Politics Thread

[Dunnyman]

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/13/us/po ... terstitial
OK, I'm liking this! Obama has no intention of letting a bunch of criminals become part of his administration. Heck, this questionnaire would have prevented Cheney from ever running with Bush!
Change is indeed coming to Washington!

*Mod Edit*
I've been wondering which way to go since the closure of The Race To The White House thread and I think an open politics thread is it. So I'm piggy backing on Dunny's thread and making this an open political affairs thread. Have at it. Let's stay away from name calling & petty bickering but let us be aggressive and not afraid to argue. If you have something to say, please back it up with links & sources otherwise, have at it.
Harold

[HGervais]

Well, since last we discussed politcs it look like Alaska may not have re-elected a convicted felon to the Senate afterall and Sarah Palin may not have a chance to run for his seat. Mark Begich has pushed to the lead as Alaska counts its early & provisional ballots. Granted the lead is only 800+ votes with 40,000 + votes to tally but what they are counting would seem to favor the Democratic candidate. So we will see. Alaskans can take solace that they still have a crook in Congress with Rep. Don Young though.
In the MN Senate race, the recount will begin soon. Last I checked another future indicted Senator, Norm Coleman only holds a 200+ lead over writer/actor Al Franken. If Franken makes up the gound and wins, and if Begich maintains his lead the Dems are looking at 59 seats. The event of a Georgia win appears unlikely but in this odd year, anything is possible. Fun, fun, fun.
And have they called Missouri yet?

[Future Man]

Does any fair minded person have concerns for all the new votes being picked up for Franken before the recount even begins? Or nothing to see there I suppose.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122644940271419147.html

[HGervais]

I didn't realize how much fun it would be reading the op-ed page of the WSJ and seeing them crying hysterically about Democrats being aggressive in a close race. And if their main gripe against Mark Ritchie is that he is a Democrat, well, that isn't really proving anything. Oh and let's throw ACORN in their as well just to ge people riled up. Spooky. I wish to hell the federal government would take over registering voters so all the faux-outrage about organizations like ACORN would just go away. Granted the level of adjustments is high but I believe Minnesota uses optical scan voting machines and from what I understand in certain circumstances they can be prone to errors. The amount of adjustments concerns me as well but for different reasons. Minnesota isn't exactly known as the hotbed of crooked elections so until I see actual proof that disputes these adjustments with actual evidence I'm working off the belief that these are actual corrected errors and it makes me wonder how many instances like this one occur on a national level. I also believe that Minnesota's voting records are open to the public and once the recount is completed those voting records will be out there for anyone who cares to look at them. Coleman may well still win this thing and if he does, he is the winner. Franken may pull it out in the recount and if he wins, he is the winner. Up until the point where implication & innuendo are replaced by evidence and facts I don't have reason to doubt either possible outcome.

[TemporalWisdom]

On a hopeful note, California's Proposition 8 still isn't final. With 1.8 million absentee ballots to be counted, by my calculations if 64% of them say "No," the ballot fails. Keep your fingers crossed.

Meanwhile I've heard gay rights activists are boycotting Utah to starve its tourism trade, for the Church of the Latter-Day Saints' part in Proposition 8. Ah, here we go. And here.

[HGervais]

Meanwhile I've heard gay rights activists are boycotting Utah to starve its tourism trade, for the Church of the Latter-Day Saints' part in Proposition 8. Ah, here we go. And here.

Makes one wonder if the LSD part in defeating Prop 8 goes a long way to making Mormons more acceptable to the Republican base thus making Mitt Romney more acceptable to those same voters in 2012. Just sayin'.

[Dunnyman]

Meanwhile I've heard gay rights activists are boycotting Utah to starve its tourism trade, for the Church of the Latter-Day Saints' part in Proposition 8. Ah, here we go. And here.

Hit 'em where it hurts. With the upcoming winter sports season, a major boycott could cause some issues in Utah. My brother says it's not the state's fault, merely the church's, but I don't think he understands how closely related the two are in that state. Virtually every major official, legislator, etc is Mormon, and they all pretty closely follow church instructions or they will not be in office for long. I'm just trying to figure out how a church can virtually run a political campaign and still be considered a church. As the late, lamented George Carlin said, "If they wanna play the game, let 'em pay their f**king admission price like everyone else!"
Not like I've ever been able to afford boarding at Park City, but I'll stick to Heavenly, Dodge Ridge, Sugar Bowl and the rest of the California resorts this year. I might just make an extra trip to Whistler because Canada is such a forward thinking nation....that fact that it has the best snow I've ever been on has nothing to do with it. Seriously.

