News that the AFL-CIO and the Change to Win coalition have restarted re-merger talks is the talk of Democratic political circles.
What's been reported so far is this:
Labor officials like the idea of the national union being more in charge of politics and messaging; locals would do more grassroots organizing And one sticking point is, not surprisingly, who gets to lead the thing. Or -- who succeeds current AFL-CIO John Sweeney? The most promising option being considered is a rotating presidency.
What hasn't been reported:
There are much more fundamental issues being debated. And labor presidents are determined to keep the details of conversations under wraps for as long as possible.
They include: how and where organizing is done, what political priorities are should be, labor's relationship with the Democratic Party, labor's relationship to the Republican Party, union dues -- how labor relates to companies in a globalized economy -- and even more basic definitional issues.
"Everybody would likle to see a unified labor movement," a top labor consultant says. "The problem is that everyone has a different idea of what it should look like. [It's] not going to be easy to work through."
Seven unions representing six million workers bolted from the AFL-CIO in 2005 over priorities and personalities; they created the Change to Win coalition and promised to devote more resources to organizing. A collapsing economy set back those goals.
Negotiations are very preliminary. Someone familiar with the discussions described them as "pretty full" -- but with no resolution to any issue. Ex-Rep. David Bonior, who is leading the discussion, is putting together a working paper that would serve as the basis for future debate.
Just to put the discussion of inaugural fundraising in some perspective. It's true that the Obama inaugural team faces several issues that past teams haven't. First is the self-imposed ban on corporate donations. Then there's the self-imposed limit of donations to $50,000. And remember: fewer inaugural balls limits fundraising; traditionally, they're good revenue sources. So -- who's left to pay for it? Small donors.
Unless you want your inauguration to consist of a chief justice, a bible and a ring of bulletproof glass, the money has to come from somewhere.
I want to confirm your intuition that e-mails inviting me to pay for other people to party at the inauguration are very annoying, particularly when I have not been invited myself. I'm a local union leader who went against my union to support Obama; donated more than $1,000 to the Obama campaign; am an officer of two visible, active political groups; and helped run operations that contacted thousands of voters for Obama. And since election day I have received nothing from the campaign, transition, or inaugural committee by mail. Not a hello, not a thank you, and certainly not an invitation. And by e-mail, nothing by mass-mail "thanks," and ongoing appeals to donate. I don't know that I would have gone to Washington for the inauguration. But it would have been nice to have been asked. I was asked to previous inaugurations, when I had done far less than I did this time. I don't need a ticket to a ball, or a reserved seat, or anything. Just a letter saying, "You worked for it, so come see it happen," would have been really nice. I am trying not to feel pushed away, but people's emotions are funny that way. Sometimes it's the small things that sting
Now -- here is another way of looking at it. The Obama inauguration team has done a number of things to open up the inauguration to more people than ever -- a free event at the Lincoln memorial, opening up the mall, providing free tickets to the parade for DC students, giving away tickets.
And politics hasn't entirely gone away. The Obama folks do have some responsibility to take care of the people who supported the campaign, often through difficult times and sometimes at a political cost to themselves. At the same time, they're doing more than anyone in recent memory to make this as accessible as possible.
CHANCES Sen. Barack Obama's stimulus package is sent to the Whte House by February 16, the day Speaker Nancy Pelosi has set as a goal for Congressional passage. 60% All the posturing headlines today notwithstanding, momentum, the politics, the urgency and public opinion are on Obama's side. Now -- the 60% figure is flexible. If Obama's team decides not to comrpomise, then the bill won't pass. If they do, they could get 80% of the vote. What would they need to get 80% of the vote? Well, about a third of Republicans and 90% of Democrats. The proposal to allow business to refile their tax returns and spread out their 2008 losses over the past five years will keep enough Republicans on board; the Chamber of Commerce and the National Association of Manufacturers love the idea, and they've already assumed some ownership of it. That suggests to me that the Chamber and NAM won't object to the parts of the plan they don't like. In the absence of pressure from the Chamber and NAM, a healthy number of Republicans are likely to support the bill. ......Then ask yourself whether liberal Democrats will really defect because the bill won't include enough direct transfer payments to the poor; then ask yourself whether conservative Democrats will be satisfied if Obama promises to tackle entitlement and budget reform in his first official budget. I think they will.
