Note to the President

Mr. President,

Having just read through your remarks today, I have to ask, were your exit pollsters also pushing Proposition 19 in California?

Listen, when you lose over 60 seats in the House, and the #1 reason given by voters is that the government has gone too far with health care reform and spending, you should listen. Instead, I see a guy who may think doubling down in the next two years is a good thing.

I don't believe for a second the entire health care bill can be removed, you've still got a veto pen, and Harry Reid in charge of the Senate. However, you are going to have to scale it back. If not, you're party becomes the "Party of No" come 2012, like "No Senate, No White House".

Secondly, don't listen to Robert Reich. Yeah, he's smart in some ways, and somehow survived Clinton's move to the center. But if you take his advice and continue to tack left, you'll find no help anywhere. There are a number of Senators in your party who have to live through 2012, they won't if they side with you on more far left agenda items. (Ask Russ Feingold how it worked out for him).

Finally, guys like Tom Daschle and Trent Lott are going to start offering you advice on how to not only get along for the next two years, but possibly thrive. Listen to them. You may in your heart of hearts believe you are the smartest guy in the room, but they are the most experienced; and one thing I've learned in life is that a lot of degrees don't always make you the best for the job, but a lot of experience usually does.

Read The Full Post!

Idiot On Parade

Barack Obama considers himself the smartest man in the room most days. Of late, though, he's proving to be much less so, in fact, he's like an idiot on parade.

Why do I say this? Well the renewed health care push this week brought it back to the forefront, but he's had a slew of "wow, I'm dumber than a stump" moments lately.

Let's start with the KSM trial in New York. When it was announced the administration said it was a thoroughly vetted plan. Within days other politicians; especially the folks in New York; were asking "WTF, over?". Evidently 'well vetted' means running it around the dinner table with the kids but not asking the people in charge in New York.

Then we get to the budget. In two years he's going to run up more debt than George Bush managed in 7 of his 8 years in office. When folks freaked out about the $1.9 trillion in debt, what did he do? He appointed a panel to figure out how to reduce the debt. Here's an idea, Mr. Smart guy, DO NOT SPEND SO MUCH! Not rocket science, not even close. 3rd grade math, maybe, but rocket science, no.

So now we get to health care, where to start. The election of Scott Brown wrecked the filibuster proof majority he wasted in the Senate to try and get health care passed. The public disapproved of the Senate plan by a 2-1 majority. So, if you are the smartest man in the room, what do you do? You double down on the Senate plan by making it worse, the tax increases higher, the government intrusion more intrusive. And, since you are so smart, you release it 3 days BEFORE you are going to hold a "bi-partisan" meeting on the subject, which pretty much ruins any chance of saying the other guys won't play nice.

Oh wait, you aren't done being "smart" yet. You also tell the Senate to ram it through using the "Nuclear Option". For those who don't understand, that option is to use the budget reconciliation process to get a bill through the Senate on a straight majority vote. Technically, it's only to be used to pass a spending bill. So the Senate would tack health care reform onto a budget item it considers imperitive to get passed, and then use the reconciliation vote to do it.

If it sounds vaguely familiar to you, it's probably because in the years the GOP held the Senate there were occasional thoughts of using such an option to pass legislation. or get jammed nominees to the Senate floor.

This was always; not occasionally, but always; met by Democratic cries that it would destroy the Senate and what it stands for. Here's a nice LA Times op-ed piece on why the Nuclear Option is a bad idea; or at least was when the GOP threatened to use it. I'm wondering if they'd publish it today and replace each reference to judicial nominations with health care reform.

So, if you considered yourself the smartest man in the room, how much of the above would you try?

Read The Full Post!

All Options Except

So, with it looking more and more like the GOP will take the Senate seat held by Teddy Kennedy for 47 years the Democrats are discussing all of their options to get their health care bill passed.

They are discussing the House passing an unchanged Senate bill so that there is no more voting in the Senate. They are discussing ways to eliminate the filibuster so that it can't be used. The Nuclear Option of passing all changes as "budget reconciliations" has been brought up.

So what option aren't they talking about? The one that Candidate Barack Obama promised, working with both sides to come up with workable legislation.

You would think that when your landmark legislation becomes the centerpiece of an election battle in a state where your party's registered voters outnumber the opposition 3-1 and you lose, that maybe that would be a sign. Well, you would unless you are a Democratic leader in either chamber in DC. In that case you put your head in the sand, and pretend that something else is the reason you got beaten.

