From the Politico:
1) Liberals voice concerns about Obama
Mr. Hope & Change becoming the party of the centrist Democratic Establishment is not sitting well with a number of progressives. The discontent might be overstated for now, but it's lurking below the surface. If the liberal reaction to the Democratic Congress's attempts to govern after 2006 is any indicator, such grumpiness is likely to get worse before it gets better (if at all).
2) For Obama, moderates held key to election
The simple truth is that Obama accomplished what he did electorally because significant number of independent voters switched from Bush in 2004 to him. These are not exactly left-of-center voters, whatever the power of their approximate anti-Bush vote in 2008. Obama is no dumby. Keeping them in the fold through 2012 will not be accomplished by pursing ideological wish lists, but by attempting to implement a more pragmatic agenda.
Locally, that same tension is bound to unfold in the coming legislative session in Olympia. A number of Democrats, notably some liberals in Seattle, will be eager to implement several responses to current budgetary and economic troubles (think "tax & spend"). Meanwhile, moderates representing the burbs as well as the political realist that is Frank Chopp will not want to go down that path - nor frankly will Christine Gregoire who knows how badly she would be crucified for a major tax increase after events of the last campaign.
Question: who wins that struggle...and how ugly does it get along the way? Assorted Democratic interest groups have been spoiled by excess spending thrown their way in recent years, by leaders in Olympia unwilling to make the hard choices necessary to achieve sustainable spending. Reality will force the discontinuation of such political whims, even as such groups aren't exactly going to go quietly into the night.
Posted by Eric Earling at December 09, 2008 07:28 AM | Email ThisI see folks like Oemig and Rodney Tom are getting chair and vice-chairmanships.
What else do we have shaking down there?
What about the Rs?
Posted by: swatter on December 9, 2008 07:38 AM2) Moderates decide every election, nothing new here.
Locally there's a real vacuum in the GOP Leadership...there are not enough conservatives in the Legislature to effectively do anything. GOP is this state once had a power sharing deal because they had an equal number of seats, now they're regulated to the back bench.
The GOP won exactly one statewide election this year (and Rob McKenna is more of a RINO than a Conservative) and it's highly unlikely the GOP will unseat Patty Murray in 2010. The GOP should bide it's time and start finding new leadership to fill the void when the Dem's screw up (as all political parties with unchecked power inevitably do).
Gov. of Illinios arrested for "selling" the open US Senate seat...Is he a "D" or an "R"...Once again I can't find it in any of the papers...My guess he's a Democrat...
Illinois Gov. Blagojevich, chief of staff, arrested
The Story:
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-rod-blagojevich-1209,0,7997804.story
The citizens of Washington will be the losers, like those of Illinois - but no sacrifice should be too great to bear to maintain urban liberals in the lifestyle to which they insist on being accustomed.
Posted by: Insufficiently Sensitive on December 9, 2008 08:37 AMWell, in the New York Times, you will find it in the second sentence. In the Seattle Times, you will find it in the third sentence. In USA Today, it is the first word of the article.
Sorry, no conspiracy here. Glenno, when did you last see an optometrist?
Posted by: fred on December 9, 2008 08:54 AMAs for the DU/ Kos/ HA crowd of progressive malcontents, they will never be happy about anything. If Obama was to go even further left, they'd find a way to complain. That's the disease of progressivism, it's about living your life for, and becoming totally dependent on others. As such, one will never be happy, because one will never be in control of one's own life.
Posted by: Jeff B. on December 9, 2008 08:56 AMYou poor Lib's all that talk and this guy is going to play a Clinton on you.
Yet folks like Demo & Cato forget Clintons first two years were a wash until the Rep took over the house. So in two years, well we see the same thing again.
I need more butter for my pop-corn. (-:
Posted by: Medic/Vet on December 9, 2008 09:13 AMMedia bias may very well exist, but you guys are simply too lazy to do the work to find it. You want it handed to you on a silver platter. When you make statements that are very easily disproven (as Glenno did in post #4), you destroy your own credibility, not the media's.
