November 20th, 2008 By JOE GANDELMAN, Editor-In-Chief
Our famous linkfest taking you to websites of many different viewpoints, all over the world.
There’s Huge Interest In Obama In Europe and The Brussels Journal has some thoughts on why.
How Far Have Newspapers Fallen In How Much Do They Really Value Reporters in a time of (limited) buyouts and (increasingly bigger) budget slashing? JUST READ THIS.
President Elect Barack Obama Wants Arizona Governor Janet Napolitano To Be Head Of Homeland Security and it seems to be a serious, workmanlike pick. Prairie Weather notes:”Arizona Governor Janet Napolitano’s name is in headlines this morning in connection with that unwieldy bureaucracy. Napolitano is said to be very knowledgeable about border issues. Is she sufficiently “robust” — another annoying piece of Bush-speak — for the job? She certainly appears to be more intelligent and knowledgeable than anyone the current administration has come up with. Time designated her one of the five top governors.”
President George Bush Is Seemingly Trying To Perpetuate His Administration for years by putting in a series of very hard to remove “midnight rules.” But there is apparently a way for a new administration elected by a public that wants change and not years of embedded Bush policies to dis-embed them.
Concern About The Economy Grows: The economy is a hot topical over the world, including in India.
November 19th, 2008 By JOE GANDELMAN, Editor-In-Chief
Even though we’re now smack, dab into the 21st century, there are apparently some politicians who forget about the wonders of video tape — a form of recording that actually came to fruition on television in the 50s but hit it big time in the 1960s. So it has been around a while, but some seem to forget it from time to time.
In October we ran THIS POST about how Michele Bachmann, a Republican running for Congress, said on MSNBC’s Hardball that members of Congress need to be investigated to see how anti-American they are. We posted the video of the segment.
The segment was all over cable TV, talk radio (left which decried it and right which defended her and people in the middle often split), and on weblogs far bigger than TMV. It led to her opponent getting millions of dollars in donations from angry Americans due to Bachmann’s highly-publicized excursion into 21st century McCarthyism.
As a retired military officer, a low-ranking one, the highlight for me of the Democratic National Convention in Denver this summer was what I called “the galaxy of stars,” dozens of retired generals and admirals that appeared on the INVESCO Field stage in support of Barack Obama the night of his nomination.
In my post on this event, I also noted that the Obama campaign listed more than 70 retired generals and admirals from all four services who were supporting and advising Barack Obama on national security, aerospace programs, energy and other issues, including retired Army Gen. Wesley Clark, retired Air Force Maj. Gen. Scott Gration, retired Army Lt. Gen. Donald Kerrick, retired Army Maj. Gen. Paul Eaton, retired Adm. William Owens, Retired Adm. John Nathman, and “at least one former service chief; several service vice chiefs, a former head of the National Guard Bureau, a former commander of U.S. Fleet Forces Command and a former operations director for the Defense Intelligence Agency.”
I concluded, “Can such a galaxy of ’stars’ with a total of around 2,100 years of honorable, distinguished service to their country be wrong? ”
Apparently not.
Barack Obama won this battle and will be the 44th President of the United States. I am sure he owes part of his victory to these military officers.
However, another battle is yet to be fought, and won.
As I have repeatedly asserted, I support full equal rights for gays and lesbians.
I also support full equal rights for our gay and lesbian troops serving honorably, effectively and, in many instances, heroically in our armed forces.
I have written several columns (for example here and here) and many Letters to the Editor on the subject of gays serving in the military and, in particular, about the “Don’t ask, don’t tell” policy that has been in effect for 16 years
In one of my posts, on the occasion of the 60th anniversary of the integration of the armed services, I wrote:
But even President Truman’s 1948 Executive order, commendable and progressive as it was, left “without regard to sexual orientation,” out of his promise that ”there shall be equality of treatment and opportunity for all persons in the armed services.”
