Last night on Countdown with Keith Olbermann, Howard Fineman on the Democrats' inability to stand up to President Bush on Iraq. He compared the Congress to a bad Texas Holdem player (THE VIDEO DOES WORK):
FINEMAN: I really want to play Texas Holdem with these people -- because what they were doing, the Democrats, was pushing piles of chips into the middle of the table with each card; and then when the last one came by, they folded.
This comes as the Administration is in the middle of drafting new for the next few years in Iraq. Is this a concession that the current troop escalation is not working? If so, the Democrats are strategically misguided in giving up the fight to get our troops home. The facts are on our side.
Remember the authority that the President used to install as UN Ambassador in 2005? In the coming months, a fight will erupt between Bush and the Democratic Congress over a power that the President can use when the Legislative Branch is not in session.
Later this summer, George W. Bush intends to use the congressional vacation as the perfect opportunity to confirm a number of his controversial political nominees without Senate approval. You might recall that in early January of this year, just days before Nancy Pelosi's Democrats , the President used his power to install a number of right-wing officials.
With the President's political capital dwindling fast, Senate Majority Leader is planning to use procedural maneuvers this August to prevent Bush from appointing anyone without Senate approval:
We hear that over the long August vacation, when those types of summerhires are made, Reid will call the Senate into session just long enoughto force the prez to send his nominees who need confirmation to thechamber. The talk is he will hold a quickie "pro forma" session every10 days, tapping a local senator to run the hall. Senate workers andRepublicans are miffed, but Reid is proving that he's the new sheriffin town.
In other words, if you put a member of the majority party in the Senate chambers, then the Senate is technically not in recess!
However, expect the President to fight Harry Reid on this. Also, according to , there is some question as to what qualifies as a "vacancy":
The wording of the constitutional provision allowing recess appointments leads to a question about which positions could actually be filled that way. The question revolves around the phrase “Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate.†Does “happen†mean “happen to exist†or “happen to occur�
The first meaning would allow the President to make recess appointments to an position that becomes vacant prior to the recess and continues to be vacant during the recess, as well as positions that become vacant during the recess. The second meaning would allow recess appointments only to positions that become vacant during the recess.
If Bush wants to fight it, even if he risks more political scandal, this could turn into a constitutional battle that ends up in court. If the judiciary does intervene, it could drag out in for an extended period of time -- meanwhile, Bush's officials would be in office at least until the court reached a decision.
Even though there is a chance Bush could win this battle, it is worth the fight. No more presidential strong-arming now that the Democrats have majority. The public is fed up with the White House, whose main strategy these last six years has been to use various political issues -- most notably, the threat of terrorism -- to increase Executive power as a means to purge our government of political dissent.
These Cheney-style executive shadow games are getting old. What ever happened to tackling the issues of jobs, education and health care? -- you know, the stuff taxpayers actually want addressed. If Bush cared more about those issues than installing his own right-wing cronies at all cost, then his approval rating would not be at . My generation is exhausted of this, and we want change. I hope Reid draws a line in the sand and fights this next wave of recess appointments.
Ever since President last week, we have been waiting to hear what Democrats and Republicans would come up with as a second bill. As of now, the proposal isn't perfect, but it definitely closes the door on the President's open-ended war policy.
The new bill would fund half of what Bush is asking for, thus forcing the President to come back to Congress in July for yet another war funding bill. No more saying, "Here is your money for the year. We will watch from the sidelines." This bill, which is expected to have bipartisan support, will command Bush to ask Congress for funding every two months.
The has the details:
House Democrats are drafting a new Iraq war spendingbill that fences off more than half the military funds until a secondvote by Congress in July, when lawmakers will assess progress made bythe Baghdad government.
The draft bill would provide about $43 billion, or 45%of the $95.5 billion, in defense spending up front to avoid anydisruption of operations prior to the second vote. Military personneland operations accounts would get about 50% of the administration'srequest, and increased funds are provided for defense health programsand production of high-priority armored vehicles.
The remaining 55%, or about $53 billion, would bewithheld pending the second vote. That is expected to come in late Julyfollowing on two reports required from the administration on progressmade toward stated goals in Iraq and the performance of the Baghdadgovernment.
