29 posts tagged “president”

Defense cuts deepen old wounds

"As I told the Congress in January, this budget represents an opportunity, one of those rare chances to match virtue to necessity, to critically and ruthlessly separate appetites from real requirements,” [Gates] said. He called on lawmakers to “rise above parochial interests and consider what is in the best interests of the nation as a whole.”

I'm making the bold assumption that one of the main reasons Obama kept Robert Gates on at DoD was to provide political cover for this Defense budget.

It seems that Obama, having looked at his predecessors, has figured out a really crucial thing: he likely only has one year, with large majorities in Congress and will of the people behind him (which is still strong, even on defense) to get the big parts of his agenda in place. We knew the "big three" issues he was pushing (healthcare, education and the environment), but it now seems that this extends to a shift in defense spending.

Having Gates deliver the news gives Obama cover in to areas: first he is a Republican so it is harder or GOP members of Congress to paint this as liberals making us less safe (but they will still try). Second, you are talking about a man who is widely respected and seen as one of the key players in turning around the Iraq War. He already has a solid track record, he has been there for two years and he knows where the "bodies are buried". So these changes can be framed as pragmatic, "bipartisan" decisions of President and Secretary of Defense from different parties, not idealistic reductionism from the left.

Will it work? Probably not. Congress loves defense jobs. In fact I'd bet that Obama and Gates cut the F-22 orders just so they could put them back in later. One needs to have bargaining chips and while I think the President is genuine in wanting to make these reforms, he knows that he needs a ton of political capital for the "big three" and he does not want a protracted fight with Congress over defense spending.

I hereby retract my statement that keeping Gates was a mistake.

Echo chamber (as defined, in the context of media, by Wikipedia):

Noun: "[A]ny situation in which information, ideas or beliefs are amplified or reinforced by transmission inside an 'enclosed' space."

See also, the buried lede from article in the Times: On the Plane to Texas, Critiques of the Speech

[Mark] McKinnon described Mr. Bush’s spirits as high. “While I expected the president’s mood to be defiant, bitter, defensive or vengeful toward his critics, he was anything but,” Mr. McKinnon wrote. The passengers were shown a 22-minute film produced by Scott Sforza and edited by Laura Crawford celebrating the Bush presidency.

OK...WHAT??? Bush and his closest advisers (including Rove, Gonzales and Harriet Miers) watched a self-congratulatory movie "celebrating" Bush presidency was just hours after said presidency was OVER? Isn't that kind of like watching a graduation video at the prom?

This is the literal embodiment of an echo chamber: a bunch of people who all agree that they are great and have done right by the country, sitting on a enclosed plane, watching a video about how great they are.

We knew that these people were dilusional, but it seems that they are even more delustional than we could have imagined. What was in this video? Surely the "bullhorn address" at ground zero was in there, but did they show the shots from Abu Ghraib or the "Mission Accomplished" speech? No. Why? becuase they are not interested in crtically evaluationing what they did wrong, they are on a mission to justify everything they have done.

Then there is this little nugget from Rove:

[A]s Mr. Bush left Washington, in a last angry frenzy his critics again distorted his record, maligned his character and repeated untruths about his years in the Oval Office. Nothing they wrote or said changes the essential facts.

Yes Mr. Rove, nothing "they" say will change the essential fact that your boss will go down in history as one of the five worst Presidents of all time. You will spend the rest of your life in your echo chamber trying to justify what you have done to our nation and to the world. And luckily for you, as long as you stay in that echo chamber no one will ever tell you that you are wrong.

Hopefully this will be my last post on the 43rd President.

Here's to the future.

Cheney in wheelchair with pull back muscle

Vice President Dick Cheney pulled a muscle in his back while moving boxes and will be in a wheelchair for Tuesday's inauguration ceremony.

Oh this is just too perfect. The evil man has to be rolled out of Washington like an invalid. I am not sure, but I think that this makes him The Big Lebowski (no, not the Dude, the old guy).

Is it wrong that this brings me so much joy, that he will have to sit like an old man in a chair and watch as Obama takes the oath of office in what has to been seen as a repudiation of everything that he stands for? Oh wiat, we are talking about Cheney so that can't be wrong.

In other news, I will show my last tiny bit of respect for President Bush if these truly are the last pardons/commutaions that he issues. He is showing a level of restraint that I would not expect from him.

And in other, other news, it looks like Joe Biden choose a good mate when he married Jill...she's prone to gaffs too.

Happy inaguration eve America. Here's to democracy and here's to hope.