[Dunnyman]

Meanwhile I've heard gay rights activists are boycotting Utah to starve its tourism trade, for the Church of the Latter-Day Saints' part in Proposition 8. Ah, here we go. And here.

Makes one wonder if the LSD part in defeating Prop 8 goes a long way to making Mormons more acceptable to the Republican base thus making Mitt Romney more acceptable to those same voters in 2012. Just sayin'.

The Mormons were handing out acid to get voters to go with it?
Wow. That's a whole new way of campaigning............or was that a typo for LDS?

[BrettCullum]

Makes one wonder if the LSD part in defeating Prop 8 goes a long way to making Mormons more acceptable to the Republican base thus making Mitt Romney more acceptable to those same voters in 2012. Just sayin'.

Why does tripping on LSD make you more acceptable to Republicans?
Oh, did you mean LDS? Hee hee!

Did any gays go to Utah anyway? I always heard queer guys say they had moved from there, but I haven't seen many planning vacations to Utah. It's like a gay boycott of Branson, Missouri which already only attracts straight families. Or the gay boycott of the restaurant chain Cracker Barrell when most true gay guys wouldn't be caught dead in that place even if they were supportive. My God, all those carbs! And the country store vibe. It's like a horror house for even metrosexuals!

But I guess if they flock to Disney World and Disney Land anything is possible.

By the way, there are nationwide protests scheduled this weekend in all major cities. 10:30am on the West Coast, 12:30pm for the middle country, and 1:30pm for all you East Coasters. The GLBT community and supporters are supposed to show up at the City Hall. I plan on making a sign saying "I LOVE MY GAY DAD" just to piss off my Republican hardcore Baptist father who is the furthest thing from that you could imagine. I love it when politics get personal.

[TemporalWisdom]

Meanwhile I've heard gay rights activists are boycotting Utah to starve its tourism trade, for the Church of the Latter-Day Saints' part in Proposition 8. Ah, here we go. And here.

Makes one wonder if the LSD part in defeating Prop 8 goes a long way to making Mormons more acceptable to the Republican base thus making Mitt Romney more acceptable to those same voters in 2012. Just sayin'.

The Mormons were handing out acid to get voters to go with it?
Wow. That's a whole new way of campaigning............or was that a typo for LDS?

It's Captain Kirk, come from the future to save the humpback homos!

Also, LDS was in favor of Prop 8 -- "yes" is a vote to ban gay marriage.

You all know about Arkansas Initiative 1, right? There's a real kick in the pants. But it can't be constitutional, can it?

[Future Man]

What is Arkansas thinking? My word how absurd a notion is that.

[chris_mcclinch]

Meanwhile I've heard gay rights activists are boycotting Utah to starve its tourism trade, for the Church of the Latter-Day Saints' part in Proposition 8. Ah, here we go. And here.

Makes one wonder if the LSD part in defeating Prop 8 goes a long way to making Mormons more acceptable to the Republican base thus making Mitt Romney more acceptable to those same voters in 2012. Just sayin'.

It might, but that kind of thinking ends up cutting off your nose to spite your face. The Republican base is going to vote Republican in the general election, no matter what, but these tactics make it much more likely that the Obama Republicans vote democratic without attracting any of the Reagan Democrats. It's a whole lot smarter to throw your base the occasional bone while playing to the middle than vice-versa.

[Dunnyman]

http://www.palinaspresident.us/never/index.html
Sorry, but it's hilarious

[HGervais]

Man. It's nice to know I'm not totally crazy. I have been saying for years that global warming and our energy dependence on middle eastern oil are national security issues and are all related. Finally a president who can see the reality in front of his nose. Change I can believe in.

[Dan Mancini]

Cap-and-trade won't work.

[HGervais]

Cap-and-trade won't work.

Granted the process of setting it up will have problems but I think cap & trade makes more sense then a carbon tax or more regulation.

[Ptolemy]

Cap-and-trade won't work.

Trying it IMO is better than doing nothing. Try it - if it doesn't work, move on and try something else - Until we come up with what will work. (And I'm not saying anyone is advocating doing nothing.)

Yes We Can.

[TemporalWisdom]

Aaaaaaaaaaaaand Begich defeats Stevens in Alaska. My faith is restored.

Maybe Palin will lose in 2010; she's not so entrenched as Stevens was. If Alaskans take issue with her illicit per diem charges and Troopergate, she may have real trouble holding on to the Governorship. Depends partly on whether the Democrats can field a strong challenger, but (Begich notwithstanding) Alaska's pretty red, so there might be a better shot of a strong Republican candidate unhorsing her in the primary. If she loses that job, she can forget about trying for President.