Keep us the good work, conspriacy theorists!
Posted by: fred on December 9, 2008 09:21 AM
A former Illinois bank official, now claiming whistleblower status, says bank officials replaced a loan reappraisal that he prepared for a Chicago property that was purchased by the wife of now-convicted felon Tony Rezko, part of which was later sold to next-door neighbor Barack Obama.
Posted by: Medic/Vet on December 9, 2008 09:21 AMWell they do now. Another corrupt Democrat. But that is to be expected right, because Dems are the party of sex and corruption. Republicans on the other hand need to be held to the higher standard that they supposedly live by. Right.
Posted by: Jeff B. on December 9, 2008 09:26 AMLOL
Look at what state it's from... The word "crook" was started there.
Posted by: Medic/Vet on December 9, 2008 09:28 AMYou might have heard of these interwebs, where a major news story is linked is most likely to be the local news organizations where the story originated. The Chicago Tribune story is the main news story linked on Drudge.
Posted by: Palouse on December 9, 2008 09:29 AMAnd with the whole Blagojevich thing... yeah, he's a sleazeball. Perhaps he can share a cell with the last Illinois governor, who was also indicted on corruption charges?
Posted by: demo kid on December 9, 2008 09:44 AM"Change you can buy into."
PS... Here's a great idea all.
Something to think about ......
_______________________________
You know what would really TICK OFF the Democrats...
As a lame duck Pres, Bush should resign now.
Then Dick Cheney becomes President (that would Really TICK OFF the liberals)!!!
Then he appoints Condoleeza Rice as VP.
Then Cheney resigns two weeks later and Condoleeza Rice, A Republican,
becomes the first BLACK President and the first WOMAN President
Well, now maybe we can start calling them Democons.
Rod Blagojevich - bribery
William Jefferson - bribery
Elliot Spitzer - solicitation
Charlie Rangel - tax fraud
What all these have in common is that they are DEMOCRATS!!! Or is that Democons??
Posted by: Kato on December 9, 2008 09:57 AMBut I have no doubt that you will find further "evidence" of this vast left-wing conspiracy.
Posted by: Bruce on December 9, 2008 09:59 AMMERRY FITZMAS: Plame Leak Prosecutor Turns Attention on Obama's Home State
I seem to remember a song sung over at HA not so long ago... "We wish you a Merry Fitzmas, We wish you a Merry Fitzmas, we wish you a Merry Fitmaz and a frog march to jail!"
The karma is just too delicious...
Who's going to be responsible for cleaning up the mess?
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on December 9, 2008 10:12 AMGRAND JURY SUBPOENAS ISSUED ON REZKO/OBAMA LAND DEAL...
14. On or about october 19, 2006 MUTUAL BANK received a Grand Jury Subpoena (GJS) requiring MUTUAL BANK to produce the REZKO 5050 GREENWOOD loan
I guess it REALLY is the Clinton corruption...er, administration redux!
Pass the popcorn!
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on December 9, 2008 10:25 AMThe really funny part. Back on Nov 8 2006 Nancy P. said she would clean this stuff up and they would be pure as the white snow.
I guess that didn't happen. LOL
Can you say "White Water" Sure you can. LOL
I wonder how fast the paper work will disapear. (Hillary)
Posted by: Medic/Vet on December 9, 2008 10:45 AMI haven't forgotten. In 1994 the GOP had a good gimmick with the "Contract With America", too bad they failed to implement the Balanced Budget part, and most of the important stuff they pledged to do. Of course all those grand ideas went right out the window with the W. budgets.
Why won't 2010 be like 1994, because the stench of the Administration's policy's will be remembered for a generation. I can't imagine anyone is happy with the way Bush has left the economy...and they'll blame him and the reckless spending and the Socialist bank bailout policies proposed by him as a representative of his party (despite a majority of GOP voting No to the $700 billion bailout).
