 with vcmvo2 editing.
~ The time is always right to do what is right.
Martin Luther King, Jr ~
Time to do Right
Life Stories
Leadership & Policy
jotter has High Impact Diaries: November 17, 2008.
brillig brings Top Comments- 11/18/08 Splinter Meet Log Edition.
Enjoy and please share your own favorite diary in this Open Thread.
::
Submit this article to The Obama NewsNo doubt you've all heard the hottest rumor coming out of Washington over the last week; that the top choice for Secretary of State in the Obama Administration is none other than Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York.
As of right now, that's still a rumor. No evidence that Obama is going to offer it, none that she'd take it. We'll wait and see. But that doesn't mean we don't get to speculate...
Leaving aside the merits of the selection (personally, I think she'd be an outstanding choice, but then, I've always liked her), the next question would be: if Clinton is offered the position and accepts it, who would be appointed as her successor?
What's interesting about such speculation now, as opposed to during Clinton's presidential campaign, is that the leading choice for a replacement during much of her campaign is now out of the running. That would be Governor David Paterson, who seemed a likely pick when he was Lieutenant Governor, but ascended to the governorship upon the resignation of Governor Eliot Spitzer.
So now that Paterson is out of the running, who might the new governor select to fill Clinton's shoes? A couple things to keep in mind:
• Paterson has never been elected governor, and though he is currently fairly popular in New York, he could face a spirited Republican challenge. Rudy Giuliani is kicking the tires as we speak, and trails Paterson in polling by six points as of now. Michael Bloomberg is out, but theoretically another wealthy liberal Republican could step up. As such, Paterson will probably ultimately do what's best for his own reelection, and pick someone to shore up support among a particular constituency.
• Hillary Rodham Clinton is the first female Senator in New York history. Paterson will be under some pressure to appoint a woman to fill her seat.
• New York has never had a black or Latino Senator.
• There will be some pressure to appoint a Senator from upstate. Both Paterson and senior Senator Chuck Schumer hail from New York City, and Clinton lives in Westchester County just north of the city.
• Schumer could be a major player in the negotiations, as Dick Durbin has been in Illinois. Schumer is arguably the most powerful politician in New York State, and as two-term DSCC chair, is the captain of Democratic Senate recruitment around the country. He will no doubt seek to be somewhat involved in the process within his own state. While Schumer and former Governor Spitzer had a frosty relationship, he will likely have more influence with the less combative Paterson.
So here are some of the names being kicked around:
Rep. Nydia Velazquez of Brooklyn. She's a Brooklyn native, like Schumer. However, she's a woman and a Latina, which would cater to two critical Paterson constituencies. Velazquez kills two birds with one stone like no other candidate.
In addition to being the second woman and the first Hispanic to represent New York in the Senate, she'd be the first Latina Senator from any state.
The New York Daily News reports that Velazquez is the current frontrunner. She's a perfectly solid vote, so she'd be a fine appointment from that perspective, and she'd help Paterson. The major drawback to Velazquez is that she might have some trouble holding the seat. It's not clear how well she'd run upstate.
Rep. Jerrold Nadler of Manhattan. Nadler wants the appointment badly - if anything, he may want it too badly. He'd be a great Senator if he got it, but a Nadler appointment doesn't do much politically. If anything, it might be dangerous to Paterson to appoint another white man from NYC to the Senate.
Rep. Brian Higgins of Buffalo. Higgins fits the bill as an upstater, and he's a generally solid vote. That said, he probably wouldn't set the world on fire as a Senator, and though he'd be better positioned than Velazquez for reelection, his appointment would lack the historic significance that appointing Velazquez would have. Higgins would be fine, but unexciting, and a backbencher.
Attorney General Andrew Cuomo. Cuomo has Washington experience from his term as HUD secretary during the Clinton administration, and a Cuomo appointment would eliminate a potential primary rival for Paterson in 2010 (although a Cuomo run against Paterson for Governor would be folly).
Rep. Steve Israel of Long Island. Israel wouldn't exactly solve the upstate problem, and he isn't a minority. That said, he's a pretty decent vote, his Blue Dog membership aside. He'd be about as generic an appointment as one could ask for.
Buffalo Mayor Byron Brown. He's the dark-horse pick here, but he's an exciting prospect for two reasons; he's African-American, and he's an upstater. Beyond those, he's a rising star in the state party, and would be a good vote in the Senate.
Rep. Kirsten Gillibrand of Columbia County. She's considered a major rising star in the party; she's young, intelligent, attractive, won an upset victory in 2006 and a convincing reelection this year.
She's a woman and an upstater, so she's a solid pick for those reasons. Only problem is her Blue Doggery, as well as the fact that she holds a seat which could go Republican in 2010. She'd be a sure thing for reelection, though.
Rep. Michael Arcuri of Oneida County. Arcuri was considered a rising star in the party until nearly blowing his 2008 reelection against no-name opponent Richard Hanna. This has taken some of the luster off of the Congressman.
If Hillary Clinton is appointed to the Senate Secretary of State, as the Guardian believes she will be, it should be an exciting time for New Yorkers.
Submit this article to The Obama NewsDean:
So if you run and get a mandate for reconciliation is your first act to kick this guy out of the party?
The question wasn't kicking Lieberman out of the party. Democrats in Connecticut already did that in 2006.
And once again, given this "mandate for reconciliation", I suspect that Reid won't reduce committee staff and seats for Republicans? Since that would be punitive. And we all want reconciliation, right? And maybe we can give Inhofe his committee chairmanship back, because apparently, the American people didn't vote for change.
And while we're at it, it just wouldn't be right for Obama to rid the executive branch of its thousands of political appointees, right? Because the first act once you have a "mandate for reconciliation" shouldn't be booting people out of their jobs for the pesky little reason that they supported the other party.
Right?
Submit this article to The Obama News