[Parklife]

Two thoughts......

one, I really don't think Palin is as bad as people are making her out to be... if she is the new republican party, I honestly believe they could have done worse. Everything she's done in office has been to the benefit of her constituents (all alaskans) or at lest attempts at benefitting Alaskans, and she hasn't attempted to legislate her personal beliefs yet isn't shy about voicing them.

two, in the end I voted for Obama despite my reservations about him really promoting change. I'm really feeling a bit worried that he is going to bring in Clinton era advisors and I'm more worried about the increasing buzz I'm hearing about Hillary as SoS. Something tells me Obama is doing it for, what he sees, as the right reason. Reach out to Hillary while also appealing to the core. But, if he appeases the core by bringing in long-term dems as a reward for their party loyalty/work and tries to appeal to the Clinton backers while giving her SoS, man that will really get us nowhere fast.

At first, I thought the buzz about Clinton was just a ruse, a mis-interpreted extension of the Obama hand. But this isn't losing steam, the British press is already reporting it as a done deal, I'm reading Yahoo stories about lawyers vetting Hillary for the job, and the cabinet is taking much longer than I would have thought (I thought we'd at least have a few minor posts already accounted for).

[HGervais]

two, in the end I voted for Obama despite my reservations about him really promoting change. I'm really feeling a bit worried that he is going to bring in Clinton era advisors and I'm more worried about the increasing buzz I'm hearing about Hillary as SoS. Something tells me Obama is doing it for, what he sees, as the right reason. Reach out to Hillary while also appealing to the core. But, if he appeases the core by bringing in long-term dems as a reward for their party loyalty/work and tries to appeal to the Clinton backers while giving her SoS, man that will really get us nowhere fast.

At first, I thought the buzz about Clinton was just a ruse, a mis-interpreted extension of the Obama hand. But this isn't losing steam, the British press is already reporting it as a done deal, I'm reading Yahoo stories about lawyers vetting Hillary for the job, and the cabinet is taking much longer than I would have thought (I thought we'd at least have a few minor posts already accounted for).

Well, there is change and there is getting change done. In the past 32 years there have been two Democratic administrations and if you look at Clinton's first two years and Carter's entire term, their dealings with Congress were a disaster. If you are Obama and you have an agenda you want accomplished I think you have to bring in people with experience and that means a lot of Clinton people. I just don't see a way around it. There is simply too much work to be done for there to be a training wheels period. You have to have people who have relationships & experience with Capital Hill to hit the ground running.
As for Hillary...I don't know. First off, I don't understand why you would want the job if you are Sen. Clinton because with it she probably walks away from eventually being the first female majority leader in the Senate and if she accepts State it pretty much means she will never run for President again....which makes sense for Obama but not Hillary. I think this is one appointment where Obama would like to think outside the box but doesn't think he has the latitude to do so. Clinton strikes me as a pretty safe pick. She's smart, she works hard, she would garner bi-partisan support, so who knows? The questions that pops up to me is the same one I had when people kept saying Obama had to pick her as VP....what do you do with Bill? If this doesn't happen, and I'm not convinced it will, it will be because of Bill and the money donors connected with his foundation.
As far as the speed of his appointments...early December is still earlier than most recent president-elects have named Cabinet posts. Let him take the time to get the right people.

[Dan Mancini]

Cap-and-trade won't work.

Granted the process of setting it up will have problems but I think cap & trade makes more sense then a carbon tax or more regulation.

I'm in the camp that firmly believes cap-and-trade will result in more emissions -- to say nothing of the potential for corporate/political corruption and influence peddling. It's a racket...and one that will likely open the gate to the law of unintended consequences. And with these sorts of things, once the genie's out of the bottle, it's awfully difficult to stuff him back in. So, yeah, sometimes it's better to do nothing.

Of course, I could be wrong.

[Future Man]

How Obama Got Elected
http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.cfm?ID=1642

Ancient history and water under the bridge and all that, but I still say I love love love! the mainstream media. Who knew that Obama won his first election by getting the other candidates removed from the ballot? And of course Obama's "57 states" remark was utterly ignored. Just give America all the facts, good and bad, about all the candidates with equal vigor, is really all I would hope for in future contests.