Of course the Dem's will likely screw up the Auto Industry bailout, meanwhile the banks will merge into even bigger banks that are too big to fail and will likely need to be bailed out again by the Obama administration.
The simple fact remains that party affiliation was omitted in this high profile case regarding a Democrat, by more than just local papers. Might have been true for that Alaskan paper too, but did the national rags omit Palin's party when writing about troopergate?
Posted by: Jeff B. on December 9, 2008 11:29 AMSo far, the President-Elect has not surrounded himself with felons, reactionaries, incompetents, or Bible-bangers who think the earth is 6,000 years old. And that, after eight long years of damaging buffoonery, is radical change we can believe in, my friends!
Posted by: tensor on December 9, 2008 11:37 AMTalk about the party of integrity? Come on kids. Grow up. Both parties have their moments and I sure hope the Rs make hay with the latest crop.
I do think it will be hard to get Obama's fingerprint on any of these scandals, though. But, you know, he doesn't have the friends who would roll with him like Clinton did.
Posted by: swatter on December 9, 2008 11:50 AMThe Illinois legislature should quickly schedule a special election to fill President-elect Barack Obama's vacant Senate seat rather than leave that power in Gov. Rod Blagojevich's hands, Sen. Richard Durbin said Tuesday.
I know of just the guy to run...and win.
He's from Illinois, young, smart and has a natural talent for relating to voters. And no, he's not Barack Obama...Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on December 9, 2008 12:06 PM
LOL, well first off I guess you forgot when W came in we were in a down turn then 911 hit.
I'm not giving W any cheers on the medicare mess and some of his foolish spending.
Funny how you forgot that the dem's took over in 2006 we have been going down hill since then. The reps were able to get welfare under control. What has the dem's done since they got in????? PS Cato. when the bottom fell out. I didn't see ONE of you dem's worried about spending! (bail out & auto's)
Man it's so easy to play smack. (-:
Posted by: Medic/Vet on December 9, 2008 12:06 PMUh no, but he may be a DUMMY.
Posted by: Spelling Cop on December 9, 2008 12:14 PMIf you think that Congress and its reckless spending since 2006 are a bad thing, just wait until the President-Annointed starts 'saving' the country with far bigger tax-and-spend programs - or worse, borrow-and-spend. Your great-grandchildren (provided they're not aborted or otherwise not conceived) will be sticking pins in Obama portraits in protest at the overwhelming vast debt services, taxes and inflation.
Posted by: Insufficiently Sensitive on December 9, 2008 12:16 PMLord, deliver us from ALL these Illinois crooks!
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on December 9, 2008 12:23 PMYet what do we see right now. Nancy P wants to give away another 500 billion the same dang way...
So bud, where is your insults to her and other dem's who want to do this?
Remeber that saying about what is good for the Goose.........
Posted by: Medic/Vet on December 9, 2008 12:37 PMRemember Obama's comment on Meet the Press on Sunday when asked about Caroline Kennedy getting the Clintons Senate seat? Paraphrased: "New York politics are tough but you should see Chicago's..."
If the special prosecutor would have waited two more weeks would Obama's finger prints also be found as the per the Governors chief to staff comment?
HARRIS said they could work out a three-way deal with SEIU and the President-elect where SEIU could help the President-elect with ROD BLAGOJEVICH's appointment of Senate Candidate 1 to the vacant Senate seat, ROD BLAGOJEVICH would obtain a position as the National Director of the Change to Win campaign, and SEIU would get something favorable from the President-elect in the future.
The above task is urgent and crucial. It's simple to express, but difficult and complex to implement. That's why there is such temptation to retreat, to be in denial, and to seek an easier way out. But all such distractions and diversions - some of which I will enumerate - are counter-productive and mistaken.
On the list below of seven distractions, #7 is currently my favorite - in other words, it's the one I want to emphasize now.