CHANCES the stimulus package changes significantly before it ends u on Obama's desk: 80%. Obama and the Democrats, in particular, have a clear incentive to make the stimulus as stimulative as possible; if it doesn't work, or if the economy does not improve after it passes (two different things), then Democrats will be more skeptical of anything Obama sends their way. ..... The biggest debates right now aren't taking place between the parties or between the executive and legislative branches. Senate Democrats generally want a short-term stimulus that full of temporary items; they worry about interest rates and the deficit. They're skeptical of Obama's tax cuts, thinking they're too small to stimulate demand and too expensive to stimulate employment. (Some want to pay them permanent; permanent tax cuts alter behavior; temporary tax cuts often don't.) Some Senate Democrats, like Tom Harkin, want Obama to be bolder; House Democrats want an expensive, one-year fix to the Alternative Minimum Tax; other House Democrats want to dilate the proposals to expand unemployment insurance; others want to double the spending on alternative energy.
CHANCES Sen. George Vionovich runs for re-election. 60%This fall, I reported that Voinovich was a candidate for retirement; Voinovich's spokespman denied it up and down. Now, more unnamed Republicans are suggesting that the two-term senator was on the verge of making the decision to step down. Perhaps they're trying to pressure him to step down; former Rep. Rob Portman would be ready to run to take his place.
CHANCES Leon Panetta is confirmed as CIA director.90%
The Obama transition plans to name Fred Hochberg, Dean of Milano, the New School for Management, to head the Import-Export bank, a Democratic official said. Hochberg would be the highest rank gay man in the administration. A longtime supporter of Sen. Hillary Clinton, Hochberg bundled more than $100,000 for Sen. Obama during the general election. He is one of the few donors to whom Obama has given a top administration position. But Hochberg is very qualified: during the Clinton administration, he served as acting administrator of the Small Business Administration. The Import-Export bank serves as the country's offiical export credit authority.
I wonder if this line of fundraising appeals isn't creating some backlash among the ordinary folks who kicked in extraordinary amounts of money to Obama online.
Your Ticket to History: Deadline 11:59pm Tonight
You may have heard about Cynthia Russell
earlier this week. Cynthia is a home builder from Florida, who,
despite 18 years in her line of work, is struggling to pay the bills
and keep the doors of her small business open. Cynthia was also the
first supporter we selected to attend the Inauguration of Barack Obama
and Joe Biden as a guest of the Presidential Inaugural Committee, after
she donated to make this inauguration a success.
We're flying Cynthia and her guest to Washington, DC, putting them
up in a hotel, and providing them with tickets to the welcome ceremony,
the swearing-in, the Inaugural Parade, and the Neighborhood Ball.
Here's a thought experiment. Suppose you're the true believer of true believers. Money's a little tight, but you managed to max out to Obama in both the
primary and general campaigns.
And yet, you've gotten no invitation to Washington, nothing to the balls, nothing to any local levels -- except for these Publisher's-Clearinghouse-like requests for donations to the Presidential Inaugural Committee. Now -- you've never been to a swearing in, or a ball, or a parade, but you'd love to go. The latest solicitation you get urges you give money so that ten others -- check the odds; it won't be you -- get to celebrate.
Mickey Kaus is right
(despite the Atlantic snark): Asking people to "pay for other people
to party at the inauguration you're not going to" is pretty audacious.
With regards to Hulk Hogan, I would actually tend to agree with Stephanie if I had only seen Hogan's WWF/WWE matches. But he didn't always wrestle in WWF/WWE/WCW. He spent a few years in New Japan Pro Wrestling. And they take Pro-Wrestling very seriously in Japan, much more so than in the US, as such, he had to show that he could actually wrestle, and he can.
The reader sends along a YouTube of Hogan wrestling Japanese legend Antonio Inoki. Savvy wrestling fans will find the fault in this comparison: comapred to Anoki, David Arquette looks like a good wrestler.
The new watchword of the Democratic National Committee under Gov. Tim Kaine: problem-solving. The bugbear: ideology.
At a ceremonial press conference today in Washington, Obama called Kaine a "pragmatic progressive," who would break "free of the old orthodoxies and [reach] across party lines."
"He understands that while politics is tough, we need to work together to solve our problems," Obama said.
Kaine promised to "carry the proud banner of the Democratic Party." We're not the idealogues the obstructionist, the gridlock folks, we're the problem solvers."
Conspicuously absent from the transition event was the current chairman of the DNC, former Gov. Howard Dean of Vermont.
Obama said of Dean: "Having steered the Democratic Party through two successful elections, Howard deserves enormous credit for ushering in a new era." He called Dean "an oustanding chair."