It is this omission that our legislators are now addressing in the hearings on “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.” And, predictably, the same tired and repudiated issues and arguments that were used 60 years ago are now being raised again to prevent gays and lesbians from enjoying “equality of treatment and opportunity …in the armed services.”
In another discussion on this subject, I wrote:
The future of the “Don’t ask, don’t tell” policy will not be decided based on my personal views. Rather, it may be decided on what a majority of the American people feel is the right thing to do. I say, “may” because even though several reputable recent polls have found that a vast majority of Americans feel that homosexuals should be allowed to serve in the military, there will be other powerful factors and factions at play.
One of these will be the judgment and recommendations of present and recent military leadership in our country. While many high ranking and prestigious military officers, both active duty and retired, have expressed their views on this issue, it is not clear yet which way the pendulum will eventually swing.
Well, today, according to CNNPolitics.com, another galaxy of stars has come out in support of ending the “don’t ask-don’t tell” policy.
He did so with a little help from a (perhaps former) friend: President Elect Barack Obama, who went to the mat for Lieberman, making it clear behind the scenes that he didn’t want to start off his White House term with Democrats stripping Lieberman of his committee chairmanship or making Lieberman so upset that he’d bolt to caucus with the Republicans.
Progressive Democrats will be and are livid. But Sen. Majority Leader Harry Reid argues that Lieberman is there when it counted on Democratic issues, and Lieberman vows its “the beginning of a new chapter.” Watch their comments after the meeting and make your own judgment:
FOOTNOTE: Obama met McCain yesterday and it would have obliterated that meeting and its symbolism if Lieberman was to have been politically disciplined. There are good arguments on both sides for what should have been done — but the one certainty is: this defuses Lieberman, what he said about Obama during the campaign and his fate as a news story…so Obama can move on. If he indeed plans to reach out to rivals and foes, Lieberman’s campaign behavior would put him in that category.
The freshman Class of 2008 converged on Capitol Hill for orientation this week not just to learn the ways of Washington but also to try to change them.
Their ranks include lawyers, governors, mayors, and former congressional staff, as well as physicians, real estate developers, investment bankers, Internet entrepreneurs, teachers, community organizers, a cosmetics saleswoman, and a former prison guard.
What many have in common is a pledge to voters to renounce bitter partisanship and break the gridlock on Capitol Hill – pledges that, if honored, pose management issues for leadership on both sides of the aisle.
The big word in this story is “if.” But it seems as if prospects for it happening at this point in American political history are better than ever: Read the rest of this entry »
November 15th, 2008 By JOE GANDELMAN, Editor-In-Chief
The proposed automaker bailout will be a huge topic this week. Here’s veteran journalist Jerry Remmer’s take on the issue. Guest Voice posts do not necessarily reflect the opinion of TMV or its writers.
The Automaker Bailout Battle
by Jerry Remmers
The Case For Bailout: Led by General Motors Corp., U.S. automakers this weekend are lobbying Congress and the Obama transition team for more cash infusion to keep their industry from filing bankruptcy. The Senate as early as Monday will deliberate the $25 billion rescue proposal. Congress authorized an initial $25 billion last September but the funds have yet to be dispersed. The latest cash infusion proposal would come from the $700 billion Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) Congress approved in October for the financial sector.
Most Republicans and President Bush oppose the additional funds on grounds the requirements would force the Big Three automakers to retool for more efficient gasoline mileage and development of hybrid vehicles. Without the bailout, GM, Ford and Chrysler could go bankrupt which they say would unleash unintended consequences that could cripple the country’s industrial base.
A bailout would be a boon both to the companies and, by saving jobs, to organized labor, a major supporter of Obama in the election. Auto-related industries employ 3.1 million people around the country, encompassing everything from car-seat makers to auto dealers to auto-parts stores. GM itself employs 123,000 in North America and does business with thousands of North America suppliers.