It is expected to get around 67 Senate votes, just enough to override another Bush veto. It should be even easier to pass in the House.
So even if it passes easily, will Bush veto it? If he is thinking only about his legacy, then he just might take out his pen and do it. He can say 10 years from now that the surge was working, and that if Congress had not tied his hands then the war would have been a success.
Remember, Bush needs a scapegoat, or some kind of reason to say that he was not responsible for losing the war. This is his chance.
Yes, I know -- it is certainly too early to start gossiping about possible vice presidential candidates. Many think we should not even be discussing the presidential race at all until next fall. Ever since January, I have received a couple dozen angry emails telling me just that. With Barack Obama's latest visit to Virginia, where he mingled with a few politicians, most of which made it obvious they wanted to be his running mate, I have to at least bring this up. When it comes to picking your running mate, you have to predict what your Republican opposition will say that you lack, and then pick that kind of person.
Let's try it with Hillary Clinton. If she makes it to the general election, her campaign will be won or lost in the Midwest. The GOP knows that. They will brand her as being out of touch with Midwestern values. So what better running mate to have than Senator Evan Bayh (D-IN)? The two are great friends, and have worked together on a number of pro-family bills -- such as the . If Evan Bayh's name appears on a Hillary ticket, that might be enough to swing Ohio.
Here is another example. Barack Obama will be attacked for his perceived lack of administrative experience. By picking an effective executive like Mark Warner, who enjoyed a very high approval rating in the red state of Virginia, Obama can say that his administration will be ready and able to govern.
Next, John Edwards has some major weaknesses of his own. Of them all, critics claim that Edwards is too polished and fake. Therefore, the former North Carolina Senator would be smart to bring in a tough straight-shooter like Wesley Clark. If not Clark, then maybe Senators Jim Webb (D-VA) or Jon Tester (D-MT).
How about Al Gore? Pollsters have found that voters find him to be passionate, although too left-of-center on some issues. If Gore was nominated, he should find a running mate that appeals to more middle-of-the-road voters, like Tom Vilsack, Bill Richardson or Harold Ford.
Whoever the nominee picks as their VP, it has to be someone that helps create a presidential ticket that is open tent friendly. No Edwards-Kerry, Gore-Feingold or Richardson-Vilsack tickets. In presidential politics, opposites attract when they run together because it diversifies the party's voting base.
If you are a Democrat worried that voters in early primary states will not vote for the most electable candidate, think again. In reality, writes analyst Craig Crawford, voters in Iowa and New Hampshire are more politically savvy than the typical Democratic voter:
Although early polls in key Democratic primary states show many votersbeing tempted toward such unconventional choices, the party faithfulwho traditionally make it to the ballot box in these low-turnoutnominating contests tend to be more politically savvy than the public and will probably weigh their personal preferences against the all-important question of whether a woman or a black — orboth — could actually win a general election. Electability will be theNo. 1 issue for Clinton and Obama to address in the primaries.
What worries me the most is the fact that Nevada voters are new to this process. This is the earliest in the primary season that their caucus has ever been held. Democrats chose to move Nevada up in the list because it is the second fastest growing state in the country, and the west has been under-represented in the early primary schedule. Nevadans have a huge responsibility before them, and need to remember that their vote must be for a Democratic candidate that actually has a shot at winning the general election.
The effort to take back the west from the Republicans.
In the year 2004, John Kerry 97 of the 100 fastest-growing counties in the United States. Many of those counties are out west in states like Nevada, Arizona and New Mexico. Up north in Washington state, more specifically the suburb of Lynnwood, located just fifteen miles outside Seattle, is an area that is evenly split politically while growing a quick pace. More than any other area though, the Southwest is home to a rapidly-growing Latino population. Many people in the Southwest, regardless of race, are new couples looking to settle and raise a family. Political strategists are concerned that once these families start voting one way, they will continue voting that way for years to come.
The Democrats absolutely have to make inroads out west. Many Democratic governors realize this, and are setting up an organization to target key demographics in that part of the country. Called The New West Project, co-chaired by Colorado Governor Bill Ritter, the organization will be formally unveiled on December 18th.
explains why it is important:
"Six years ago, people would have looked at the Rocky Mountain Westand said Democrats were about ready to be buried for generations tocome, and yet somehow over the last several years, we've been able toget back into the saddles of our horses," said Salazar, who cited theparty agenda on energy, health care and land preservation.