Gov. Tim Kaine of Virginia, Obama's handpicked successor, went even further: "I've got huge shoes to fill."
Dean was not there to enjoy all the dolceness.
Officially, Dean was travelling.
Having promised to go anywhere and do anything asked of him by the President-elect, he probably would have returned to Washington had he been asked. But maybe there was a scheduling issue: the transition team contacted the DNC on Wednesday to set up today's event, a DNC spokesperson said.
Neither advisers to Dean or transition officials will say whether Dean's presence -- or absence -- was the subject of an internal debate. Transition spokespeople did not return e-mails seeking comment. DNC officials referred questions about Dean to the transition office.
There are a few Obama advisers with the juice to keep Dean away; one of them is chief of staff Rahm Emanuel, a long-time Dean critic. A transition source said that Emanuel played no role in this.
Was this a snub?
One the one hand, Obama aides have openly praised Dean's tenure, his campaign was full of Dean alums; in sotto voce, Obama aides have hinted that the DNC needs an overhaul. During the election, Obama's team sent Dean on a productive but second-tier assignment -- a voter turnout and registration bus tour.
One television commentator said that the selection of Kaine and the contrast with Dean was political symbology in the extreme; Kaine is a Christian; Dean is seen as a cultural liberal; Obama wants to "reach out" to faith voters and all of that. True, Obama can be clunky with his metaphorical gestures, but it would make no sense for Obama to go out of way to laud Dean's tenure if he intended to give the brush-off.
It's hard to believe that Obama's political advisers would sanction a public reproach. Such juvenality would make some of Dean's critics all tingly inside, but it would anger a cross-section of Obama supporters who hold Dean in high regard, including a tranche of national committee members and many state chairs. And whether Dean deserves the credit or not, the press credits his failed 2003 presidential bid for laying the ground work for Obama's victory.
One member of the DNC: "He has not been treated well."
Obama plans to install Jennifer O'Malley Dillon as executive director. O'Malley-Dillon served as battleground states director for the Obama campaign.
As expected, five term Missouri Sen. Christopher "Kit" Bond announced his intention to retire today. Within a few hours, the scramble to replace him will begin.
Republicans say that former House Minority Whip Roy Blunt is likely to throw in.
Republicans in Washington say that donors are likely to try and press former Sen. Jim Talent back into service, too. Talent has won statewide before -- before he lost to Democrat Claire McCaskill -- and is from the St. Louis area, meaning that he'd outperform the average Republican there. He is well-known and well-liked in the state, and, even McCaskill might admit her victory in 2006 had a lot to do with the national political environment, which was rat poison for Republicans.
Barack Obama plans to introduce Gov. Tim Kaine as the next chairman of the Democratic National Committee. Standing to his side will be Howard Dean.
Cornell Belcher worked for Dean and for the Obama campaign, and has sent the former Vermont governor a memo detailing the arc of the Democratic march from 2004 to 2008.
Belcher, who I interviewed for my January Atlantic article on politics and race, views the average voter as a mostly rational figure whipsawed by crosspressures, and his analysis set to figure out the relative force of those pressures. What was it that tilted folks from one side to the other?
To identify issue groupings, Belcher used a statistical technique that reduces a large number of questions or topics to smaller number of basic factors. This technique identified two factors -- 2008 Election Issues -- and the Faith vs. Secular Values axis.
The graph is a little fuzzy, but the points show how voters indentified themselves on issues vis-a-vis where they perceived the candidates to be. The split -- represented by the line -- is roughly horizontal, which means that perceptions of each party on the dominant issues were more important than faith issues in driving the vote year. As Belcher writes, "Voters this cycle were closer to Obama and the Democrats on the issues dimension and the gravitational pull of that dimension this year far outweighed that of the faith vs. secular values dimension."
White voters were clustered close to McCain, and black voters anchored themselves firmly in Obama's camp. Young whites were more secular than older whites, but they were also more clustered toward toward the center, suggesting that Republicans could lure them away with the right amount of attention to the right issues.
More voters identify with the Democratic Party today; Democrats, even after the election, maintain a nine point lead in terms of party identification. For voters under 30, the trend is striking: the party ID lead is 20 points for Democrats. Additionally, a running sample of battleground state voters sureyed from 2004 through 2008 shows a slow but pronounced migration from Republican to Democrat. Of the 11 percent of voters who were new to electorate, 62% of them were under 30, and they identify as Democrats by a margin of two to one -- about more new voters under 30 identify as independents as they do Republicans.