Mistaken distraction #1 - instead of sticking to our principles, let's drop or de-emphasize the social conservative issues (life, family, marriage). [This viewpoint has been advanced by some conservative pundits, and by some comments on various threads on this blog. Also, at least one recent unsuccessful candidate for the King County GOP executive board openly advocated such an approach. However, this idea flies in the face of the results of recent statewide referenda on marriage. The social conservative issues are a bridge toward increasing our vote totals by winning over segments of Democrats, independents, Blacks, and Hispanics.]
Mistaken distraction #2 - instead of promoting constitutional principles, smaller government, and reduced spending, some pundits (e.g., Bill Kristol in the December 8 New York Times) and some Republican elected officials (e.g., some local Republicans supported the 2007 ballot measures that would have led to massive unwise transportation spending) openly call from de-emphasizing the small government issue. [Have they learned nothing from 2006 and 2008?]
Mistaken distraction #3 - the proposal by some moderate or liberal-leaning Republicans to move "more to the center" and drop our strong position in favor of tough border security and opposed to amnesty for illegal immigrants.
Mistaken distraction #4 - the proposal by some moderate, liberal-leaning, or libertarian-leaning Republicans to drop, or to de-emphasize, the Reagan conservative foreign policy of internationalism and promoting liberty world-wide. Reagan's policies with regard to Poland and the rest of Eastern Europe, and to Nicaragua, El Salvador, and Grenada, were posited on the understanding that the survival of liberty at home cannot be separated from the active promotion of liberty abroad. That's why Reagan sought the overthrow and destruction of tyrannt in Eastern Europe, and did not accept as a given the "reality" of the captive nation status of the Soviet satellites. [In today's world, the recent Mumbai attacks show once again the brutality and obscene inhumanity of the Islamic terrorists. If they acquire nuclear weapons (from a future nuclear Iran?), they would not hesitate to use them against innocent civilians). How do we oppose Obama on foreign policy if we abandon the Reagan conservative foreign policy?]
Mistaken distraction #5 - instead of fighting Obama on the issues, avoid that fight and retreat into a futile and ridiculous effort to claim he is not eligible for the presidency.
Mistaken distraction #6 - instead of fighting Obama on the issues, give up in frustration and despair, and just drop out of political activity.
Mistaken distraction #7 - instead of vigorously fighting Obama on the issues, avoid (or weaken) that fight by deluding ourselves that Obama is not so bad, that the left is angry at Obama, that Obama will govern from the center, etc. Eric Earling has posted some comments that go somewhat in this direction.
It's wishful thinking to imagine that the far left, the liberal elite, congressional Democrats, and the mainstream media will really be in any serious split with the Obama administration. Let's not give credit where none is due; let's not disarm ourselves.
For an interesting alternative viewpoint (in contrast to some of Eric's posts) about how liberals really feel about Obama, see the article by Michael Tomasky, below. It is also available online at http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/michaeltomasky/2008/dec/09/obama-white-house
If it's true that nature abhors a vacuum, then that rather unnatural state of man known as cable television is positively repulsed by one. And so, during this lugubrious interregnum in which millions of us are still coming down from the months-long high of checking Nate Silver and Real Clear Politics nine times a day and dying inside because the polls out of Ohio contradict one another, the political class needs something to chatter about.
It has chosen, for more days running than I'd imagined necessary, the story of the liberal activists who already feel betrayed by Barack Obama. The Politico weighed in Monday with a piece noting that some liberals (actually, it didn't even qualify it with "some"; it just said "liberals") "are growing increasingly nervous - and some just flat-out angry - that President-elect Barack Obama seems to be stiffing them on Cabinet jobs and policy choices."
Well, they didn't call me, and you can place me well outside the magic circle. I'm not nervous or flat-out angry or even concerned. I'm excited. And by the way, the vast majority of the people I know are excited, too.
