Obama Newsroom

In the following I make three claims, which I will state upfront in exaggerated terms, both to get the point across and so my errors are more visible. (1) The United States (or factions in it) has more of a stake in the outcome in the Israel/Palestine conflict than Israel does. (2) Israel does not need the U.S. (3) Understanding (1) and (2) is key to resolving the Israel/Palestine conflict. Or so anyway I want to try to argue. My argument will take the form of a discussion of a post from Juan Cole, although what I want to say is not primarily about Cole's post.

On Sunday, Juan Cole posted a longish piece about Israel, Palestine, and the current fighting between them. Typically for a Cole piece, it provides a good bit of historical background and original thought. He makes a more-or-less elaborate argument about The Big Picture for the two peoples, to which I will get in a moment. The argument he makes is worthwhile and non-simplistic; but I think he overlooks or slides past an obvious point -- and I think that addressing that obvious point requires making the Big Picture, Bigger.

As an aside, I am not here attempting to argue for a position in The Standard American I/P Debate. I have a position in the SAI/PD -- I largely agree with david mizner's recent diary -- but knowing my position in the SAI/PD is about as helpful, I think, as would be knowing my opinion of the Dragon Variation of the Sicilian Defense in chess, if the real issue were that Sicily was burning down. Chess has nothing much to do with the flammability of Sicily, and The Standard American I/P Debate has nothing much to do with the problems in Israel and Palestine. The frame of the SAI/PD is all wrong. The debate misses the point. And what is "the point"? Well, (1), (2), and (3) above. I'll get to them. First, back to Cole. The next few 'graphs are about his piece.

Cole argues that the fighting between Israel (or "the Israeli government" if you prefer, though at the moment Israeli opinion polls show that most Israelis support their government's actions, or did prior to the ground invasion) and Palestine, and more generally the ongoing and often violent dispute between Israel and her neighbors, is ultimately a war for global public opinion. How the conflict is resolved will depend crucially on what the world thinks about the players in the region. This is so, Cole argues, because Israel relies heavily on commerce, tourism, and immigration of Jewish people from abroad. Israel can win every battle, but if in doing so Israel disgusts the world so much that the world wants nothing to do with it, Israel will collapse. Israel knows this, and so do her neighbors. Cole writes:

The Israeli leadership knew that it could not reply to Hamas's microwar without engaging in total war on the Gaza population, and that this step would be unpopular with the world's publics. But the Israeli leadership has successfully thumbed its nose and world public opinion so often and so successfully that this sort of consideration does not even enter into their practical calculations (except to the extent that they are careful to do a lot of propaganda for their war effort). Their estimation that they will suffer no practical bad consequences of attacks on civilians is certainly correct in the short to medium term.

-- snip --

Israel will suffer no practical sanctions from any government. Egypt and Jordan are afraid of Hamas and are more or less handmaidens of Israeli policy toward Gaza. Syria and Lebanon are weak. Iran, for all the hype it generates, is distant and relatively helpless to intervene. European governments have largely ceded the Palestinian-Israeli issue to the US and Israel.

-- snip --

War on them [the Palestinians], circumscribe them, colonize them all you like. They aren't going anywhere, and you can't keep them stateless and virtually enslaved forever, occasionally exterminating some of them as though they were vermin when they make too much trouble. That, sooner or later, will lead to boycotts by rising economic powers and by Europe that could be extremely damaging to Israel's long-term prospects as a state.

It may still be 10 or 20 years in the future. But because of Israel's economic and demographic vulnerabilities, for it to lose the war of global public opinion may ultimately be more consequential than either macro-war or micro-war.

As an related factor, Cole makes the sometimes stated but often overlooked point that the one of the real goals behind Hamas and Hezbollah rocket attacks is to scare Jewish people from immigrating to Israel, or to provoke Jewish moral condemnation of Israel's response -- in any case, to keep Jewish people from wanting to move there. Israel is small enough, the thought would go, that Hamas and Hezbollah can ultimately win even if they lose every battle, simply through demographic attrition. This seems like it should be a sobering thought for Israelis: no one wants to live in a place like the one the conflict creates, no matter who wins the conflict.

In any case, let me restate Cole's conclusion:

It may still be 10 or 20 years in the future. But because of Israel's economic and demographic vulnerabilities, for it to lose the war of global public opinion may ultimately be more consequential than either macro-war or micro-war.

There is a curious and non-trivial lacuna in Cole's argument, here. As he surely knows, Israel has lost "the war of global public opinion." The people of planet Earth have made up their minds about this issue, even if America has not. March 2007 BBC report quoted at the University of Maryland's PIPA (PDF, page 5):

Israel is viewed quite negatively in the world, possibly because the poll was conducted less than six months following the Israel/Hezbollah war in Lebanon. On average, 56 percent have a mainly negative view of the country, and just 17 percent have a positive view, the least positive rating for any country evaluated. In 23 countries the most common view was negative, with only two leaning towards a positive view and two divided.

Unsurprisingly, the most negative views of Israel are found in the predominantly Muslim countries in the Middle East, with very large majorities in Lebanon (85%), Egypt (78%), Turkey (76%), and the UAE (73%) having negative views.

Large majorities also have negative views in Europe, including Germany (77%), Greece (68%) and France (66%). Indonesia (71%), Australia (68%) and South Korea (62%) are the most negative countries in the Asia/Pacific region. Brazilians (72%) are the most negative in Latin America.

The two countries with mostly positive attitudes about Israel do so in modest numbers. Forty-five percent of Nigerians and 41 percent of Americans have positive views of Israel’s influence in the world, while nearly one-third in each country has negative views. Kenya and India have populations with divided views of Israel.