Belcher makes a distinction between "faith" voters and "values" voters, writing that "[t]hose who place a high importance on faith in their voting choices still swing heavily Republican. But although nearly all faith voters (93 percent) are also values voters, the reverse is not necessarily true. Only half (53 percent) of values voters agree that religious faith was a very important influence in their voting choices. In short, many voters see their values as being about more than solely their religious faith."
With a trillion dollar deficit looming in front of him and signs that the economy is in the benthic realm and in need of more oxygen than the government can provide, Barack Obama plays the reluctant salesman today.
He will "make the case for urgent action," an advisory says, on an "American Recovery and Reinvestment Plan" that will create millions of jobs. The values encoded in the plan, according to Obama's team, are "responsibility, accountability and transparency."
So far, Obama and Congressional Democrats have agreed to significant new spending on roads, bridges, infrastructure repair and mass transit. How quickly those jobs will be created is unclear. Second, Obama wants to funnel money to states and local governments to cushion the blow of cyclical budget squeezes - California is in hoc to the score of $46 billion. (Republicans are balking; they feel that states will waste the money on pet projects.) Thirdly, Obama announced a passel of tax cuts this week, all aimed at the people least likely to save and most likely to spend money. They'd cost about $300 million over two years. Obama and Democrats want to refund part of the payroll tax for middle class Americans, propose to allow businesses to deduct from this year's tax bill losses incurred over the past five years, and will spend up to $7 billion to persuade states to alter their unemployment insurance rules to allow people to keep their health care and benefits longer. A provision to provide a tax credit to employers who create or keep jobs is apparently going to be very expensive.
At the end of the day, Obama's name will be associated with an epically large stimulus package that may, in the end, do be too little, too late. Late last year, Obama hoped that the Democratic House and Senate would come to quick agreement on spending, and, by January 20, a bill would be on his desk. But aides say that the scale of the work exceeded their original expectations. It's just not that easy to figure out how to stimulate an economy in this condition. In a normal recession, small tax cuts might boost savings, which, if the economy were growing, would be fine. But Obama needs Americans to spend, spend, spend, and not to save. And Americans, worried about mortgages, debts and the falling stock market, are keeping their cash in their mattresses. When people save a tax cut, aggregate demand is unaffected. But people, in this deep, deep recession, are demand-starved; they need money to pay for basics like their mortgage payments. The thinking, then, is that no one will save the money.
President-elect Barack Obama acknowledges that the cost
of economic stimulus "will be considerable" but warned that the
consequences of delaying its passage would result in more Americans
losing their jobs.
Excerpts released by the transition office
last night suggest that Obama will use the speech to defend hundreds of
billions of dollars worth of new government spending even if does not
directly boost demand.
"Only government can provide the short-term boost
necessary to lift us from a recession this deep and severe," Obama is expected to say." "Only
government can break the vicious cycles that are crippling our economy
- where a lack of spending leads to lost jobs which leads to even less
spending; where an inability to lend and borrow stops growth and leads
to even less credit."
Obama said his plan "recognizes both
the paradox and the promise of this moment - the fact that there are
millions of Americans trying to find work, even as, all around the
country, there is so much work to be done."
"That's why," he says, "we'll invest in
priorities like energy and education; health care and a new
infrastructure that are necessary to keep us strong and competitive in
the 21st century."
Obama promises that "decisions about where we will invest" will be made transparently, and
informed by independent experts wherever possible. Every American will
be able to hold Washington accountable for these decisions by going
online to see how and where their tax dollars are being spent."
Via Time's Michael Scherer, probably the awesomest testimony given by a World Wrestling Entertainment executive: Stephanie McMahon, executive vice president of WWE and, on television, the "General Manager" of the Raw television show, puts on the record what all real wrestling fans take as a given: Terry Bollea, a.k.a. Hulk Hogan was a talent, but he was a poor wrestler.
Q: How does talent get to become main-event talent?
A: Basically, hard work and perseverance and overwhelming the
audience. . . . When someone walks out on that stage, they either
connect with the people or they don't. If you walk out on stage and
nobody cares and you don't have any presence, you are never going to be
a main-event guy. But if you walk out and you make the people notice
you, you can be a main-event guy. You really don't even have to be a
good wrestler. Hulk Hogan was a terrible wrestler, and he still is.
Q: For the record, I am sure he would disagree with that.
A: I am sure he would disagree with that. I forget this is all
public. But, you know, he was. He was a terrible wrestler. But what an
incredible psychologist and what an incredible charismatic person.