Bankruptcy also would threaten the health of the government’s pension-benefit insurance arm, which covers millions of workers not in the auto industry. According to an analysis in Saturday’s Wall Street Journal: “A GM bankruptcy could create a cascading set of bankruptcies among these part suppliers, other automakers and suppliers. That’s because a bankrupt company could take months, if ever, to pay its pre-bankruptcy bills. Such delays would put stress on suppliers that already run on thin working capital and that feed just a few end automakers. … Read the rest of this entry »
Almost half the $700 billion bailout money has been shoveled out the door, but nobody is keeping track of it.
“It’s a mess,” says Eric M. Thorson, the Treasury Department’s inspector general, who has overseen the dispensing of $290 billion so far until a special inspector general takes over. “I don’t think anyone understands right now how we’re going to do proper oversight of this thing.”
Nobody expects neatness from a rescue operation in panic mode, but the spectacle of Bush Administration ineptness coupled with Congressional turf warfare in an interregnum is distressing.
Six weeks have passed without White House naming of an inspector general to conduct audits and investigations of the bailout…
November 13th, 2008 By MICHAEL STICKINGS, Assistant Editor
Well, it now seems that both Obama and Durbin want Lieberman to remain as chair of the Homeland Security Committee, at least according to Newsweek’s Howard Fineman.
It has been reported that Obama wants Lieberman to remain in the Democratic caucus, but it hasn’t been clear whether or not he wants him to keep his chairmanship. It has also been reported that Durbin wanted him to be stripped of his chairmanship.
Meanwhile, the Politico is reporting that some Democratic senators — including Dodd, Salazar, Carper, and Nelson — “have launched a behind-the-scenes effort to save… Lieberman’s chairmanship.”
As I have written before, I trust Obama’s judgment and am willing to give him the benefit of the doubt. And I have a great deal of respect for Durbin and Dodd.
The thing it, while Obama and Lieberman’s backers may not hold grudges, many of us do. And rightly so. He’s proven time and again over the past several years that he isn’t much of a Democrat, if one at all. And after all he did to attack Obama and the Democrats during the recent campaign, why should he be forgiven and allowed to remain as if nothing happened? Read the rest of this entry »
An editor once proposed a picture book titled “They Must Know What They’re Doing or They Wouldn’t Be Where They Are,” featuring the captain of the Titanic, the designer of the Edsel, LBJ running the Vietnam war and other disaster-prone people in high places.
Add Henry Paulson to the list. After pushing Congress into a panic to let him buy toxic mortgage assets, Bush’s Treasury Secretary now says maybe not, announcing the plan is on hold.
At a news conference, Paulson said the $700 billion will be used instead to bolster the financial markets and, in turn, make loans more accessible for creditworthy borrowers:
“During times like these with a slowing economy and some deterioration in credit conditions, even the healthiest banks tend to become more risk-averse and restrain lending, and regulators’ actions have reinforced this lending restraint in the past.”
November 12th, 2008 By MICHAEL STICKINGS, Assistant Editor
As the presidential campaign was nearing its end, as the Republicans were getting more and more desperate amid prospects of doom, the McCain-Palin fear- and smear-mongering focused not just on Obama’s “socialism” but on how horrible so-called “one-party rule” would be for the country. McCain himself put it this way: “We’re getting a glimpse of what one-party rule would look like under Obama, Pelosi, and Reid. Apparently it starts with lowering our defenses and raising our taxes.”
Two things:
1) A new CNN poll finds that “59 percent of those questioned said Democratic control of both the executive and legislative branches will be good for the country, compared with 38 percent saying such one-party control will be bad.” In other words, the American people are, contra McCain, fine with one-party rule, as long as the one party is the Democratic Party.