This would seem to refute Cole's argument. World opinion is against Israeli actions towards her neighbors; the world takes Israel to be a belligerent nation. Yet, this fact is not, so far, doing anything like, in Cole's words, "lead[ing] to boycotts by rising economic powers and by Europe that could be extremely damaging to Israel's long-term prospects as a state."  So that would seem to undermine the Big Picture being painted by Cole.

But, why not? If I could ask a blockheaded question: why isn't Israel subject to more boycotts? After all, there have been more U.N. resolutions against Israel than any other country, both in the General Assembly and the Security Council, even if the U.S. tends to veto the latter.  

Well, it's obvious. Israel doesn't get boycotted because it is an ally of the United States. But that makes the following remark from Cole all the more interesting: "sooner or later, [Israeli actions] will lead to boycotts by rising economic powers and by Europe that could be extremely damaging to Israel's long-term prospects as a state." Cole is here imagining a future in which "rising economic powers" and "Europe" are willing to cross the U.S.  

This means we can't discuss the future of Israel or Palestine without discussing the future of U.S. dominance in the world.  The three are, at the moment, inextricably entwined.  I take it that this is the primary reason that we as citizens of the U.S. have such a hard time discussing the I/P conflict -- the range of acceptable opinion in the U.S. on this matter is even more restricted than it is in Israel itself. In a funny kind of way, the U.S. has an even bigger stake in the I/P conflict than Israel does. Hence, (1), my first claim in the first paragraph of this post.

Now, (2): Israel does not need the U.S.  Let me put this as strongly as possible, so it can be most easily disagreed with: The United States creates more problems for Israel than it solves, and it creates more problems for Israel than Palestine, or Hamas, or Hezbollah do.  In exchange for military assistance, Israel is willing to play the part of the US's Western Bulldog in the Middle East; it is willing to make itself into practically a giant military base for US control of ME resources. This is a bad deal for Israel: it creates the illusion of necessity of conflict, strife, and ill feeling between Jewish and Arab peoples. It creates, and this is the devilish part, the illusion that Israel needs all that military assistance in the first place. Thus, we have a self-fulfilling prophecy, but one whose spell can be broken.

Perhaps the longstanding dream of a U.S.-brokered peace deal between Israel and Palestine is itself just a trick, meant to keep us from seeing that what is really needed is for Israel to broker a peace between the U.S. and Palestine, and between the U.S. and the Middle East more generally. But in order to see things this way we have to readjust a lot of perceptions and biases -- perceptions and biases even deeper than the ones motivating the endless Standard American Israel/Palestine Debate. Dare I call those biases "racism against Arabs and Jews"? Sure, why not; this is just a blog post, and if I am accusing everyone in America of getting sucked into it then I am also accusing myself.

Thinking about the good of Israel, as opposed to the good of the U.S., perhaps the best thing Israel could do is make its own peace, and tell the U.S. (or, as I say, factions in it) to piss off -- to abandon the bulldog deal. Now that would be giving peace a chance. And that would be (3), and my conclusion.

I don't know if this is right, but I do know that engaging in the same old Standard American Israel/Palestine debate is no better. My suspicion is that the SAI/PD is not about Israel and Palestine at all (two peoples who would both do well to tell us to shove it), but about us, and the occasional American vanity -- even on the left -- of trying to rule the world while convincing ourselves we are saving it.

A post at HuffPo jumps the megladon. Now admittedly, I don't know much about the site. But most of the articles I've read there were decent. Which makes this one all the more out of place for a premier website like Huffington Post:

So, no one needs to say the words "climate" and "change" in the same breath -- it is assumed, by anyone with any level of knowledge, that climate changes. That is the redundancy to which I alluded. The lie is the suggestion that climate has ever been stable.

For starters, the author spends several previous grafs implying that changes in climate contributed to everything from the fall of Rome to charred witches. From which he then, somehow, draws the curious conclusion that climate change is an oxymoron, and then goes on to make the even froggier leap that it's a big lie and should therefore be casually dismissed. It manages to go downhill from there.

The writer, I'm sad to say, lives in my beloved hometown of Austin. A cursory search reveals he runs talkingabouttheweather.com, which is a non stop tirade of wingnut catnip, antiscience buzzwords employing every transparently dishonest trick in the fossil fuel lobby's big black oily book. I gotta assume this nitwit doesn't represent the views of HuffPo, in which case we have to wonder why his incoherent screed shows up under the 'green-as-in-environment' tab.

Is it flamebait looking for links, sloppy editorial control, or some kind of too clever by half attempt to portray the right in the most unflattering light possible? Beats me. But none of those possibilities reflect particularly well on HuffPo. Because, there really is such a thing as credibility. And this kind of crap is a big step on the road to losing it.

Further discussion and debunking is going on in A Siegel's recommended diary.

After two months of counting and recounting every eligible ballot in Minnesota's U.S. Senate race, Al Franken has won fair and square and will be the state's next U.S. Senator. Nonetheless, he won't be in DC tomorrow as the rest of his class gets sworn in because Norm Coleman is vowing a legal fight to delay the inevitable.

Lest there be any question over how this will turn out, Harry Reid has flatly stated that it's over for Norm Coleman.

"Norm Coleman will never ever serve [again] in the Senate," Reid told Politico’s Manu Raju. "He lost the election. He can stall things, but he'll never serve in the Senate."

...Reid added that he will not be trying to seat Franken in the Senate on Tuesday.  When asked if Franken would be sworn in tomorrow, Reid said: "No."