There is no denying Hulk Hogan is one of the biggest stars in the
history of our business and will always be perceived as such. But he
was not a great wrestler, not a great technician.
McMahon later clarifies: Hogan had only three moves, but he had charisma. In wrestling terminology, he "got over."
Sen. John McCain returned to Capitol Hill today and signaled his re-emergence on the political scene. He's established a new political action committee called "Country First," borrowing from one of his campaign's numerous slogans. Just 25 bucks and you can become a charter member.
For his swan song as chairman of the House's government oversight committee, Henry Waxman picked a very touchy topic: steroid use by professional wrestlers. Waxman's findings, released on January 2 and based on documents he gathered from the World Wrestling Entertainment (WWE) and Total Non-stop Action (TNA), portray wrestling as a dystopia, where size determines your future, and where management repeatedly turns a blind eye to illegal drug abuse. The investigation began after the death of wrestlers Eddie Guerrero and Chris Benoit. In Benoit's case, an autposy showed his testosterone levels to be three times as high as they should be. Guerrero was a lifelong abuser of drugs. Waxman, whose committee's investigation of steroid abuse in baseball resulted ...
Between 2006 and 2008, after instituting a new testing regime, 40% of WWE wrestlers tested positive for steroid use, according to the WWE's own documents. 23 other wrestlers were caught using a variety of other narocotics, and even cocaine.
Surprise: wrestling is not baseball, and wrestlers don't compete directly with each other. But -- that's not really the case. The outcome of matches is predetermined, but the lockerroom jostling to be booked for the big match produces intense competition. And Vince McMahon is rumored to like his wrestlers to be big and muscular. And Vince McMahon is the guy who determines whether you'll get a push or not, whether you'll become a champion or not. Waxman's results are sobering for any wrestling fan. Yes, WWE adopted an NFL-like testing program in 2006. But McMahon asked for an amendment; certain wrestlers who were suspended could be booked for select matches on money-making pay-per-view shows, or on one the WWE's three weekly telecasts. Here's McMahon's justification:
Q I thought that the current policy is that a wrestler who's suspended because of a positive test result cannot appear on television or pay-per-view?
A No. The intent here is to obviously punish the performer. Not punish the performer, certainly not reward the performer. So you're sure as heck not rewarding the performer or his characterization by further putting him on television and having that person look less than favorable. And it's important to conclude a story. There's no advantage -- if that's where you're going, there's no advantage to someone appearing on television even though they've tested positive at all. Because when they do appear on television and/or pay-per-view, then theydon't look too favorable.
Q Because they lose their belt, is that why?
A Well, yeah. I mean they will do, quote, the honors as we call it. You know you will conclude a story line. And generally speaking in concluding a story line you know someone who has tested positive is not going to -- they're not going to fare well, they're not going to win in the story line. You need to conclude that, okay. And it normally takes us about a week to conclude some of those stories. Now, if you're not involved in a story line then we don't put you on television, period.
The idea is that WWE itself shouldn't be penalized for the conduct of its wrestlers. And McMahon implied that the wrestler's particular storyline would be wrapped up quickly; if he had a championship belt, he would lose it.
Elsewhere, a doctor on contract to WWE told Waxman's investigators that seven wrestlers had won an exemption from the policy because their personal doctors had prescribed testosterone enhancements for unspecified medical reasons. Those excuses aren't cross-checked.
In WWE's defense, they're the only wrestling company to have such an extensive wellness program, they've spent a lot of money on it, and wrestlers are randomly tested about four times a year. And -- it's true -- wrestlers tend to be a lot smaller these days than they did in the 80s, when cocaine was the drug of choice.
So what's to be done with all of this?
Waxman is moving on. As of this week, he's now the chair of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce. Wrestling is commerce -- in fact, Commerce seems to be driving its decision making, so Waxman could well assert jurisdiction. The new oversight committee chair, Rep. Edolphus Towns, probably won't continue the investigation. After the jump, read some of the more interesting exchanges at Vince McMahon's deposition. A WWE spokesman did not return an e-mail seeking comment.
Here's President-elect Barack Obama, this morning:
We are working currently on our budget plans... starting to consult with members of congress on that... Discussion around entitlements will be a central part of those plans... by Feb [with my 10-page budget preview] we will have some very specific plans to release [on reforming entitlement spending].