2) What does “one-party rule” even mean? In a parliamentary system, where the party with the most seats in the legislature is usually the one that forms the government, a party with a majority of seats can indeed rule as one. It forms the government, formally linking the executive and legislative branches, and, for the most party, can control its caucus. As members of the party require the party’s, and the party leader’s support, there are only very rarely any defections from the party line. There may be so-called “free” votes, where members are free to vote as they please, but, on major legislative items, such as the budget, or other so-called “confidence” matters (where a vote against the government means a lack of confidence in the government, generally forcing it to step down or call an election), there is strict party-line voting.
November 12th, 2008 By SHAUN MULLEN, TMV Columnist
I said from the moment it became obvious that Barack Obama would prevail that winning would be the easy part, and I have felt distinctly uncomfortable observing his first interactions as president-elect with George Bush and the Washington establishment.
Part of that unease falls into the category of This Is Too Good To Be True, and it will be a while before I don’t wake up in the morning wondering if it is all a dream.
The larger part of my unease is the reality that governing — you know, stuff like uniting, leading and legislating — presents challenges for any incoming president, even one with a mandate that is as broad as Obama’s. (Chris Rock hilariously notes that Obama of course has been given the most difficult job in the world because he’s black)
But this guy is being handed the reins of power in the midst of a multi-alarm fire, and while Democrats control both houses of Congress, the potential to screw up is high even if there were the makings of a bipartisan consensus on some seriously big issues like the economy, health-care reform and Iraq. Which there are not.
* * * * *
Here’s a scary thought: Conservative pundit William Kristol has been wrong — often wildly wrong — about virtually everything that he has commentated on at the Weekly Standard and The New York Times this election cycle.
So it is with horror that I note that he is predicting that it will be a tough four years for conservatives because Obama will preside over an economic recovery that will be in full flower when it comes time to for him to run for re-election.
November 10th, 2008 By JOE GANDELMAN, Editor-In-Chief
The Huffington Post reports that President Elect Barack Obama has made it known that he wants to continue to let Connecticut Independent Senator Joe Lieberman caucus with the Democrats, despite a clamor from some progressive to have Lieberman stripped of his committee chairmanship and basically shunned due to his active and vocal support of losing presidential candidate Republican Sen. John McCain:
President-elect Barack Obama has informed party officials that he wants Joe Lieberman to continue caucusing with the Democrats in the 111th Congress, Senate aides tell the Huffington Post.
Obama’s decision could tie the hands of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, who has been negotiating to remove Lieberman as chair of the Homeland Security and Government Reform committee while keeping him within the caucus. Lieberman has insisted that he will split from the Democrats if his homeland security position is stripped.
Aides to the president-elect did not return requests for comment. Senate officials were unclear whether Obama would be comfortable with Lieberman maintaining his current committee post.
Obama will get a lot of criticism for this from progressives, since Lieberman didn’t only support McCain but joined in the GOP’s medley of insinuations that Obama wasn’t really totally patriotic, didn’t really want to see American troops win in Iraq, was a risk in terms of terrorism and if he wasn’t actually a socialist, then he acted like one.
As noted here earlier, Obama had several choices.
By not going to the mat on the Lieberman controversy, he can wipe the slate clean and begin with a new tone and show that he is forgiving. On the other hand, he runs the risk that his foes (inside and outside of his party) could think that he’s easily pushed around and that there are no political consequences. The latter is apparently a risk Obama is willing to take. The Huffington Post again:
A Democrat close to Lieberman, meanwhile, said he thought that keeping Lieberman in the fold “would be a good move for Obama as a way to make real his promise of new politics, a less partisan Washington and more unity. He would do so at some risk. Obviously there is a liberal wing of the party that wants Joe punished…
And could there also be here an element of deferred consequences? Connecticut went overwhelmingly for Obama. Lieberman’s approval ratings in his state are not what they used to be. Could part of this also be a decision to not fight this battle now, but to hang in there until Lieberman is up for re-election and let Connecticut voters do the rest on a future election day?
Part of that unease falls into the category of This Is Too Good To Be True, and it will be a while before I don’t wake up in the morning wondering if it is all a dream.