Trouble in paradise? -- Democratic infighting

[Sigaba]

The intent of this thread is to document and comment on the Democratic Party's incredible ability to be its own worst enemy.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/cap...s_dingell.html

Waxman Defeats Dingell

By Paul Kane

Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) won the vote, 137-122, to become the new chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, defeating the legendary Rep. John Dingell (D-Mich.).

The vote came a day after the House Democratic steering committee recommended Waxman for the post in a narrow 25-22 vote. The powerful Energy panel, with jurisdiction over health care, energy issues and telecommunications policy, will play a significant role in moving much of President-elect Barack Obama's agenda in the 111th Congress.

"It's the mantra of the Obama election. People want change," said Rep. Frank Pallone (D-N.J.), who supported Waxman. "He'll work best with the new administration."

Senior Democrats were stunned by the Waxman victory, which seemingly dealt a blow to the party's long-held principle of seniority.

"It's just been buried," Rep. Charlie Rangel (D-N.Y.), chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, said of seniority.

Despite House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's public neutrality in the race, Rangel accused her of playing a role. "I assume that not playing a role is playing a role," Rangel said.

[HOLLiS]

Obama even mentioned it, "The ability of the Democratic party to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory." The D's love to bleed themselves in public.

[Sigaba]

More grousing in paradise.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle5239776.ece

November 27, 2008
Barack Obama forced to deny abandoning 'change' amid insider appointments


(Charles Dharapak/AP)

There have been mounting concerns Barack Obama has pivoted sharply since his election to the centre-right
Tim Reid in Chicago

Barack Obama defended his decision to pack his new Cabinet with veteran Washington insiders and former Clinton officials yesterday after a campaign in which he promised change.

The President-elect responded after naming the former Federal Reserve chairman Paul Volcker, a veteran of the Carter and Reagan Administrations, as the head of a new economic panel to stop “groupthink” infecting his inner circle of White House financial advisers.

There have been mounting concerns, particularly from the liberal wing of his Democratic Party, that Mr Obama has pivoted sharply to the centre-right with his choice of top Cabinet posts.

His main economic advisers have close ties to the Clinton White House and Mr Obama has already chosen Hillary Clinton to be his Secretary of State. His chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, once served Bill Clinton, and more appointments still to be announced will include a slew of officials who served in the most recent Democratic Administration.

“What we are going to do is combine experience with fresh thinking,” Mr Obama said at his third press conference in as many days. He said he would be foolish, at such a “critical time in our history”, to pick people who “had no experience in Washington whatsoever”.

He added: “What I don’t want to do is somehow suggest that because you somehow served in the last [Clinton]administration you are barred from serving again.”

Mr Obama said he was forming an economic recovery advisory board, with Mr Volcker to head it, to give independent economic advice from outside the White House. “Sometimes policymaking in Washington can become a little bit too ingrown, a little bit too insular,” Mr Obama said. “The walls of the echo chamber can sometimes keep out fresh voices and new ways of thinking.”

Mr Obama said the board, which would report to him regularly, would be filled with individuals from diverse sectors of the economy and would be government outsiders, “to challenge some of our assumptions, to make sure that we are not just doing the same old thing all the time”.

Mr Volcker, 81, a legendary economic figure who has been a close adviser to Mr Obama, was appointed Chairman of the Federal Reserve by Jimmy Carter in 1979, a time of runaway inflation and high unemployment. He tamed inflation by raising interest rates; a highly controversial move, but one that was later credited with reviving the economy. He was retained in his post by President Reagan.

Mr Obama told anxious Americans that “help is on the way” for the beleaguered economy, but he again gave warning that it would take time to revive the nation’s fortunes.

He spoke as more grim economic news emerged, and as the federal deficit was revealed to be on course to surge to well over $1 trillion (£650 billion).

On Tuesday the Bush Administration announced that it was going to spend another $800 billion — in addition to the $700 billion Wall Street rescue package passed by Congress last month — to unclog credit markets and help homeowners threatened with repossession.

The total of $1.5 trillion does not include Mr Obama’s proposed economic stimulus plan, which could exceed $700 billion, that he wants to sign into law as soon as he takes office.