In his victory statement today, Franken said he was "ready to go to Washington and get to work just as soon as possible." But a Franken campaign spokesman said he has not yet made plans yet to travel to Washington.

Despite the fact that Al Franken is still in Minnesota, RNC chairman Mike Duncan is accusing Franken of having stolen the election.

Fortunately, Duncan is on a bitter little island of his own. Nobody (outside of the far right) who's looked at the situation thinks that Coleman won the election.

It might not cause that much harm to humor Norm Coleman for a short period of time, but Democrats need to spell out Coleman's legal wrangling for what it is: petty, obstructionist tactics from the GOP in the middle of a national economic crisis.

Because it's not good enough to set up drillling rigs in the sightline of national treasures, or poison more water, or gut the endangered species act, BushCo is upping the potential permanent damage one more notch.

In a massive FU to the people of Montana and Senators Tester and Bingaman (who've been battling this effort for months), former timber lobbyist and current Forest Service chief (for just 15 more days, thankfully), is granting Plum Creek timber company one of its fondest desires.

The shift is technical but has large implications. It would allow Plum Creek Timber to pave roads through Forest Service land. For decades, such roads were little more than trails used by logging trucks to reach timber stands.

But as Plum Creek has moved into the real estate business, paving those roads became a necessary prelude to opening vast tracts of the company's 8 million acres to the vacation homes that are transforming landscapes across the West.

Scenic western Montana, where Plum Creek owns 1.2 million acres, would be most affected, placing fresh burdens on county governments to provide services and undoing efforts to cluster housing near towns.

In one of his many visits to Montana during the campaign, Obama took aim at the Bush administration over this very proposal: "At a time when Montana's sportsmen are finding it increasingly hard to access lands, it is outrageous that the Bush administration would exacerbate the problem by encouraging prime hunting and fishing lands to be carved up and closed off." Hence, Rey's rush to push this last effort through, despite united opposition in local and state government.

Missoula County, the entity that would have to provide all those services to would-be mountain residents, has strongly objected to Rey's proposal, and has demanded to see all of the documents relating to this decision, documents which still haven't been released, and won't be, if Rey has anything to do with it, which, of course, he does.

Rey suspects Missoula County's request for documents is a tactic - "an attempt to run out the clock."

Because if a decision is not made before the Bush administration - and along with it, Mark Rey - leaves office, then perhaps the amendment push will falter.

"They're hoping they'll get a different legal decision from a different administration," Rey said, adding that "elections are meaningful in that way."

McCubbin, however, insists "you cannot amend a document that you haven't identified and they still haven't identified the documents. We made our request six months ago and they've just now made what they themselves call a ‘cursory review of the documents?' This isn't Missoula County delaying anything."
According to McCubbin, the Forest Service recently identified 176,000 documents that are "directly relevant" that have not yet been provided.

Rey said he remains committed to providing all relevant information needed to make an informed decision, which is not the same as providing "every last scrap of paper."

Like most of BushCo's midnight efforts, this one will inevitably end up in court, because there's no way Rey is not signing the easement that would allow Plum Creek's development. Missoula County has substantial ground to sue, and will very likely do so. So this is essentially an obnoxious and arrogant exercise in futility, likely to do nothing more than secure Mark Rey an extremely healthy salary with some timber interest in the not too distant future. But it's also placing a large financial burden a small Montana county that has plenty of other demands for its resources.

Update: Breaking news on this issue, via MTMofo in the comments. Plum Creek is inexplicably doing the right thing here:

Plum Creek Timber Co. is abandoning a controversial deal brokered with Agriculture Undersecretary Mark Rey, citing strong public opposition.

"Although we continue to believe that the easement amendment would be beneficial to the general public, given the lack of receptivity, we have decided not to go forward with the amendment," Plum Creek President and CEO Rick Holley wrote Monday, in a letter to Missoula County.

They probably don't want to have their legal department tied up in knots for the foreseeable future.

What you missed on Sunday Kos ....

It was an unusual Sunday in that we were treated to three stellar reviews:

• Devisltower reviewed Steven Johnson's The Invention of Air, a look at Joseph Priestly and the discovery of oxygen.
• MissLaura reviewed Milk, proclaiming it a winner: "Its representation of a politics at once pragmatic and radical, suffused with seriousness of purpose but open to fun, pushing hard from outside and in, makes it a valuable primer on movement politics for anyone tempted to believe elections and legislation are all."
• Adam B brought us insight into Frost/Nixon, with the observation: "The achievement of Frost/Nixon, and of the actors involved, is that you may not look at another political interview the same way ... or, perhaps, may finally recognize how you've been subconsciously watching them all along."

Additionally, we had a retrospective of the Bush administration's constant denial of problems as we headed toward economic crisis in Jed L's The Bush Recession In His Own Words.

And finally, we looked to the future with brownsox's rundown of upcoming electoral hotspots in Next Year's Model: New Hampshire Through Ohio, and Trapper John's brilliant and passionate call to arms in Why the Employee Free Choice Act Is So Important: The Power of Organization.

With Rahm Emanuel having resigned from Congress to become Chief of Staff to President-elect Barack Obama, embattled Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich has quickly set the special-election date for Emanuel's Chicago North Side seat.

Embattled Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich (D) announced today that he has set April 7 as the date for the special election to fill former Rep. Rahm Emanuel’s (D) 5th district seat.

...

Blagojevich represented the north Chicagoland seat before Emanuel, who was re-elected to his fourth term on Election Day. Even with scandal-ridden Blagojevich still in office, the district is expected to stay in Democratic column.