It seems that the possible storm brewing over Eric Holder's nomination as Attorney General is about to turn into a real storm. Sen. Arlen Specter called the nomination into question on Tuesday and officially threw down the gauntlet.

I have to applaud Judiciary Chairman Patrick Leahy for making the same point that I made 5 weeks ago:

“We need the new attorney general to be a person of experience and independence. Any effort to question his character is unfounded. Every Republican voted for Alberto Gonzalez, and felt his character merited confirmation. Certainly Eric Holder exceeds that test.”

Indeed.

Granted, Holder was tangled up in a really bad pardon decision, but it was not his decision, it was the President's decision. I said it before and I'll say it again: Alberto Gonzalez HELPED TO AUTHOR A MEMO THAT JUSTIFIED TORTURE!!!!! He helped find a "legal loophole" to make the Geneva Convention and International Treaties irrelevant under the guise of "protecting America." And this was BEFORE he was confirmed as Attorney General.

If we are going to stack up the legality, ethics and morality of these two men based on these incidents then there is no comparison. What Gonzalez (allegedly) did justified illegal interrogation methods (water boarding), lowered the nation's standing in the world and put lives at risk. Holder rubber stamped the pardon of a uber-wealthy fugitive who didn't pay his taxes, made some really bad business deals with some really bad people and MAY have asked his wife to give some money to the DNC and the Clinton library (then again, she may have done that on her own).

At WORST Holder helped to get a bad guy get off the hook too easy. But Gonzalez helped pave the way for violations of INTERNATIONAL LAW...oh, and then as A.G. he fired U.S. Attorneys for political reasons.

Undoubtedly Specter knows all of this. In fact, when Specter pulled his support for Gonzalez, the A.G. had no choice but to resign. So why put up the fuss? The buried lede in the Politico story is this:

The Pennsylvania senator went on to criticize President-elect Barack Obama for not consulting him prior to announcing Holder's nomination last month. “Had he done so, I could have given him some facts about Mr. Holder's background that he might not have known,” Specter said.

Ohhhh, now I get it. Specter is pissed because no one called him on the phone. This is a play for attention and also a reminder to the President-elect that he is still out there and, as a "moderate" Republican from a blue state, he is one of the key votes that can end a fillabuster on certain issues.

But wait, there's more. Specter also gets the added benefit of standing up to Obama when just about eveyone else is laying down. This tells his base back home that he is not going to roll-over for the new administration -- an important message to send knowing that you had a bitter primary fight four years ago and may have another one coming.

This is really a win-win for Specter: Holder will get confired (especially with Orin Hatch supporting him), so Obama gets his A.G. And Specter gets to show Obama that he is still relvant while pounding his chest for the right-wingers in PA.

I really resent that Specter is doing this, because I think it is a load of horse crap. But I understand why he is doing it and, from a political point of view, it is not a bad move. It just stinks that the politics of all this will further drag Holder's name through the mud. 

Obama is in D.C. and he already has problems. It seems his stimulus bill will not be ready at 12:01 PM on January 20th, oh, and he's got his first official cabinet faux-pas.

Well, you knew someone wasn't going to make the final cut.

Am I the only one that thinks this Richardson thing was all a set up? Think about it: Richardson gets passed over twice, so Obama names him to Commerce as a thank you for the support, but they both know that he won't get sworn in. Richardson gets his public hat tip, Obama repays a debt and gets some added support from the hispanic community, everyone is happy.

What, too cynical? Come on...FBI investigations don't just come out of no where, just ask the Governor of Illionois.

Oh, and this week we get to set the clock all the way back to 1959 with a special 98 member Senate.

And, in other news (via Boing Boing): did you realize that no American President has died under that same flag that he was born under? At first this made no sense to me, but then you think about it and realize that it's so obvious. And it can only mean one thing: hola to our fifty first state: Puerto Rico (or Canada if the Queen can't work things out).

Only 16 days to go...happy New Year.

Much has happened since I wrote my last entry on this topic.

The Clinton nomination seems to be a done deal (I am very happy) and I was wrong about Sec of Treasury. I do feel Obama missed and opportunity with that last one, but I rather have Geithner than the other names on the short list.

And more rumors are flying about other posts which leads me to part 2:

Secretary of Defense

Part of the reason I was crossing my fingers for Sheila Bair was an answer Obama gave in his 60 Minutes interview. When asked if there would be Republicans in the cabinet he said "yes" without missing a beat. In my mind there were two names who would easily be on that list: Bair and Sec Robert Gates. So now that we know it is not Bair, it is likely that Obama will retain Gates.