Now, if the Democrats really want to hold their majorities come November, what they might want to do is start doing what their leader campaigned on. Hell, what they claimed would happen in 2006. Start working across the isle. If they decide that instead of doing what is becoming glaringly obvious as the will of the people, and ramrod their bill through with some hocus pocus sleight of hand they will pay with more than one seat come November.

Read The Full Post!

60 Seats, So What

Well, the Democrats have what the left has always wanted, a filibuster proof majority in the Senate, and a huge majority in the House. The left's agenda should go through unchallenged, right?

Well, not so fast. Today's news headline is "Democrat says health overhaul needs GOP to pass".

So how does that work? Simply put, there are democrats who are flinching at the costs, government control, and loss of individual freedoms in all of the bills in the House and Senate. In the Senate enough have voiced opposition that there would be no way to bring a bill to the floor for a vote.

These are the pragmatists of the Democratic party. They understand that a bill passed on a party line vote could be the anchor that sinks them, and their party, in 2010 and 2012. Unlike the stimulus package, that got a few GOP votes, this one needs to get at least a dozen before the hesitant Democrats are going to vote for it. They know that getting Olympia Snowe to sign off isn't going to be enough to say it was a "bipartisan bill", and save them if the system goes haywire.

Nancy Pelosi has said that her House bill has the votes, and will be passed soon. As soon as it goes to the Senate it will die a quick, ugly death, and both Houses will have to start over. The new timeline is now before January, not by the August recess.

As much as the President and others would like to say the hold up in the Senate is the GOP, the media made much of the fact that with Al Franken in the Senate there is a filibuster proof majority. So the GOP can't be the hold up, and the people know it.

That means it's got to be Democratic jitters about the bill, not GOP stalling killing it's chances. And the public knows that if the Democrats in a solid majority can't agree on something, then they probably shouldn't do anything.

Read The Full Post!

Planned Move?

Rod Blagojevich has done what has to be considered an amazing job of moving the heat off of himself for a while, and directing it to Senate Democrats, by appointing Roland Burris to fill Barack Obama's empty seat in DC.

Harry Reid and Company now have to figure out how to hold up their promise of not seating Illinois' appointee, while not looking like race baited fools. Good luck on that. Bobby Rush was at the conference to remind Harry & Co. that the only black Senator is now in the White House and there should be another of similar color to replace him.

Illinois, in the meanwhile, gets to look more foolish than it already did. The legislature was in a hurry to block Blagojevich's ability to appoint a replacement, until they figured out a special election was the only way to do it. Knowing that any GOP candidate other than Alan Keyes could probably win the seat, they decided against it, and went for the slow death by impeachment method. Only problem is that Blago is still governor, and decided; I'm sure on the advice of his attorney and others (next paragraph); to fill the seat and say "Screw You" to everyone telling him not to.

Caution, bitter cynicism to follow
I would like to think that President Elect Obama; and the rest of the Democratic establishment in DC; is surprised by this move. However, deep inside me, my gut says they knew it was coming, and may have had a round about hand in it.

Everyone knows Blagojevich is done sooner or later. However, by allowing him time to make the appointment, though legislative inaction in Illinois, they can toss all the grenades his way. It also makes sense in that Burris will be the incumbent in two years, and incumbents usually get to keep their jobs, it's how the system is rigged works.

Reid & Company can make their indignant remarks about being ignored by Blagojevich, and in the end, on a close vote, Burris gets seated. Remarks will be made, as they were yesterday, about him being a good man, and not a bag man for Rod, and everyone will get back to the business of indictments and impeachment here, while the Democrats keep the Senate seat.

America, welcome to Chicago Politics on a national scale. Remember, you voted for it.

Read The Full Post!

My Lovely Governor

Okay, so the wonderful Governor of Illinois was arrested today. This makes our last two that the feds have gone after. Blagojevich came into office while George Ryan was getting ready to go up the river for his licenses for bribes deals; claiming to be the reformer Illinois needed. It's obvious now the only reform was that he went after much more money than Ryan ever thought about.

Here's the affidavit that lead to the arrest; evidently the talk of selling a Senate seat to the highest bidder caused the feds to move faster than they wanted to. It's scary to think how much more they could have gotten on tape had they not wanted to stop the sale of that seat.

Many Obama supporters are up in arms because folks are supposedly trying to tie Obama to this scandal. While the federal prosecutor; Patrick Fitzgerald of Scooter Libby fame; said Obama doesn't seem to be directly tied to the scandal. I'd direct folks to page 56-62 of the affidavit, which describes in detail conversations with "Advisor A" and "Advisor B" in Washington about what the President Elect could do for both Blagojevich and his wife right after the election.