The seat should be safe for whatever Democrat manages to win the nomination. With one blip on the radar (the 1994 election of Republican Michael Flanagan after the incumbent, Ways and Means chairman Dan Rostenkowski, was indicted on corruption charges) the seat has been in Democratic hands since time immemorial, and sports a PVI of D+18.

The primary is only two months away, on March 3, and is almost certain to draw a host of competitors:

In a statement from his official office, Blagojevich designated a special primary election for March 3, 2009.

"I am pleased to set these election dates so that the people of the Fifth Congressional District can have a representative in Congress as quickly as possible," Blagojevich said in a statement. "With our nation in a recession, we need to ensure that Illinois’ voice is being represented in Washington D.C. to get our economy back on track."

With so little time before the primary, the advantage goes to the candidates who can raise the most money in the shortest amount of time, and have the greatest name recognition. However, given that the primary could be won with 25% of the vote or even less (as there are expected to be as many as 10-12 Democrats running), it's by no means a certainty that the more established candidates will win. With such a big field, the race for the nomination is wide open.

The NYT, WSJ, and Paul Krugman take a look at the emerging details surrounding President-elect Obama's stimulus package, particularly the roughly $300 billion in proposed tax cuts.

Overall, the package will cover a two-year period with a price-tag of $675 billion to $775 billion, $270 billion to $310 billion of which would be spent on tax cuts. The balance -- $405 billion to $465 billion -- would be spent on infrastracture, health care, and other programs.

One thing to keep in mind is that in early 2008 Congress passed a $131 billion tax cut stimulus plan covering one year. Therefore, while $300 billion over two years might seem like a lot, it's actually the same level of spending as we saw in 2008.

The problem, of course, was that the 2008 tax cut stimulus didn't do much, if any, good.

Since the tax cut portion of the stimulus will more or less be a continuation of the 2008 tax cut stimulus, the real change from 2008 will be the $405 to $465 billion in spending on infrastructure, health care, and other projects.

On an annual basis, this is about $203 to $233 billion dollars in actual stimulus spending.

In 2007, the U.S. GDP was roughly $13.8 trillion, so that means the "new" part of the stimulus package will be about 1.5% of GDP.

So Steny Hoyer goes on FOX News Sunday, and here's the headline he's rewarded with:

Hoyer Says Don’t Expect Stimulus Package Soon

Representative Steny Hoyer of Maryland, the House majority leader, expressed doubt on Sunday that the Jan. 20 goal set by some for getting a stimulus package before the new president could be met.

"It’s going to be difficult to get the package together that early," he said. Instead, he told "Fox News Sunday," lawmakers hoped to have it to the new president by mid-February. [Like the others appearing on the day's talk shows, Mr. Hoyer made his comments before it was known that New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson had withdrawn as the Commerce nominee.]

Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the majority leader, was more cautious about any deadline, saying simply, "We will work this just as quickly as we can." As to the amount of a stimulus package, he said only, "It’s whatever it takes to bring this country back on a fiscal footing that’s decent."

But Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the minority leader, agreed with Hoyer that the Jan. 20 goal was impractical.

Put aside the question of whether Hoyer should have gone on FOX for a second. The issue here is that on the first major legislative agenda item for the Obama Administration, the second-ranking Democrat in the House is already unilaterally declaring that it won't be ready on time.

Whether Hoyer intended to or not, the message he sent is that Democrats don't think the legislation is all that important. Instead of talking about delay, Hoyer should have focused on the urgency of getting something done quickly rather than his estimation that it will take longer than we originally thought.

(He should have been more like Harry Reid, who was actually reasonably good on the stimulus package.)

Aside from the fact that Hoyer undercut the sense of urgency surrounding the stimulus bill, he failed to adequately explain the most likely source of the delay: Senate Republicans. In fact, if Hoyer would have just kept his mouth shut, it's quite possible that the headlines would have focused instead on Mitch McConnell, who signaled his intent to drag out the process as much as possible:

Throughout the full interview, McConnell spoke in very partisan terms, and consistently called the stimulus plan a $1 trillion plan.

That should be a wakeup call to Democratic strategists.

First, no matter how much Democrats talk about bipartisanship, they are never going to get it from Mitch McConnell. Instead of playing an inside game for McConnell's support, it's much smarter to play an outside game and to try to steal 6-10 moderate Republicans like the Maine senators by delivering a popular bill that they can't refuse.

Second, the only reason to cap the stimulus plan at $775 billion is if that is the amount of money they believe will do the job. If they are trying to avoid having Republicans call this a $1 trillion stimulus plan, that boat has sailed.

Returning to Steny Hoyer, the problem here isn't so much the substance of what he said, but rather the fact that he blew the opportunity to advance the narrative that the stimulus plan is the top priority in Congress, and that the only thing slowing it down is the GOP.

The fact that yesterday Mitch McConnell, through his vows of partisan roadblocking, was probably a better spokesman for the Democratic Party yesterday than was Steny Hoyer tells you all you need to know.

::::

Update (2:32PM): Today, President-elect Obama sounded a far more urgent note than either Hoyer or McConnell:

Obama predicts quick OK on economic rescue plan

WASHINGTON – President-elect Barack Obama declared the national economy was "bad and getting worse" Monday as he began crisis talks with congressional leaders on emergency action. He predicted lawmakers would approve hundreds of billions of dollars in new spending and tax cuts within two weeks of his taking office.

"The economy is very sick," Obama said before meeting with Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid. "The situation is getting worse. ... We have to act and act now to break the momentum of this recession."

Obama, whose inauguration is two weeks from Tuesday on Jan. 20, said he expected quick approval of rescue legislation by the new Congress.