This distressed me greatly. I feel like we have a high opionion of Sec. Gates becuase we have such a low opion of his predicessor. Just because Gates is doing better than Rummy does not mean he is the bast man for the job. And there are at least three Democrates who I would argue could do the job better: Wesley Clark, Jim Webb and Sam Nunn.

A mistake tells me that Nunn has said he does not want the job. That's too bad beacause I really like Nunn and think he is pargamatic and a very smart man (and highly respected on the right). Webb seems to like his job in the Senate and as a "blue" seat in a traditionally "red" state there would be pressure to keep him in there. That leaves Clark (who I supported for President in 2004), arguabally a better choice politically: first of all how many prominant former Generals are Democrates and, as a former Hillary supporter isn't he a better fit for the "Team of Rivals" narative.

This also ticks me off for two other reasons: 1) Gates is a politically safe choice because he is well liked by both sides in Congress, but don't we need more right now? At a time when the country is yearing to turn the page on Iraq and get the hell out, why would Obama stick with the current guy just to be politically safe? That would really bug me.

And 2) why is it that the one Republican in a Democratic Administration is always the DoD Chair? Are we saying that our team is not tough enough for the job? Our bench is not that deep? The Dems need to show that they can be strong on National Defense and the "War on Terror" or they will never be able to kee a hold on power long term. We don't need Republicans for babysit us at the Pentagon. The Dems have to take this issue out of the GOP playbook and that starts with naming a Democrat to DoD and capturing bin Ladin (something that Gates has yet been able to do).

Attorney General

I will freely admit that most of what I know about Eric Holder I have learned in the last few days. Here is a recap for those not in the know:

• He was Deputy AG for part of the Clinton administration and apparently kept the lines of communications to the White House open since Pres. Clinton and AG Reno are rumored to have hated one another
• He was the US Attorney for DC
  
• He served as an adviser to the Obama campaign
  
• Of course he would be the first black AG in US history
• Oh, and he signed off on Marc Rich's pardon by Clinton, which became the final "Clinton scandal" trumped up by the right wing media in early 2001

Yeah...I'm gonna call bulls**t on that one. Look, the Rich pardon was not the best, but it was not the worst (Ford has that one locked up for a long time). Here's the thing, Holder's confirmation hearings will be taking place either just before or just after Pres. Bush issues two pardons that are widely expected: Ted Stevens and Louis I. "Scooter" Libby. You can argue the merits of a Stevens pardon (he is 85), but a potential Libby pardon is WAAAAYYYY worse than a pardon for Rich. Marc Rich was a wealthy guy who had some shady dealings and a wife who donated to the Clintons. Libby contributed to outing a member of the CIA's clandestine service as political payback. Me thinks there is a little more quid pro quo in the Libby pardon (you break the law, I'll get you out of it).

On top of that there is our last AG...you know, the one who authored a memo [PDF] expalining how tourture was not a violation of the Geniva convention BEFORE he got the job as the top lawyer. The one who left in disgrace after he fired US Attorneys who would not go after Democrats. Gonzoles basically got a free pass during his confirmation hearings. If he can get confirmed then Holder will sail through. Sorry Sen. Spector, your old pal George dropped the bar REALLY low on this one.

Interesting footnote here: Rich's lawyer from 1985 to 2000? Scooter Libby. Yeah, it's a small world.

OK, sorry for those of you who don't care for my inside politics analysis. I promis to only hit on a few more key appointments in part 3. And some day I'll get back to blogging about my kids. 

To say I have been remiss in posting during the general election is an understatement. I looked at the blog today and realized I has missed the entire month of October and have not commented on politics since early September (not long after the conventions ended).

Since that time I have been obsessed with four sites (fivethirtyeight.com, politico.com, slate.com and the NYTimes Caucus Blog) visiting them several times per day trying to "read the tea leaves" of this election. Between my massive consumption of information, parenting my children, catching a few minutes of TV to escape and trying to get some sleep (although less than Em thinks is healthy) this blog has suffered.

So, I am going to attempt in one post (or two if this gets to long or I can't finish before I go to bed) to get a bunch of thoughts out of my head and into the world. This is going to be long so I'll break it up to keep it digestible.

To start with, on some level I feel vindicated on two points. First I have been saying for four years that, to win, the Democrats need to forget the deep south, campaign hard in the inner-mountain west (specifically by going after the Hispanic vote) and second try to co-opt the economic issues from the GOP. It looks like I called that one.

As a marketer, I have been really impressed with the way Sen. Obama has run his campaign. I know that the pundits clearly agree that it has been "disciplined", but to me it goes beyond that. He set a large strategy which set in motion everythng that he did (in marketing we call this a "brand positioning"). Then he took that positioning and created a tagline (Change We Can Believe In), a slogan (Yes, We Can) and a logo. These three things are the bedrock of any good brand effort, and I really want a copy of his brand book.