Rep. Jim Cooper (D-TN) liked what he heard:
"I have talked with President-elect Obama several times about the severity of our entitlement crisis, and I have urged him to conduct a full audit of his predecessor's books. He understands the tremendous fiscal challenges we face. I appreciate his forthrightness on the subject this morning, and I pledge to work with him and his economic team to get this situation under control."
Convincing these Democrats that he's serious about entitlement reform is one of the ways he can smooth the stimulus package's digestion.
Tomorrow, Sen. Barack Obama tries to sell the American people on what he's calling his "American Recovery and Reinvestment Plan"'
According to the transition office, the plan represnts "a new approach to meeting our challenges that focuses on responsibility, accountability, and transparency so that we can rebuild confidence and trust in our economy and our markets."
Contrary to rumors, the speech won't be held at night, so everyone can still catch the game. Details are TBD.
The political scrum here is a bit messy. Fiscally-conscious Democrats don't expect "pay-go" rules to be in the package, but they want a promise that they'll follow it immediately. Tomorrow, they'll be listening for Obama's idea of a specific mechanism to deal with long-term funding shortfalls for Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. Obama mentioned the debt yesterday; the Blue Dog Democrats want action to follow the words.
Republicans will be very interested in the details of Obama's tax cut plans, and also want to hear him place limits on the money that'll be directly transferred to states and local governments. There is no consensus within the party about whether to fight specific provisions tooth and nail; there is a worry that Obama will attempt to split the party. Privately, leaders on both sides of the aisle want the package to pass overwhelmingly, with political cover extended in all directions.
Update: Perhaps I was premature about Haass. But maybe not... stay tuned.
Transition officials confirm that President-elect Obama has asked Dennis Ross, Richard Haass, and Richard Holbrooke, to serve as his chief emissaries to world hot spots.
It's expected that Ross will get the Iran portfolio, that Holbrooke, the hard-headed architect of the Dayton Peace Accords, will take the tough (and tougher) Southwest Asia portfolio, which includes India, Afghanistan and Pakistan, and that Haass will deal with the Middle East.
Each men's turf is still in flux, so the assignments might change. Other envoys will be added to this list; they'll deal with Africa and South America.
All three have the chops; all three are considered realists; all three have direct experience as envoys; Haass was the U.S. government's chief negotiator in Northern Ireland; Ross shuttled between Mideast capitals during the Clinton administration, and Holbrooke, as mentioned, brought warring sides together in the Balkans. Haas served under Presidents Clinton and Bush and is currently the president of the Council on Foreign Relations.
A transition spokesman declined to comment.
Hints About The Future
Haass, writing in Foreign Affairs, calls for urgent diplomacy in the Middle East:
Israel is well aware of the drawbacks of a
preventive military strike against Iran, especially if it has to act on
its own. It prefers to support a diplomatic effort that would prevent
Iran from crossing the nuclear threshold, even though it is wary of
Iran's dilatory tactics. And it, too, sees the advantage of
peacemaking, especially with Syria, as a means of acquiring leverage
over Iran. Nevertheless, Jerusalem's tolerance for engagement is more
limited than Washington's because it has a less robust deterrent and
greater reason to fear Tehran's intentions. Israel has never been
prepared to accept another nuclear power in its neighborhood,
especially not one that directly threatens its existence: given
Israel's small size and concentrated population, a first strike by Iran
on any scale would have devastating consequences.
To
allow more time for diplomatic engagement to work, therefore, the Obama
administration will have to persuade Israel not to strike Iran's
nuclear facilities while U.S.-led diplomatic efforts are unfolding.
That will require enhancing Israel's deterrent and defensive
capabilities by providing it with a nuclear guarantee as well as
additional ballistic missile defenses and early warning systems.
Simultaneously providing nuclear guarantees against Iran to both Arab
and Israeli allies will be a serious undertaking for Washington, but it
may be the only way of preventing Iran's nuclear program from
triggering a regional arms race.
Ross, speaking at a Washington-area synagoque on Monday, said that, in his opinion, the U.S. should support a new cease-fire in Gaza only if it guaranteed the end of Hamas's "capability to rearm."
Ross, a counselor and distinguished fellow at the Washington
Institute for Near East Policy, said achieving an Israeli-Palestinian
agreement now would be much different than his last attempt in 2000.
Not only is the Palestinian Authority divided and much weaker, he said,
but the Israeli public doesn't believe such an agreement is possible.
Israel left Lebanon and Gaza, and in both instances, "things got a
whole worse" -- which doesn't provide much confidence about a
withdrawal from the West Bank, he said.