"I expect to be able to sign a bill shortly after taking office," he said. Pressed on the timing, he said, "By the end of January or the first of February."

Roland Burris heads to Washington today, hoping to be sworn in tomorrow as the newest Senator from Illinois. He'll do it without a certificate of election signed by the Illinois Secretary of State, without the approval of the Illinois Senate, and in the face of overwhelming opposition from the Democratic leadership, but according to Burris, he does have one powerful ally on his side:

"They can't deny what the Lord has ordained."

Hallelujah.

It's official: the Minnesota canvassing board has certified Al Franken as the winner of November's U.S. Senate election in the great state of Minnesota. Nonetheless, despite having virtually no chance of victory, Norm Coleman is vowing to file suit in an attempt to drag out the process of Senator-elect Franken's victory.

Now is a good time to remember what Norm Coleman said about this exact situation two long months ago:

"Yesterday the voters spoke. We prevailed," Coleman said Wednesday at a news conference. He noted Franken could opt to waive the recount.

"It's up to him whether such a step is worth the tax dollars it will take to conduct," Coleman said, telling reporters he would "step back" if he were in Franken's position.

The key difference between Franken and Coleman: Franken won, and he did it without a cherry-picking legal strategy. At this point, Coleman is a sure loser, his only flicker of a hope is dependent on the success of a "count my votes, but not his" legal strategy that is doomed to failure.

Sometimes the good guys win, sometimes justice is served, and sometimes the bad guys get what's coming to them.

It appears the Texas State House, ruled with an iron fist for nearly six years by Republican Speaker Tom Craddick, is prepared to cast aside the last vestiges of the Tom DeLay era and remove DeLay's faithful lieutenant from the Speakership.

Attempts to oust Craddick as Speaker have been frequent since the fall of 2006, so this was perhaps inevitable given recent Democratic gains. Still, it must be immensely satisfying for Democrats to see the archconservative, take-no-prisoners partisan style of Speaker Craddick (best exemplified, perhaps, in the controversial mid-decade redistricting aimed at taking out the state's longest-serving House Democrats) receive its well-deserved comeuppance.

AUSTIN – With a promise to end partisan clashes, newcomer and moderate Republican Joe Straus of San Antonio is poised to become the new Texas House speaker after toppling 40-year veteran Tom Craddick of Midland.

In a meteoric rise, the two-term lawmaker won overwhelming support from 72 Democrats and 16 Republicans who said they were seeking a less combative atmosphere in the Capitol. Straus released a list Sunday night of 88 lawmakers – out of the 150 House members – who have pledged to vote for him when the Legislature convenes Jan. 13.

While Straus, the new Speaker, is still a Republican, and the House will remain under Republican control for at least another two years, the difference between Straus and Craddick is striking.

When he ascended to the Speakership in 2003, Craddick was the first Republican to occupy that office since Reconstruction. Unfortunately, his autocratic and hyperconservative style made him sufficient enemies on both sides of the aisle that he finds himself a far-right Republican backbencher once again, just as he did when Democrats controlled the House.

In a prepared statement, Straus commended Craddick for serving with distinction but pointedly said that a strong majority of his colleagues were looking to Straus "to restore civility, fairness and transparency" to the House.

"The needs of special interests and partisanship will take a back seat to doing what is right for our state at this critical time," Straus said. "It is time for a new tone and an atmosphere of trust in the Texas House of Representatives."

The defeat of Craddick, a social conservative who became the first Republican to lead the House in 130 years, followed three acrimonious sessions. In 2007, some Republicans yelled at him from the House floor for his claim of "absolute power." Democrats famously broke a 2003 quorum by fleeing to Oklahoma to avoid being steamrolled with a GOP redistricting plan.

Straus' ascension to the position of Speaker does carry some risk for Democrats, and for Straus himself. Needless to say, the Craddick loyalists (and there are still many within the Republican caucus) are not pleased at Straus' treachery, and he can expect to face a great deal of opposition from within his own caucus over the next two years. He only needs to maintain the support of a few Republicans, of course, if he can keep all the Democrats on his side, but it will escape no one's attention that Straus was elected with far greater support from Democrats than from Republicans.

For Texas Democrats, getting rid of Craddick is no doubt exciting, but it's possible it may actually compound the problems they face in trying to retake the Texas House. While Democrats are only two votes shy of a majority in the House, they have no shot at retaking the Texas Senate, and the Governorship (assuming the GOP nominates Kay Bailey Hutchison) is also likely out of reach.

So the House represents Texas Democrats' best chance to gain control in even one branch of government - and have a seat at the table during redistricting. This is no small issue, given the expertly gerrymandered Congressional map of today, and the likelihood that Texas will gain as many as four seats after the next census.

And Craddick's controversial style may have helped Texas Democrats in their efforts to retake the House, giving them a big target to run against in the same way Democrats used George Bush for federal elections in 2006 and 2008. If Joe Straus is serious about running the House like an adult, the backlash against Craddick Republicanism (which helped Democrats gain seats the last two cycles) may subside, and perhaps prevent the needed two-seat game to pass the Speaker's gavel over to the Democratic side. (Burnt Orange Report's Phillip Martin, however, downplays this possibility).

Still, any concerns can wait for another day. For now, all Texans and all Americans who hoped that 2008 would truly usher in a new era in American politics, can revel in the downfall of former House Speaker Tom Craddick.

The venerable Burnt Orange Report has been covering the Speaker's election for weeks, in far more detail, and is the place to go for further analysis.