But, Obama also employed some practical marketing tactics like including a clear "call to action" on every commuication, giving people an incentive (getting first word on the VP pick) as a way to add them to a text message or email list, employing people at a raly to call friends and remind them to vote, turning "brand advocates" into at home phone bank workers, having a clear, easy to read website that is "web 2.0" in style, substance and funcationality, buying paid search results for "Joe the Plumber" the day after the last debate (first sponsored link drove to the Obama tax calculator). As a fan of the candidate I was comforted by these efforts, as a marketer I am in awe of them. That goes beyon disciplin, that its a f***ing great product launch.

One quick shout out to Sen. Clinton. I truly feel that the long primary battle made Obama a better candidate by both testing him and by forcing him to set up ground opperations in almost every state. The Obama who won Iowa would not be where he is today without Sen. Clinton and while that fight got heated, I think that the way it has ended has been admirable. She has been a class act in throwing her support behind him and, should he lose, she is my top pick for '12 (for now anyway).

The worst part of this election has been watching the daily erosion of John McCain's integrity. While I applaude the Senator for holding back in some areas (like Rev. Wright), I feel some pain whenever I hear him using thinly vailed jingoistic language or questioning Sen. Obama's patriotism. And don't get me started on the ads, they make the Bush tactics look like Little League. I think that McCain looked into the face of hate when the people at his events called Obama an arab and a terrorist and it freaked him out, as well it should. He got into bed with some bad people and he has paid the price. A once great man has little integrity left and is morally bankrupt. Should he win I fear he will be virtually unable to govern with a Democratic Congress. Should he lose, he will have to decide if he wants to rehab his image or walk off into the sunset. Excuse me while I call the year 2000 and ask for my primary vote back.

This election has clearly raised the level of emotion in the country, and in me. There are times that I am over invested emotionally and I see this election as a referendum on the American character. I admit that one of the reasons I want Obama to win is that I want to believe that America is a mature enough democracy that his race, or his name or the rumors about him will not stop people from voting for him. But if he loses, I fear that it will make me feel like I live in a nation that I do not know, that I do not belong in.

I know that is a heavy burden to place on an election, but that is how I see it. And it is not just because of race, it really comes down to the way McCain chose to run. If he wins it will be a direct result of the fear and hatred that he directly and indirectly stired up in America. While he never played the race card, he did enough to paint Obama as  "un-American". When you add that, and throw in "pals around with terrorists" the message is clear: he is the enemy and we must fear him. Look, had the economy not fallen apart, McCain may have won on the issues, after all, he was closer or leading in the polls when everything fell apart. And if he had ran on the issues, it would have been a clean fight. But when the market crashed, he went to the gutter in earnest and has not looked back. If he wins it will be a result of racism and I am really not sure what that will say about America.

The silver lining in all of this is that whenever someone on the right has gone to the "un-American" or "real America" place they seem to get called on it by the meida and in the polls. The bad thing is that the message creeps into the conversation in ways that are hard to notice right away (see Joe the Plumber at a McCain event saying "I am voting for a real American, John McCain"). All I can hope is that on Tuesday a decisive Obama vistory proves that these intollerant people are the minority in this country.

I have been a political junky for most of my life, but I have never  followed an election this closely. Maybe it is the availiblity of information, maybe it is that fact that the issues of jobs and taxes and health care really resonate with me now that I own a home and have children, maybe it is the fact that I so want to see the Bush years washed away. Whatever the reason I think we all realize that this is an important election. On Tuesday I will proudly vote for Obama and hope that the nation stands with me.

Yes we can.

To say I have been remiss in posting during the general election is an understatement. I looked at the blog today and realized I has missed the entire month of October and have not commented on politics since early September (not long after the conventions ended).

Since that time I have been obsessed with four sites (fivethirtyeight.com, politico.com, slate.com and the NYTimes Caucus Blog) visiting them several times per day trying to "read the tea leaves" of this election. Between my massive consumption of information, parenting my children, catching a few minutes of TV to escape and trying to get some sleep (although less than Em thinks is healthy) this blog has suffered.

So, I am going to attempt in one post (or two if this gets to long or I can't finish before I go to bed) to get a bunch of thoughts out of my head and into the world. This is going to be long so I'll break it up to keep it digestible.

To start with, on some level I feel vindicated on two points. First I have been saying for four years that, to win, the Democrats need to forget the deep south, campaign hard in the inner-mountain west (specifically by going after the Hispanic vote) and second try to co-opt the economic issues from the GOP. It looks like I called that one.