Democratshave long held governorships in Oregon and Washington state whileRepublicans maintained a grip elsewhere in the West. Since 2002,however, Democrats have won governorships in Montana, Kansas, Wyoming,Oklahoma, New Mexico, Arizona and now Colorado.
"They governed aspragmatists, they were problem-solvers, they took on the issues thatthe people in their states wanted them to take on," Ritter said."That's the point of the New West strategy."
On top of touting Democrats as the party of pragmatists, the organization will raise the level expectations for every Democratic lawmaker out west. The organization's will be located in Denver, CO -- by coincidence, also the likely home of the 2008 Democratic National Convention.
The Delaware Senator probably realizes that the time is now to showcase his foreign policy depth to the mass public if he has any shot of even competing for the presidency.
With 's (D-PA) crushing defeat last week in the race for House Majority Leader, the Congressman's reduced rhetorical stature opens the door for other Democrats with foreign policy credentials to compete for the role of party spokesperson on Iraq. Many predict that Senator (D-DE) will fill that role.
Throughout his entire legislative career, and particularly after the September 11th attacks, Senator Biden has been very well respected inside academic circles in terms of his wide-ranging knowledge about foreign policy issues. Immediately following Osama bin Laden's escape into the mountains of Tora Bora in 2002, Biden for more of a multi-lateral force presence in Afghanistan. Instead, troops were drawn down. Today, with up 50% in 2006 amid a continued , many might conclude that Biden's advice should have been followed. From Iraq to nuclear non-proliferation, to our detention policies, to how the United States can win the war against terrorism, Biden has led by offering realistic alternatives to Bush's policies, while most other Democrats have done little more than merely oppose the Administration. Biden's message to Democrats is clear: if you oppose something, at least offer a thoughtful solution.
Biden, who is mulling over a run for the presidency in 2008, has something going for him. Since the Democrats took back Senate majority, he can now showcase his depth of knowledge as the new Chairman of the . Even more so than Carl Levin, who will Chair the Armed Services Committee, Democrats are expecting Biden to take the lead role. If he takes advantage of this opportunity and sets out specific policy objectives for Iraq and the war on terror that the Democrats can unite around, he will have made a huge case to become the next commander-in-chief.
However, it is unlikely that President Bush will follow Biden's advice. So what the Delaware Senator can do is play the 2008 role of "I told you so." So how does that work? As it has been highly publicized over the last few days, John McCain, the potential Republican presidential front-runner, is calling for in Iraq. The current political climate points toward President Bush following a policy path similar to the one McCain laid out. If such policy decision backfires by not resulting in a stabilized Iraq, then Joe Biden can say in a head-to-head match-up against John McCain that the Arizona Senator and Mr. Bush were wrong about Iraq, and our country cannot afford to have that kind of misguided leadership for the next eight years. From a political strategy standpoint, it is as simple as that. Biden, assuming he will elaborate on his Iraq solution soon, is in an excellent position to best John McCain on foreign affairs, should the two meet in the 2008 general election.
In the coming months, look for Joe Biden to strategically assert himself as a strong Democrat by offering a clear alternative to the McCain proposal of adding more troops -- which President Bush is almost sure to enact. Biden probably realizes as well as most pundits that in order to beat people like Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, Al Gore, Evan Bayh, or John Edwards in the Democratic primaries, he will need to immediately go full speed ahead and define himself to the mass public as a smart, decisive leader on foreign affairs with a clear idea of how to take the country in a different direction.
Republican strategist Karl Rove will be resigning. After all, he wants the last laugh. By saving President Bush's legacy, he might be able to save his own. Rove will do it the only way he knows how -- not through consensus-building or building bridges with the other side of the isle, but by increasing the Administration's already hyper-partisan rhetoric.
Think of it this way: you don't hire a ultimate fighting champion to star in a romantic comedy. Karl Rove doesn't know how to be bipartisan. It would be contrary to his own play book. Rove will do what he does best -- smear the Democratic majorities in the legislative branch as much as possible, painting them as anything from unpatriotic to socialist. His gloves are off. Already, we are seeing some :
Things have not gotten off to a great start since the election.Democrats are taking Mr. Rove’s continued influence at the White House— as well as some of its recent moves, like nominating conservativejudges for the federal bench — as a sign that Mr. Bush’s conciliatorypledges of bipartisanship will prove to be fleeting.