Obama is still seven weeks away from taking office but has already signaled that he's going to do grand things, huge things - dare I say heretofore unimaginable things. A half-trillion dollar (at least; some suspect it may end up being more like a trillion) jobs-and-infrastructure program, which he wants to enact as soon as possible after he takes office? Liberals have complained for decades - yes, decades, since the 1970s - about the creaky state of America's bridges and roads and the need for more spending on transit. Ditto the schools. We live in a country of which it's still probably true that most schools were built in the 1920s (New York City, for example, opened a new school building once every three weeks for that entire decade). Again, we have complained and complained and complained about their condition, and quite rightly so, for decades.
And here comes a president who is about to do something about all this, and do it more grandly than most liberals would have dared to imagine just a few months ago. And do it immediately. And he's not liberal enough? Please. If President Obama were to pass a trillion dollar jobs-and-infrastructure bill and, Heaven forbid, drop dead on his elliptical machine in March, that single act alone would be enough to make him one of the most progressive presidents in the history of the country.
You read that right. The history of the country. Remember, Bill Clinton was the master of small-bore progressivism. Lyndon Johnson had staggering domestic accomplishments, but always there is Vietnam. Franklin Roosevelt is the ne plus ultra of progressivism in the White House, and for many good reasons, but remember that he interned Japanese-Americans (and, it is largely forgotten, a smaller number of Italo-Americans) and made his deal with the racist south.
And while we're doing FDR comparisons, note Obama's rhetorical support (he has no authority to offer any other kind) of the workers at the Chicago door and window plant staging a sit-in, demanding their severance pay. Obama said emphatically: they are right. In 1936 and 1937, after his re-election, Roosevelt - as the incumbent president who'd just won 46 states (out of our then 48) and 63% of the vote and was thus in a far more powerful position than Obama is today - could not bring himself to utter a word in support of the sit-down strikers in Flint, Michigan trying to join the auto workers' union.
It was an improvement on previous practice, to be sure, that Roosevelt said nothing. His predecessors would have ordered in the troops. But he couldn't offer even a rhetorical pat on the back. Obama has brought these people national attention and sent the signal that, with respect to treatment of workers and related issues like grotesque executive compensation, on which he has also spoken out forcefully, we are going to be entering a different era. I'll send you a gold-embossed copy of Mark Penn's latest book if you can realistically persuade me that a president-elect Clinton would have said anything like what Obama said.
It's the nature of politics that activists who represent constituencies should complain - the squeaky wheel gets the grease and all that. It's further in the nature of progressives that people are more likely to complain publicly than privately, which is how the right often issued its gentle remonstrances against George Bush.
And people should keep up pressure. I'm all for that. Lord knows, Obama will be getting pressure from the larger creatures of the sea, the oil companies and the insurance lobby and the centrist and conservative deficit hawks. So the smaller fish should make noise too. Politicians, even good and decent ones, don't usually do things because they're nice guys. They do things because they're getting pressure.
But there is a vast difference between applying pressure and taking bits of evidence and extrapolating to wild conclusions and crazy rhetoric from them. And people who can't see that Obama needs to reassure the political establishment by doing things like re-appointing Robert Gates at the Pentagon precisely so he can have the establishment's good will, which in turn grants him the room to operate and to isolate the political opposition, understand so little about politics that it's not even worth the time it would take to spell out the argument to them.
He will disappoint. I've said it here before, and I've said it to every audience I've spoken to in recent weeks. That is inevitable. Once in office, he will need to prove that he is the boss, and not this or that Cabinet officer, and if there's any leading around by the nose to be done, he'll be doing it.
But he's still weeks away from office and he's already backing up powerless working people, talking about hundreds of billions in government dollars being committed to building up the country, tackling health care and climate change, reiterating that deficit reduction is a low priority right now, standing by his pledge to draw down in Iraq and apparently planning to go to Cairo (probably) to give a speech on America's new relationship to the world - a move, again, that I can't conceive of any president of my lifetime having the guts to consider making in his first hundred days.