Kagro X goes out on a limb and has some fun with a parliamentary fantasy in which he suggests that Reid should try to seat Roland Burris and/or Al Franken first, before anyone else is sworn in. That way, if the Republicans filibuster, they're filibustering swearing everybody in. And then we only have a Senate of 64, wherein we "have" 38 votes and it takes 39 for cloture.

Go join the speculative fun!

Meow!

Former U.S Senator Bill Frist announced late Sunday evening that he will not be a candidate for governor of Tennessee in 2010. Frist issued a statement to the Associated Press stating that "After significant reflection and conversations with loved ones, I have decided to remain a private citizen for the foreseeable future."

The move by Frist dramatically opens up the Republican field, as a number of GOP gubernatorial aspirants had said that they would not make the race had Frist run.

Among those who have said that they would run with Frist out is Congressman Zach Wamp of Chattanooga, District Attorney Bill Gibbons of Memphis and Knoxville Mayor Bill Haslam.

Remember Bill Frist? It seems just ages ago that the Cat-Killer himself was the man holding court over the United States Senate, providing medical diagnoses for Terri Schiavo via video feed and various other exciting manuevers like that.

How the mighty have fallen; once tabbed as a future Presidential nominee, the former Senate Majority Leader now won't even sign on to take the reins of his own state.

It's rather fortunate for Democrats, as Frist was the one guy who would likely have cleared the Republican field, and he would have been the most formidable opponent for Team Blue in the 2010 election.

So this leaves who? Well, this guy, for one:

Rep. Zach Wamp (R) announced Monday morning that he would run for governor in Tennessee in 2010, creating an open House seat in what should be a safe Republican district.

For the time being, forget about Wamp's seat. TN-03 has a robust "old PVI" of R+8.5, meaning that it would take some pretty freakish circumstances for a Democrat to be competitive here. It's not impossible (see Travis Childers and MS-01), but it's also not exactly likely.

How competitive would Wamp be statewide? Quite competitive, one would think, particularly if 2010 favors Republicans more than the last two cycles have done. Wamp is a reliable conservative (and was a rising star in the House, among the rabid conservative faction), so he shouldn't have base problems. He might lose some of the moderates, though, especially as he'll have to outwingnut the other folks in a contested GOP primary.

Both of the Democrats being tipped to run are centrists/conservatives - Rep. Lincoln Davis, and former Congressman, Senate candidate and current MSNBC contributor Harold Ford Jr. Of these two, Ford is the further to the left, although he's certainly no liberal lion - he gets a lot of well-deserved criticism, but it's likely (and unfortunate) that he will be the liberal option in the Governor's race.

In a general election against Wamp, both of them would probably have a shot - Ford came very close to winning statewide in 2006 against Bob Corker, Wamp may or may not be a tougher foe. A lot depends on whether Wamp actually wins the primary, how much he has to stretch to the right to do so (and risk losing the center), what kind of political climate 2010 will see (if it's neutral, that's OK, but if it goes back to, say, 2002 levels, that's very bad).

We'll see how things shake down.

• According to the NYT, the Internet has surpassed print newspapers as the primary news source for Americans.
• Fans of Laura Bush will be happy to hear that she has agreed to a book deal with Scribner and will be releasing a memoir sometime next year. No word yet on the title. Perhaps, My Pet President?
• Mrs. Bush will be writing that memoir and enjoying Secret Service protection next year, but the Bush family will only have the benefit of the secret service for 10 years. Congress changed the laws, limiting the secret service benefit to 10 years after leaving office. GWB is the first president to affected by the new limit.
• Steve Jobs appears to be on the road to recovery after doctors diagnosed a hormone imbalance, which caused him to lose a great deal of weight and led to speculation about his health.
• When Ken Salazar takes over at the Dept of the Interior, he'll be moving into an office fit for a king -- or a dictator.  The WaPo notes that his Republican predecessor, Dirk Kempthorne, spent $235,000 of taxpayer money to redo the private bathroom in his office. You've gotta love those fiscally conservative Republicans.
• Inauguration plans are underway in DC and tickets are still available for the Netroots Nation - Yes We Can Party on January 19th.  Join many of your favorite bloggers and netroots family at a celebration for the ages, including live music, tasty food, adult beverages, and much more!

According to Chuck Todd and Samantha Guthrie at NBC News, Leon Panetta has been chosen by Obama to be the Director of the CIA.

His resume highlights from the Panetta Institute website:

Panetta was a U.S. Representative from California’s 16th (now 17th) district from 1977 to 1993. As a House member, he was a key participant in the 1990 budget summit as well as every other budget summit during the 1980s. He authored the Hunger Prevention Act of 1988; the Fair Employment Practices Resolution extending civil rights protections to House employees for the first time; numerous successful measures to protect the California coast, including creation of the Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary; legislation that established Medicare and Medicaid reimbursement for hospice care for the terminally ill; and other legislation on a variety of education, health, agriculture and defense issues.

From 1989 to 1993, Panetta was chairman of the House Committee on the Budget. He also served as a member of that committee from 1979 to 1985. He chaired the House Agriculture Committee’s Subcommittee on Domestic Marketing, Consumer Relations and Nutrition; the House Administration Committee’s Subcommittee on Personnel and Police; and the Select Committee on Hunger’s Task Force on Domestic Hunger. He also served as vice chairman of the Caucus of Vietnam Era Veterans in Congress and as a member of the President’s Commission on Foreign Language and International Studies.

Panetta left Congress in 1993, at the beginning of his ninth term, to become Director of the Office of Management and Budget for the incoming Clinton administration. In that position, he was instrumental in developing the 1993 budget package that is widely credited with achieving a balanced federal budget and eventual budget surpluses.