He made it clear yesterday that his job of governing the country had, in effect, already begun. “I was elected with the charge of getting this economy back in shape,” Mr Obama said.

He added that over the next two months he would put together an economic crisis plan that he would implement “starting day one, when I come into office”.

He suggested that US banking executives should forgo big bonuses, given the financial climate. “I think that if you are already worth tens of millions of dollars and you are having to lay off workers, the least you can do is say, ‘I’m willing to make some sacrifice as well’,” he said, in an ABC News interview.

— Barack Obama has been told he must give up his BlackBerry on Inauguration Day, when he is brought under the Presidential Records Act, which puts his correspondence on official records and ultimately up for public review (Catherine Philp writes). Will he be able to let go?

In an interview with Barbara Walters last night, he joked that he was “still negotiating” the issue with the Secret Service and White House staff. “One of the things that I’m going to have to work through is how to break through the isolation, the bubble that exists around the president,” he said.

My question is: where does the president-elect fit into the matrix of 'fresh thinking' and 'experience'?

[The Reaper]

Easy.

He has the fresh thinking of Rev. Wright, Saul Alinski, and Bill Ayers, combined with the staff of Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton.

He has virtually no experience or history of bipartisan efforts.

TR

[Dozer523]

OH GOODIE! More politics. Even better -- a thread where we wait for, hope for; anticipate and celebrate ANYthing that might look like a misstep on the part of the new civilian leadership. When did QP start to mean Quintesential Politcal whiner? The last six months had just sucked with politics nearly taking overthis forum. . . So let's just keep it going . . . Thanks, no.

[Sigaba]

Dozer,

Although your point is well made, I don't think it is unreasonable to track how a president-elect is going to hold together a coalition of perspectives, especially when some of those perspectives are diametrically opposed to each other.

[nmap]

If I may add to Sigaba's point...at least, I would like to think of it as an addition and not a subtraction....

The POTUS is a significant factor in the American system of governance. As such his choices and actions are likely to have large affects on the domestic and global economy, as well as the geopolitical environment.

Now...in my opinion...we have a dangerous economic situation. There are some possibilities floating out there that suggest it may get a great deal worse (Yes, seriously.). Will the POTUS use the printing press to attempt to stimulate the economy? If that doesn't work, what does he do next?

We've just seen a terrorist attack in India. It may be the current President who handles that situation, but the President-elect will handle what comes next. How will he deal with the frictions between India and Pakistan - especially if the global economy destabilizes both nations?

Cantarell, the big Mexican oil field is in decline. How will he handle border issues?

The IEA suggests we are on the verge of large-scale, persistent declines in oil production world-wide. There is some research that concludes global GDP will enter into permanent and irreversible decline. How will the POTUS deal with the implied social friction around the world and in the U.S.?

There are those who suggest that the POTUS has appointed a centrist cabinet. This may disappoint many leftist supporters of the new President. How does he handle that situation?

Some suggest that grain production is inadequate to feed the global population. The present credit crises may reduce the ability of farmers world-wide to purchase fertilizer and seeds. Thus, we could have more expensive food. This has the potential to destabilize nations. What does the POTUS do?

And so on, and so forth.

This choices will determine how people make (or lose) money. How they eat, the amount of crime they fear, and whether the existing social schisms within our society remain the same, improve - or get worse. The choices will determine war or peace - and whether we experience the pain of terrorist acts on our own soil or not.

From the perspective of planning our own lives, it seems to me that consideration of policy decisions by the POTUS is worthwhile. Indeed, it is essential.

Failure to do so seems akin to closing one's eyes while running full-tilt into a mine field.

As for politics, we all participate all the time. The only choice is whether we do so consciously or otherwise. For myself, I prefer to try to keep my eyes open.

[The Reaper]

I find the political discussion of interest, but as a political scientist, perhaps I am just sick like that.

If politics are not your cup of tea, perhaps you might want to avoid "The Soapbox" ("The Political Discussions Forum") and just read/respond to the forums here that you do find of interest.