The cable shows have hours to fill, and bloggers know that if they complain they might well be asked to help fill them. But disappointment...anger? If what we've seen so far be compromise, I say serve me seconds.
The above article by Michael Tomasky is also available online at http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/michaeltomasky/2008/dec/09/obama-white-house
"shocked"
Posted by: Medic/Vet on December 9, 2008 01:09 PMBy your logic it looks like the economic downturn prior to 9/11 was the GOP's fault, they held both sides of Congress and the WH at the time. Prior to that they only occupied Congress. Clearly their fault right? By your logic 9/11 was the GOP's fault as well. =P
Funny how you forgot that the dem's took over in 2006 we have been going down hill since then.
Possibly, maybe President-elect Obama can bring some change to that. It seems to me it was the GOP who blew all the money with wasteful spending and Bush went right along spending without a single budgetary veto during his first 6 years in office. Takes a lot of reckless spending to increase the Govt. and the National Debt to their largest numbers in history, so much for the party of small Government.
when the bottom fell out. I didn't see ONE of you dem's worried about spending!
I seem to recall Dubya being the biggest pusher of the bank bailouts. He seem to believe the banks are too big to fail. The solution ala Dubya seems to be even bigger banks with even more debt, not to mention the Socialism aspect of it all. The Dem's should object to the growing spending, but I think the focus in on spend to grow at the moment. I don't know if Obama's neo-New Deal will come in form of targeted tax breaks or handouts for the improvements he seeks.
All of you dem's and yes even some of us Reps laughed at W when many in the house want to give away 500 to 1200 bucks per person. You dem's went on and on how it wouldn't work.
Not my Dem's...I didn't vote for em. They were right in the end, handouts didn't work. We're in deeper mess than we were in before and we have no revenue to pay for those handouts.
Nancy P wants to give away another 500 billion the same dang way...
Shame on her then.
where is your insults to her and other dem's who want to do this?
I can't insult people for things that haven't happened yet.
----
So Ragnut, when you going repost that article you had this Summer about how the Recession is all in peoples heads and driven by the liberal media? I look forward to seeing that one again.
Nope. I stand by what I said, both about the 'recession' and the democrats culpability for it.
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on December 9, 2008 01:30 PMLater in the conversation, ROD BLAGOJEVICH said he knows
that the President-elect wants Senate Candidate 1 for the Senate seat but "they're not willing
to give me anything except appreciation. F**k them."
So Ragnut you are in denial that we are in a recession? Do you agree with McCain adviser Phil Graham that America is a 'nation of whiners' and the recession is a 'mental recession'?
Do post that article again, it would be a fun read during this non-recession recession.
And now the same morons think planning 'public work' and implementing higher taxes will make a difference. It certainly will.... ask Jimmy Carter.
The fun has begun.
We'll be here to pick up the pieces.
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on December 9, 2008 01:39 PMFunny thing is, you'll never see a story in the P-I about Christine Gregoire that doesn't at some point within the article state that she's a Democrat.
Posted by: Rick D. on December 9, 2008 01:50 PMYou're right.
Posted by: Steve Beren on December 9, 2008 01:51 PMIt was called the Dot-com blow out....
If you remember ( I guess not) Congress was working on bills, but Clinton was running for cover as the noise about his pardons blew up in his face. Nothing got done.
Nice try though.
Posted by: Medic/Vet on December 9, 2008 01:59 PMThat we won't participate sends them deep into their espresso machine imitation: sputtering and frothing.
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on December 9, 2008 02:31 PM- Take two squares of single ply toilet paper. Do not use double ply Charmin.
- Print in fancy faux printing these words on one square: Seattle Post-Intelligencer. Print in fancy faux printing these words on the other: The Seattle Times.
- Fill in the rest of the squares, front and back, with nonsense.
- Sell squares for fifty cents each.
- Kill more trees. Kill more planet.
- Make more squares.
- Repeat.