“Karl’s rolehas not been to serve as a bridge over troubled waters; he has tried tostir the waters as often as possible,†said Senator Richard J. Durbin,the Illinois Democrat who will be the second-most powerful person inthe Senate next year. “Maybe he got religion on Nov. 7, but we’ll see.â€
However, according to one , Rove may leave "within weeks." However, many would agree that he wants one more shot at the Democrats. It's not just Bush's legacy that he is worried about -- it is his own.
Just released today: the Democrats on what they will do in the first 100 hours:
We will start by cleaning up Congress, breaking the link betweenlobbyists and legislation and commit to pay-as-you-go, no new deficitspending.
We will make our nation safer and we will begin by implementing therecommendations of the independent, bipartisan 9/11 Commission.
We will make our economy fairer, and we will begin by raising theminimum wage. We will not pass a pay raise for Congress until there isan increase in the minimum wage.
We will make health care more affordable for all Americans, and wewill begin by fixing the Medicare prescription drug program, puttingseniors first by negotiating lower drug prices. We will also promotestem cell research to offer real hope to the millions of Americanfamilies who suffer from devastating diseases.
We will broaden college opportunity, and we will begin by cutting interest rates for student loans in half.
We will energize America by achieving energy independence, and wewill begin by rolling back the multi-billion dollar subsidies for BigOil.
We will guarantee a dignified retirement, and we will begin by fighting any attempt to privatize Social Security.
It's full speed ahead!
Although, it would be nice if they elaborated on how they plan to solve Social Security's long-term solvency issue. One way might be to stop making the payroll tax a regressive tax. Every person pays a certain percentage in payroll taxes on income up to $100,000. In other words, someone making $500,000 each year pays less of a percentage in payroll taxes than someone making under $100,000 each year. If you made sure that everyone making above $100,000 a year would pay their fair share, then the lifeline of Social Security would be extended decades longer.
Rahm Emanuel deserves to be elected as the new House Majority leader.
After receiving dozens of emails on this subject, many Democrats and progressive-leaning independents have developed a consensus that neither John Murtha (D-PA) nor Steny Hoyer (D-MD) deserve to win the House Majority Leader position. Their relationships with lobbyists contradict the pledge that the party made to get serious about lobbyist reform. Nancy Pelosi is certainly 100% determined to change how members of Congress conduct the business of American taxpayers. But Hoyer and Murtha might offset some of that effort with their back-channel dealings -- Hoyer more so than Murtha. Although Murtha is the "lesser of two evils" on corruption, when we are dealing with intra-party decisions, it is highly unproductive to use that line of reasoning when determining who should be the second most powerful individual in the House of Representatives.
Many readers of this web site, including myself, believe that fresh blood in the Democratic Leadership would set an effective precedent for reform -- with the exception of Nancy Pelosi, who will make a great House Speaker. What better way to bring about new blood than by installing Rahm Emanuel as House Majority Leader -- an individual who was the architect of the Democratic Party's House victories just more than one week ago.
I know he is not running for the position, and I know that he will get zero House votes. He has already been to another Democratic leadership position -- Chairman of the Democratic House Caucus. But if elected, he would make an excellent Majority Leader. Emanuel was a former adviser to Bill Clinton, the last Administration to operate under the realist school of thought. They were effective when it came to rallying the votes for certain legislative priorities, which was what Emanuel would need to do in this position. Emanuel helped lead a nationwide campaign this fall for change in Washington, and he succeeded. Few politicians these days have his wisdom when it comes to political strategy and how to impact the political process. Most importantly, he is not a K-Street goon, which is what should disqualify Steny Hoyer and maybe John Murtha for the position. Most of the readers of this web site and I would like to see Rahm Emanuel elected as the new House Majority Leader.
This is the first ever endorsement from . This web site will also endorse a 2008 Democratic presidential candidate two weeks before the Iowa Caucus in January of 2008, and any other intra-party positions that ever need to be filled. Remember, your emails help determine who to endorse in each situation.
Recent Comments