As a marketer, I have been really impressed with the way Sen. Obama has run his campaign. I know that the pundits clearly agree that it has been "disciplined", but to me it goes beyond that. He set a large strategy which set in motion everythng that he did (in marketing we call this a "brand positioning"). Then he took that positioning and created a tagline (Change We Can Believe In), a slogan (Yes, We Can) and a logo. These three things are the bedrock of any good brand effort, and I really want a copy of his brand book.

But, Obama also employed some practical marketing tactics like including a clear "call to action" on every commuication, giving people an incentive (getting first word on the VP pick) as a way to add them to a text message or email list, employing people at a raly to call friends and remind them to vote, turning "brand advocates" into at home phone bank workers, having a clear, easy to read website that is "web 2.0" in style, substance and funcationality, buying paid search results for "Joe the Plumber" the day after the last debate (first sponsored link drove to the Obama tax calculator). As a fan of the candidate I was comforted by these efforts, as a marketer I am in awe of them. That goes beyon disciplin, that its a f***ing great product launch.

One quick shout out to Sen. Clinton. I truly feel that the long primary battle made Obama a better candidate by both testing him and by forcing him to set up ground opperations in almost every state. The Obama who won Iowa would not be where he is today without Sen. Clinton and while that fight got heated, I think that the way it has ended has been admirable. She has been a class act in throwing her support behind him and, should he lose, she is my top pick for '12 (for now anyway).

The worst part of this election has been watching the daily erosion of John McCain's integrity. While I applaude the Senator for holding back in some areas (like Rev. Wright), I feel some pain whenever I hear him using thinly vailed jingoistic language or questioning Sen. Obama's patriotism. And don't get me started on the ads, they make the Bush tactics look like Little League. I think that McCain looked into the face of hate when the people at his events called Obama an arab and a terrorist and it freaked him out, as well it should. He got into bed with some bad people and he has paid the price. A once great man has little integrity left and is morally bankrupt. Should he win I fear he will be virtually unable to govern with a Democratic Congress. Should he lose, he will have to decide if he wants to rehab his image or walk off into the sunset. Excuse me while I call the year 2000 and ask for my primary vote back.

This election has clearly raised the level of emotion in the country, and in me. There are times that I am over invested emotionally and I see this election as a referendum on the American character. I admit that one of the reasons I want Obama to win is that I want to believe that America is a mature enough democracy that his race, or his name or the rumors about him will not stop people from voting for him. But if he loses, I fear that it will make me feel like I live in a nation that I do not know, that I do not belong in.

I know that is a heavy burden to place on an election, but that is how I see it. And it is not just because of race, it really comes down to the way McCain chose to run. If he wins it will be a direct result of the fear and hatred that he directly and indirectly stired up in America. While he never played the race card, he did enough to paint Obama as  "un-American". When you add that, and throw in "pals around with terrorists" the message is clear: he is the enemy and we must fear him. Look, had the economy not fallen apart, McCain may have won on the issues, after all, he was closer or leading in the polls when everything fell apart. And if he had ran on the issues, it would have been a clean fight. But when the market crashed, he went to the gutter in earnest and has not looked back. If he wins it will be a result of racism and I am really not sure what that will say about America.

The silver lining in all of this is that whenever someone on the right has gone to the "un-American" or "real America" place they seem to get called on it by the meida and in the polls. The bad thing is that the message creeps into the conversation in ways that are hard to notice right away (see Joe the Plumber at a McCain event saying "I am voting for a real American, John McCain"). All I can hope is that on Tuesday a decisive Obama vistory proves that these intollerant people are the minority in this country.

I have been a political junky for most of my life, but I have never  followed an election this closely. Maybe it is the availiblity of information, maybe it is that fact that the issues of jobs and taxes and health care really resonate with me now that I own a home and have children, maybe it is the fact that I so want to see the Bush years washed away. Whatever the reason I think we all realize that this is an important election. On Tuesday I will proudly vote for Obama and hope that the nation stands with me.

Yes we can.

OK, I don't like Mat Damon all that much. He is an alright actor, I personally think he is overrated. And, I generally don't like activist Hollywood celebrities. But, I gotta say, this is one of the best lines I have heard since McCain picked his Veep:

"I need to know if [Gov. Palin] really thinks dinosaurs were here 4,000 years ago. That's an important...I want to know that, I really do, because she's going to have the nuclear codes.,.you know, I want to know if she thinks dinosaurs were here 4,000 years ago, or if she banned books or tried to ban books. I mean...you know...we can't have that."