In case the twirl of politics didn't unwind properly, it's pretty clear now that Leon Panetta has survived the kerfuffle that marked his leaked announcement and will be nominated by Barack Obama to head the CIA. (Friday).
It's pretty clear that Roland Burris, having been appointed by a duly elected governor and having the good sense to play nicely with Harry Reid and Dick Durbin, will probably be allowed to take his place in the Senate, pending further negotiations. Law trumps politics, for once.
It's pretty clear that President-elect Obama prefers the "without review" appendage to the definition of earmarks, which is expansive, rather than restrictive.
It's pretty clear that Mike Duncan, Michael Steele and Ken Blackwell have the momentum in the RNC chairman's race. It's also clear that none of them have 85 or more votes in their pockets...
Vice President-elect Joe Biden leaves shortly on fact-finding trip to South Asia -- as a Senator. He is expected to visit, among other countries, Pakistan and meet with president Asif Ali Zardari. Transition officials cited security reasons in refusing to disclose details about the schedule.
The timing is curious. Why is Biden visiting the region as part of a congressional delegation, as a senator?
According to an official familiar with the planning, Biden wants a real-time assessment of the region "so that the new administration can hit the
ground running come January 20," an official familiar with the planning said. Given the attacks in Mumbai, violence in Afghanistan, the IMF bailout of Pakistan, the incoming administration wants to reassure the region that its problems will be high on President Obama's agenda.
If the administration waited until Biden was sworn in as vice president, it could take up to two months for the military, the State Department and the U.S. Secret Service to plan the trip.
More generally, Biden plans to use the data he'll gather to prepare the administration for direct engagement on day one." As Senator Biden
and the other national security principals help the President-elect
formulate policies for the region, it is important to have a baseline assessment
of the situation on the ground and the policy options in each
country."
Biden is traveling as part of a bipartisan delegation, including incoming Senate Foreign Relations committee chair John Kerry and Republican Senators Lindsey Graham of South Carolina and Susan Collins of Maine. The trip was suggested by the President-elect's national
security team, and so I detect a hint of image-shaping at work: the Codel might radiate bipartisan cooperation; the incoming administration
intends to work with members of both parties and not assert a unilateral policy without input.
There is speculation that Biden's Southwest Asia assignment means that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has been tasked with the immediate Middle East peacemaking in the Middle East. Transition aides say that's incorrect; they note that the administration's national security principals meet regularly to discuss the region, and that no one has been given a specific portfolio.
Two Democrats close to the transition team said that veteran Mideast negotiator Dennis Ross will join the administration in some formal capacity, perhaps as an envoy or special White House adviser. During the general election, Ross was a key adviser to Obama on Middle East policy.
Is the subtext of the growing row between Dianne Feinstein, Jay Rockefeller and the Obama administration over Leon Panetta is about retroactive oversight and accountability? Clearly, Congress failed to properly oversee the intelligence agencies during the presidency of George W. Bush. But because so much information remains classified, no one really knows what the administration told Congress, and when. Jane Mayer's reporting makes it clear that the White House chose to withhold crucial details about critical problems from lawmakers, but a growing mass of evidence suggests that the intelligence oversight panels were cowed by the President at crucial junctures, intimidated by the exigencies of politics and war. And they knew. They knew that Abu Zubaida was subject to enhanced interrogation methods; that extraordinary renditions were frequently assigned; that the administration had vastly expanded the NSA's collection of metadata inside the United States.
Only in retrospect, only in a different political context, did it become unfashionable to support aggressive line-crossing. And yet while it's facile to say that Feinstein and Rockefeller worry about their hides and their oversight capabilities; it is also true that one can make a reasoned case that an overreaction by civil libertarians in the new administration would neuter intelligence gathering. Maybe it won't; soft power and smart power aren't incompatible with traditional methods of intelligence collection. But it would be foolish not to have such a debate. Opposing torture may be a black and white issue, but almost everything else the CIA does requires deliberation and thought. James Olson, the former counterintelligence chief of the CIA and a longtime case officer, wrote a remarkable book last year called Fair Play. It took a while to clear the CIA's publication review board because each chapter delves into the controversy over different methods the CIA clearly uses to recruit human sources: gay blackmail, kidnapping, using journalists, posing as humanitarian workers, offering sources prostitutes in exchange for information, lying, stealing, feeding drug habits of agents -- you get the idea.