Panetta was appointed Chief of Staff to President Clinton on July 17, 1994, and served in that position until January 20, 1997. He was the principal negotiator of the successful 1996 budget compromise, and was widely praised for bringing order and focus to White House operations and policy making.

Update: This appointment is a bit out of left field, but it is encouraging in several ways: Obama wasn't swayed by the intelligence community's all-out effort to put a current CIA type into the position--an effort aimed at maintaining and/or justifying Bush policies, including torture. Instead, Obama went for someone with proven management skills, something that it desperately needed in the position. But the best news in all of this--Leon Panetta is a much of a departure from torture as you could want. mcjoan

TPM:

The last month's publicity hasn't been kind to Caroline Kennedy, with a new survey from Public Policy Polling (D) showing that she's now being trounced by state Atty. Gen. Andrew Cuomo as the choice of New York voters.

Cuomo now leads Kennedy 58%-27% as the one that voters would like to see Gov. David Paterson appoint to the Senate, with a 54%-34% spread among Democrats only. In last month's poll, which tested Democrats only, Kennedy had a 44%-23% lead. So a 21-point Caroline lead among Democrats has turned into a 20-point Cuomo advantage.

From the polling memo:

"When Caroline Kennedy was first mentioned as a possible Senate appointee there was a lot of enthusiasm among New York Democrats about her," said Dean Debnam, President of Public Policy Polling.  "Her reputation has taken a pretty clear hit over the last month, and if Governor Paterson does end up appointing her she’s going to have some work to do to overcome this bad first impression she’s made on New York voters."

57% of New Yorkers view Andrew Cuomo favorably with just 20% having an unfavorable opinion of him.  For Kennedy the numbers are 44% favorable and 40% unfavorable.

Oh, dear.

President-elect Barack Obama and Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi held a private meeting earlier today to discuss the economic stimulus package that will be the focus of the 111th Congress that begins tomorrow. They did not take questions, but issued the following statements, courtesy of the pool report:  

PRESIDENT-ELECT OBAMA: The reason we are here today is because the people can't wait. We have an extraordinary economic challenge ahead of us. We are expecting a sobering job report at the end of the week. The speaker and her staff have been extraordinarily helpful in working with our team so we can shape an economic investment and recovery plan that will start to put people back to work. And I can't think of a better partner in building what is necessary to get this economy back on track than Speaker Nancy Pelosi who has just been an extraordinary advocate for working people all her life.

PELOSI: Thank you very much Mr. President Elect. It is a great honor and personal privilege to welcome you to the Speaker's office. Tomorrow we will start a new congress. We will hit the ground running on initiatives, some of which you have described and address some of the pain being felt by the American people. And then 2 weeks from tomorrow we will inaugurate a new President of the United States. As the President-elect indicated the construction is underway right now. At that time we hope to have signed into law legislation that will improve the lives of the American people. It's a very very exciting time. We pledge to work together in a bipartisan way. Great civility, great fiscal discipline. I know that if they (inaudible) I congratulate the President Elect on his sense on the appointment to his cabinet the transition and for this inauguration.

While there was once talk of having a bill ready for Obama's signature on January 20th, expectations have been dialed back as Democrats look for support on the stimulus package from Republican lawmakers.

Searching for Republican votes, Obama's aides indicated Sunday that the still emerging plan would include at least $300 billion in tax cuts, including a $500 individual tax credit and a host of business credits. That's an increase of about $100 billion in tax cuts from the estimates aides provided during pre-Christmas negotiations among Obama's advisers and House and Senate Democrats.

Obama will meet later today with key Republican leaders for the first time since his election.

Another legal avenue closed:

MN Supremes To Coleman: Rejected!

The MN Supreme Court rejected an appeal today by Sen. Norm Coleman's campaign to count rejected absentee ballots from GOP-leaning areas, the latest blow to the incumbent's bid for re-election. The decision effectively allows the State Canvassing Board to certify the recount results, and at this point, Democrat Al Franken holds an unofficial 225-vote lead.

It's time for Coleman to pack it in. Al Franken is your U.S. Senator-elect from Minnesota.

Update: More discussion going on in StuHunter's recommended diary. --SusanG

President-Elect Barack Obama named key appointees to the Department of Justice, which as we all know, has been a troubled and malfunctioning department under the Bush administration. A transition team press release issued this morning gives the following background on each of the nominees:

David Ogden, Deputy Attorney General

Ogden is currently a partner at Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr and serves as the Department of Justice Agency Review lead for the Obama-Biden Transition Project.  Ogden was nominated by President Clinton to serve as Assistant Attorney General, Civil Division from in 1999 and served in this capacity until 2001. He was awarded the Edmund J. Randolph Award for Outstanding Service in 2001. From 1998 – 1999, he served as Chief of Staff to Attorney General Janet Reno and as Counselor to the Attorney General from 1997-1998.  From 1995-1997, Ogden served as Associate Deputy Attorney General at the Department of Justice, and worked at the law firm of Ennis Friedman & Bersoff from 1983-1988.  He clerked for Associate Justice Harry A. Blackmun in the U.S. Supreme Court from 1982-1983 and for Judge Abraham D. Sofaer in the Southern District Court of New York from 1981-1982.  He received his B.A. in English literature from the University of Pennsylvania in 1976 (summa cum laude) and his J.D. from Harvard Law School in 1981 (magna cum laude). He served on the Harvard Law Review from 1979-81.