There's even a description, from the advisors on how Blagojevich could name an SEIU friendly person to the Senate seat, in exchange for SEIU getting him a seat on the board of Change for Win, one of their 529 groups, and the President Elect getting his wife a job on a corporate board.

So while the President Elect may not have been "directly" involved in the pay for play with his former Senate seat, it's obvious his advisors were. It will be interesting to see who on the transition team has "personal matters" to attend to in the next week or so and has to leave the team. You can bet that Advisor's A&B won't be around Obama when their names go public.

Read The Full Post!

Building Bridges out of Nothing

David Ignatius at the Washington Post has a great piece up today contrasting Barack Obama's claims to be a "bridge builder" and the reality of his voting record.

Obama supporters can look forward to more pieces like this, should he wrap up the nomination shortly and it may make life a little bit painful. Readers of the Post should appreciate that someone there is asking questions other than "would you like another pillow" (thanks SNL).

Ignatius performed what one of my favorite talk show host refers to as a "flagrant act of journalism" by looking at Obama's record both in Illinois and the US Senate for the signs of how he's going to build the bridges to reunite America. Unfortunately for Obama's supporters what he found was a lack of construction skills nearly 180 degrees out of sync with his message.

This is kind of a telling portion of the column, and points to the "softball issues" that Obama claims as bipartisan victories:

The Obama campaign sent me an eight-page summary of his "bipartisan accomplishments," and it includes some encouraging examples of working across the aisle on issues such as nuclear proliferation, energy, veterans affairs, budget earmarks and ethics reforms.

Let's look at that list, and see if there is anything on it that wouldn't have bipartisan support from pretty much anyone in the Senate.

Nuclear Proliferation... Not since Barry Goldwater can I think of anyone from either party who didn't think that slowing the spread of nuclear weapons was a good idea.

Energy, well the parties have differences on how to work a policy, but the vote in the Senate on the current energy bill was pretty bipartisan since 40 votes to block it couldn't be found.

Veteran's affairs, especially after the Walter Reid stories broke a few years ago EVERYONE in Congress wanted to fix the DoVA. Prior to those stories in 2005 though few people did anything about it, except argue over funding for Concurrent Receipt of disability and retirement pay (which still isn't 100% happening).

Budget earmarks, considering when Obama came into office, and why the Democrats took control of Congress in 2006, it was a no brainer that both sides would work towards earmark reform. If you look at how the Democrats have made this "transparent" though you might question if the reform as done any good at all.

Ethics Reform, again, Obama was elected at the height of the Tom DeLay scandal, and Duke Cunningham's problems were in the news. Anyone voting against ethics reform wouldn't be seen as partisan, they'd be seen as stupid!

Ignatius points out, correctly, that there isn't an instance on that list where Obama worked across the aisle on a subject that would raise eyebrows with the party base. Even on one topic he did work on that's contentious, immigration reform, he didn't work at the front of the pack, like McCain and Ted Kennedy. Even in 2005 before they took over Congress, it was the Democrats working from the position of power on the topic, with 41 votes locked up to stall any bill that didn't meet Harry Reid's liking.

The truth is that Obama's campaign rhetoric isn't exactly inclusive, bipartisan, or "post-partisan" as one commenter on Ingatius' article claimed. It's basically Howard Dean and John Kerry in 2004, running hard left against "Bush Policies" though Bush won't be on the ballot.

His rhetoric on labor, trade, and taxes all smack of the politics of class warfare, not inclusion, yet he's going to be the 'great uniter'?

McCain may have had a change of heart on the Bush tax cuts of '01 and '03, but he's honest enough to note they've worked. Obama (and most democrats) can't even acknowledge that they took 20 MILLION of the lowest income workers completely off the federal income tax rolls because it doesn't fit the "only rich got breaks" mold that they've been running on since 2003.

If you get a chance, go read Ignatius' column, and if you are an Obama-maniac try and do it with an open mind. You might learn something about your candidate.

Read The Full Post!

Do You Feel as Safe?

Nancy Pelosi say's that as of 12:00 this morning you were just as safe as you were at 11:59pm last night (Eastern Standard Time). However, that one minute was a big one. In that minute most of the intelligence collections folks in the US lost a lot of leeway in how they collect intelligence.