Former Florida governor Jeb Bush has decided not to run for Senate, paving the way for a wide open Republican primary. Here's a statement his office released in his name:
"After thoughtful consideration, I have decided not to run
for the United States Senate in 2010. "While the opportunity to
serve my state and country during these turbulent and dynamic times is
compelling, now is not the right time to return to elected office.
"In
the coming months and years, I hope to play a constructive role in the future of
the Republican Party, advocating ideas and policies that solve the pressing
problems of our day. We must rebuild the Party by focusing on the common
purposes and core conservative principles that unite us all - limited
government, a strong national defense and safe homeland and the protection of
liberty tempered by personal responsibility.
"While fundamentally different
ideologies divide Republicans and Democrats, we can not allow politics to come
before the needs of our people and communities. We must raise the level of
debate to reflect the American people's desire for change and bi-partisanship,
embodied by November's historic election. President-elect Obama ran a tremendous
campaign and I am proud to call him my President. I am confident Republicans
will find productive ways to work together with the new administration to
advance reforms both sides of the aisle can
support.
"For me, there is no
greater calling than education reform. Securing our nation's economic future
starts with providing a world-class education to every single American student -
building a system that lessens our populace's dependence on government. Through
the Foundation for Florida's Future and Foundation for Excellence
in Education, I remain committed to advancing policies key to a reform agenda,
including higher academic standards, greater accountability for learning and
more educational choices for all families.
"Finally, I thank
Senator Martinez for his extraordinary service to our great state and thank the
many Floridians and Americans across the country that offered me support and
encouragement as I came to this decision."
Race doesn't matter, Barack Obama's top advisers argued during the presidential election. At least, that's what they said in public. Behind closed doors, however, Obama's campaign worked methodically to woo white voters without alienating black ones--and vice versa.
The Atlantic has a package of articles about race and politics, race and life, race and culture. Our excellent, maddening, cover story, more on it below, is entitled "The End of White America."
One can fairly well ask right now whether, given the events of the past few years and projecting into the next few, ambitious, declarative magazines like the Atlantic will be tempted to ever again package a series of stories about Black and White America. It's not that we've exhausted the content, or that racial problems no longer vex, or anything like that. It's just that history seems to have eclipsed our ability to describe it using familiar terms, and that our new benevolent overlords -- the Obama generation -- just won't play along. Case in point from our politics: Blagojevich allies dipped into the vat of identity grievance in trying to paint Senate Democrats as racist for not seating Roland Burris, pointing to Harry Reid's expressed fears about the political viability of a trio of urban black candidates. Maybe there's a there there, but the press seems to regard this angle as a very minor deviation, a barely perceptible tangent, an annoyance. My prediction: within two years, an Atlantic cover will ask whether we've become too homogenous, too eager, too earnest, too e pluribus unum. Maybe they'll let me write it.
To the stories: they're must-reads. Check out Ta-Nehisi Coates' meditation and profile of Michelle Obama -- the more transformative of the two Obamas, he contends.
There has been much chatter about Barack Obama as the answer to
America's racial gap, as a biracial black man whose roots stretch from
Hawaii to Kenya, with an Ivy League pedigree and the seal of the South
Side. But he is not the only one entering the White House who has seen
both sides, who intuitively grasps the heroic American narrative of
work ethic and family, and how that narrative historically failed black
people. He is not the only one who walks in both worlds. Indeed, if
you're looking for a bridge, if you're looking for someone to connect
the heart of black America with the heart of all of America, to allow
us all to look at the American dream in the same way, if you're looking
for common ground, then it's true, we should be talking about Obama.
But we should make sure we're talking about the right one.
Hua Hsu wonders whether the end of a distinctly white cultural style is near (and whether it'd worth saving. As you read the article, don't assume you know what Hua concludes).
Consider the world of advertising and marketing, industries that set
out to mold our desires at a subconscious level. Advertising strategy
once assumed a "general market"--"a code word for 'white people,'" jokes
one ad executive--and smaller, mutually exclusive, satellite "ethnic
markets." In recent years, though, advertisers have begun revising
their assumptions and strategies in anticipation of profound
demographic shifts. Instead of herding consumers toward a discrete
center, the goal today is to create versatile images and campaigns that
can be adapted to highly individualized tastes. (Think of the dancing
silhouettes in Apple's iPod campaign, which emphasizes individuality
and diversity without privileging--or even representing--any specific
group.)
Marc Ambinder, an Atlantic associate editor, blogs about politics and Washington. He might also write the occasional post about aviation, national security, and cognitive neuroscience. Mostly politics, though.
| 