Elena Kagan, Solicitor General

Kagan, the Charles Hamilton Houston Professor of Law, is currently the 11th Dean of Harvard Law School.  Kagan first came to Harvard Law School as a visiting professor in 1999 and became Professor of Law in 2001. She has taught administrative law, constitutional law, civil procedure, and seminars on issues involving the separation of powers. She was appointed Dean of the Law School in 2003.  From 1995 to 1999, Kagan served in the White House, first as Associate Counsel to the President (1995-96) and then as Deputy Assistant to the President for Domestic Policy and Deputy Director of the Domestic Policy Council (1997-99). In those positions she played a key role in the executive branch’s formulation, advocacy, and implementation of law and policy in areas ranging from education to crime to public health. Kagan launched her scholarly career at the University of Chicago Law School, where she became an assistant professor in 1991 and a tenured professor of law in 1995. Kagan clerked for Judge Abner Mikva of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit from 1986 to 1987. The next year she clerked for Justice Thurgood Marshall of the United States Supreme Court. She then worked as an associate in the Washington, D.C. law firm of Williams & Connolly from 1989 to 1991. Kagan received her bachelor’s degree from Princeton in 1981 (summa cum laude). She attended Worcester College, Oxford, as Princeton’s Daniel M. Sachs Graduating Fellow, and received an M. Phil. in 1983. She then attended Harvard Law School, where she was supervising editor of the Harvard Law Review, and graduated magna cum laude in 1986.

Tom Perrelli, Associate Attorney General

Perrelli is currently Managing Partner of Jenner & Block’s Washington, DC office.  He is Co-Chair of the Firm’s Entertainment and New Media Practice and is a member of the Firm’s Litigation Department.  From 1997-99, Mr. Perrelli served as counsel to Attorney General Janet Reno, supervising a variety of civil matters at the Department of Justice.  He subsequently rose to Deputy Assistant Attorney General (1999-2001), supervising the Federal Programs Branch of the Civil Division.  In 2005, Perrelli was named one of the nation's 40 most promising lawyers under 40 by The National Law Journal for exhibiting "extraordinary achievements" in his career.  He has been recognized as one of the leading media and entertainment lawyers in the United States by Chambers & Partners USA, named as one of 500 "New Stars" by Lawdragon in 2006, and named Best Intellectual Property Lawyer in Washington D.C. by the Washington Business Journal in 2008.  Prior to joining Jenner & Block, in 1991-92, Perrelli clerked for the Honorable Royce C. Lamberth of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia.  Perrelli graduated from Harvard Law School, magna cum laude, in 1991, where he was managing editor of the Harvard Law Review.  He received an A.B. in History from Brown University in 1988.

Dawn Johnsen, Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Legal Counsel

Johnsen is currently a Professor of Law at the Indiana University School of Law—Bloomington, where she teaches and writes about issues of constitutional law.  Her recent publications on issues of presidential power include Faithfully Executing the Laws: Internal Legal Constraints on Executive Power, 54 UCLA L. Rev. 1559 (2007) and What's a President to Do? Interpreting the Constitution in the Wake of the Bush Administration's Abuses, 88 Boston U. L. Rev. 395 (2008). She serves on the board of directors of the American Constitution Society for Law and Policy. She served in the Office of Legal Counsel, U.S. Department of Justice, as the acting assistant attorney general heading that office (1997-98) and as a deputy assistant attorney general (1993-96).  In that capacity, she provided constitutional and other legal advice to the attorney general, the President, and the general counsels of the various executive branch agencies. From 1988-93, she was the legal director of the National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League (NARAL).  She clerked for the Honorable Richard D. Cudahy, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.  She received a B.A from Yale University in 1983 and a J.D. from Yale Law School in 1986.

Good news on a Fox News program? Surprisingly enough, yes. Steny Hoyer went on Fox News Sunday yesterday, and not only defended the Employee Free Choice Act as a critical labor law reform, but predicted its quick passage in the new Congress (warning: link goes to Fox News transcript):

WALLACE: Big labor's top priority is what's called union card check, and that would be eliminating the right to a secret ballot in determining whether or not you're going to organize, unionize, a working place.

I love the way that you're smiling already. Are you going to move on that in the first month?

HOYER: I'm smiling because of the way you phrase it. It's the Free Choice Act, of course, and what it does is...

WALLACE: Well, union card check, free choice. Both sides have their best — their euphemisms.

HOYER: Of course, and you used one side. That's why I was smiling.

WALLACE: And you used the other. OK.

HOYER: Well, my point being that we believe that one of the problems that has existed in America is that working people have had a very, very difficult time in getting represented by unions in the workplace.

Workplace has resisted that. The NLRB has not been very vigorous in assuring the lack of unfair labor practices. So we believe that the employees — if over 50 percent of them sign and say, "We want to be represented by a union," they ought to be able to be represented by a union.

Let me say that many, many employers currently under existing law recognize such signatures right now and start to bargain and have a union representative.

WALLACE: Whatever you call it, Congressman, are you going to pass it in the first month?

HOYER: I don't know about the first month, but we're going to pass it early.

As Jane Hamsher notes, it looks like the corporate-Republican astroturf complex may have overplayed its hand by running a multimillion-dollar campaign smearing Democrats on free choice last fall -- with the result being galvanized Democratic support of real labor law reform. But if that wasn't good enough, Hoyer smacked down the bogus right-wing talking point about the Employee Free Choice Act and NLRB elections:

Again, let me stress, Chris, nobody's going to take away the secret ballot. The employees currently have and will have the opportunity to opt for a secret ballot. They don't have to sign the card. They can say, "Look, we'll have an election, and we may vote." But they have that choice right now, and they will continue to have that choice.

Nice stuff from the House leadership. We occasionally give Hoyer grief around these parts, but he deserves kudos today.