I think that the nation faces significant challenges and would like to know what our leadership is going to do about them.

As an American who has served, I do believe that I have the right to discuss my government, correspond with my leadership, and state my position publicly.

TR

[abc_123]

Originally Posted by Sigaba

My question is: where does the president-elect fit into the matrix of 'fresh thinking' and 'experience'?

He is Milli Vanilli.

Has the looks, the moves, and is "global". Has rocketed from obscurity to the center stage. Is the talk of the world.... an overnight sensation.

...and is lip-synching.

When will the recording skip?

[Blitzzz (RIP)]

Reaper is correct, this is a soapbox, so spout you views. The views here are presently predominantly not impressed with the "new civilian leadership". The alledged "misstep" has already occurred, ie. the kool-aid drinking crowd voting in the "new civilian leadership". The "missteps" will not be mistakes but more malicious left stepping away from the Constitution. Some folks appear to prefer boot licking to intelligent analysis. So raise your white flags and paint your Stars and Stripes the appropriate...Red.

"I swear to support and defend the Constitution of the United States of America against all Enemies foreign and DOMESTIC". Blitz

[Dozer523]

okay, okay, you're right it is the soapbox. I can skip it but. . . a day without checking all the "new posts" is like a day without a a ton of bitchin' and moanin' in the team room waiting for the coffee to perk before PT. Oh well. God help us if he does anything right. (Yeah, yeah . . you don't have to say the obvious . . .) did someone mention Kool-aid? YuM! Cherry, I love this stuff.

[Sigaba]

Originally Posted by Dozer523

okay, okay, you're right it is the soapbox. I can skip it but. . . a day without checking all the "new posts" is like a day without a a ton of bitchin' and moanin' in the team room waiting for the coffee to perk before PT. Oh well. God help us if he does anything right. (Yeah, yeah . . you don't have to say the obvious . . .) did someone mention Kool-aid? YuM! Cherry, I love this stuff.

If the president-elect ends up being a successful president, I'll say so, no matter how painful such an admission would be.

I do hope that the president-elect will be mindful of the consequences alienating his base.

[nmap]

Originally Posted by Dozer523

God help us if he does anything right.

Sir...quite seriously...how will any of us know if he does anything right - or, for that matter, wrong? Granted, there are policy issues we are each attached to; but in this instance, I refer to the good of the nation and its people.

If the economy improves - or gets worse - how can we say that what he did helped it or hindered it? The same pattern applies to most areas.

It's the same situation with President Bush. The polls indicate he is deeply unpopular; but there is a dearth of information to show what, precisely, he should have done differently.

In the end, I think his degree of success will be nothing more than the totality of opinion - and that will not develop due to rational reasons, but rather because of emotional reactions.

My expectation is that he will be wildly unpopular in 2012; ironically, it will have little to do with him. John McCain would have faced the same outcome.

[Dozer523]

Jeeze! I said I was sorry! you want it in Latin? I'm catholic so I can if you insist!

[nmap]

Originally Posted by Dozer523

Jeeze! I said I was sorry! you want it in Latin? I'm catholic so I can if you insist!

No, Sir, I didn't mean to insist on anything.

I like to explore ideas and concepts. That's one reason I originally came here - because I can read fresh perspectives that are markedly different from what I usually come across.

One thing that triggered my interest was a paper that I've seen mentioned elsewhere. It says:

The social mood theory suggests that the mood of society is reflected in the performance of the stock market. As related to political cycles, the misattribution bias causes people to attribute their mood (measured by stock market performance) to the incumbent president. In this way, stock market return is a predictor of presidential elections. Alternatively, political policy theory suggests that the policies of the Democratic and Republican parties influence the performance of the stock market. In empirical tests, I find that stock market returns are more likely to predict presidential elections then elections are to predict the stock market.

(I added the bolding)

So, in this case, I am simply seeking information about your perspective. I haven't considered what goes into approval of a President before. Why is one popular and approved of? Why is another not? I know that I have my various biases - but is personal bias all it boils down to?

However, I do not wish to stir up arguments, nor do I wish to offend. So, if you think it best, I will simply drop it.