As I wrote last Monday, some Democrats, namingly Speaker Pelosi are more interested in protecting lawyers and terrorists than they are you. Evidently those Democrats are in the House, since the Senate passed a terrorist surveillence bill by a veto proof majority (68-29) earlier in the week, and sent it to the House. The Speaker refused to allow it to come to the floor, for a vote though. Maybe she's worried about being embarrassed by the outcome, which according to a number of Congressmen would have been along the same lines as the Senate vote.
The big sticking point for Pelosi, as I stated Monday, is the idea of retroactive immunity for the telcom companies, who in good faith provided information to the government before the current law was enacted. Pelosi wants the Senate bill stripped of both retroactive immunity, and future immunity. In other words, if your phone number showed up in a possible terrorist phone list, or as someone they might have contacted, you could sue to ask for proof there was no malice. The normal standard is the other way around, you sue to prove there was.

For those who think that the whole wire tap program was illegal to begin with, I'd say go back to my June 2006 post on the same subject, and look up the American Law Review article I referenced, and 2nd Circuit's 1984 decision in United States v. Duggan (which the FISA Court weighed in on). Both the decision and the Law Review article were written long before the Bush program went into effect.

The current law, which has expired, allowed for existing operations to continue for 1 year from it's being signed. However, no new surveillence can begin without warrants, (again, in direct contridiction to Dugan) and because of some 40 current lawsuits, it's not clear that the telecom industry would cooperate even if there was a warrant but not a court order to do so.

So, how does this cause a problem in practical terms? Supposed that Terrorist A is caught in the US, and his piece of crap disposable cell phone is taken away. In his notes are a list of half a dozen other numbers, all from outside the US. During interrogation he lets slip that a call from number 4 on that list is the "activation number", and his cell is supposed to go to work.

Currently, because that number is outside the US, intel agencies would begin monitoring it, and through cooperation with the telecoms, be told when it sends a call to the US and where it's going. Now, though, before you did that you'd go to FISA, with the attendant 100 or so pages of documents that have to be put together, brief a judge, and hope he or she says yes immediately. If they don't, you wait until Monday, or the next available date for a hearing before the panel, and outline the case, again.

So, if FISA say's yes, then you go to each of the major telecoms and ask for them to route all traffic from said number to the intel folks, so they can monitor it. But the telecoms may balk. What if it's an innocent number? What if your terrorist told you number 4 on his list and it's actually 6? Wait, we could be sued for giving you the names of the people they are calling, so please bring a court order in for the information, not just a warrant saying you can listen.

Unlike Law and Order, these things don't happen in 44 minutes plus commercials, you're talking about DAYS for each warrant and court order. Possibly longer if the phone companies decided they want to argue against the idea, in hopes that the Justice Department, or someone, will offer them an immunity deal (on a case by case basis) if they do cooperate.

Sorry, that's not the system I want to deal with when phone number 4 on that list suddenly starts hitting every number in it's speed dial. 20 members of the Democatic Party in the US Senate (40% of the total) thought it was a bad idea too, maybe Speaker Pelosi should listen to them, instead of the lawyers and activists she's currently latched onto.

Read The Full Post!

Fractured Democrats

Funny things are happening with the party in charge of Congress lately. The kumbaya moments from November's election victory are quickly dissipating as Iraq, and the next set of elections start taking center stage.

As I mentioned last night, Nancy Pelosi and John Murtha's position on Iraq has come under fire from Dick Cheney, who was on the news this morning not only standing by his comments, but increasing his attacks on Pelosi & Co.

Hillary and Barack Obama are fueding over who Hollywood should be supporting, and it's turning into an ugly throw down. Everyone expected Hillary to take off the gloves in the fight for the White House, it was a given. I don't think anyone expected haymakers to be thrown in the first round of the fight. Obama, to his credit, isn't doing a bob and weave, but instead firing body shots right back at the Senator from New York.

And finally, in what would be a huge blow to the party, Joe Lieberman has mentioned he could change his caucus vote to the GOP if the Democrats try to undermine funding for the war in Iraq.

A Lieberman switch would move Senate control back to the GOP, and lead to a bloodletting of the Democratic leadership in the Senate. Harry Reid has to know this and I'm wondering what he's going to do to both placate Lieberman, and the ultra liberal base that is running the party agenda.

Fun times in politics folks!

Technorati Tags: Lieberman, Pelosi, Cheney, Clinton, Obama, Murtha, Iraq, Congress, Senate, Reid

Read The Full Post!