[Dan Mancini]

two, in the end I voted for Obama despite my reservations about him really promoting change. I'm really feeling a bit worried that he is going to bring in Clinton era advisors and I'm more worried about the increasing buzz I'm hearing about Hillary as SoS. Something tells me Obama is doing it for, what he sees, as the right reason. Reach out to Hillary while also appealing to the core. But, if he appeases the core by bringing in long-term dems as a reward for their party loyalty/work and tries to appeal to the Clinton backers while giving her SoS, man that will really get us nowhere fast.

At first, I thought the buzz about Clinton was just a ruse, a mis-interpreted extension of the Obama hand. But this isn't losing steam, the British press is already reporting it as a done deal, I'm reading Yahoo stories about lawyers vetting Hillary for the job, and the cabinet is taking much longer than I would have thought (I thought we'd at least have a few minor posts already accounted for).

Well, there is change and there is getting change done. In the past 32 years there have been two Democratic administrations and if you look at Clinton's first two years and Carter's entire term, their dealings with Congress were a disaster. If you are Obama and you have an agenda you want accomplished I think you have to bring in people with experience and that means a lot of Clinton people. I just don't see a way around it. There is simply too much work to be done for there to be a training wheels period. You have to have people who have relationships & experience with Capital Hill to hit the ground running.

To me, it's a promising sign that Obama may actually be a political pragmatist. If he selected a Kos-approved cabinet, he really would be Carter II...only with the added bonus of The Great Depression Redux.

The Holder nomination doesn't exactly demonstrate a tenacious push to clean up sleazy political influence, though.

[Ptolemy]

Who knew that Obama won his first election by getting the other candidates removed from the ballot?

I did! It was discussed several times on NPR. Didn't Fox talk about it? I think they may have been too busy saying 'we don't know enough about this Obama character' instead of doing thier job and trying to find out/share what is known.

Obama caught his opponents (he got them all removed from the ballot IIRC) with bad signatures on their petitions. To me it doesn't make Obama seem particularly nasty, it makes those opponents seem somewhat lazy and sloppy. IMO point goes to Obama for not being lazy and not being sloppy and for making sure election rules are followed. If that helped him get elected, well that kind of stuff is supposed to help. Would you rather that election had gone to those folks who (lets be charitable here) turned in their petitions without checking them?

[Dunnyman]

Who knew that Obama won his first election by getting the other candidates removed from the ballot? And of course Obama's "57 states" remark was utterly ignored. Just give America all the facts, good and bad, about all the candidates with equal vigor, is really all I would hope for in future contests.

Are you gonna whine for the next 8 years? They did give us all the facts, McCain was a liar, he had lobbyists running his campaign, he went off the rails every time something went wrong, he voted with Bush 90% of the time and he selected a frickin' lunatic to be his VP, while Obama kept his word, acted like a grownup and selected a qualified, talented individual for his VP, and what 340 something electoral votes and a major landslide later he's the man.
Get. Over. It.
Wasn't that what all the Republicans were saying for 8 years?
Get. Used. To. It.

Speaking of Republican idiots:
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2008/11 ... -indicted/
Sorry, Dick, you're in a spot of trouble here, and it's the tip of the iceberg that's about to mow your criminal ass over.
Alberto? You arrogant, Constitution shredding little pipsqueak? You're going to get yours, too. Both of you will look swell in orange!
And lookee there, reported by FOX News, let me guess Future? Liberal bias, right? No sirree, it's the Republicans own official propaganda arm!
Ain't karma grand?

[HGervais]

The Holder nomination doesn't exactly demonstrate a tenacious push to clean up sleazy political influence, though.

I don't know...you take his being agnostic over the Marc Rich pardon away....something he apologized for several years ago....and you have a guy who looks to be a pretty good potential AG. His record as a federal prosecuter is strong as was his time on the bench and as the #2 of the DoJ. Again we need to wait and see if the job is officially offered but strictly on the face of things, he looks like a solid pick.

[Dan Mancini]

Who knew that Obama won his first election by getting the other candidates removed from the ballot? And of course Obama's "57 states" remark was utterly ignored. Just give America all the facts, good and bad, about all the candidates with equal vigor, is really all I would hope for in future contests.

Are you gonna whine for the next 8 years?

I believe it's his turn. You've whined for the last 8.

To me it doesn't make Obama seem particularly nasty, it makes those opponents seem somewhat lazy and sloppy. IMO point goes to Obama for not being lazy and not being sloppy and for making sure election rules are followed.

Yes, having opponents disqualified because petitions contained printed signatures instead of cursive is not hardball Chicago politics. In fact, it's noble...and a help to primary voters who were freed of the burden of making an actual choice. I'm not the least bit shocked or appalled by the tactic (frankly, I don't care), but let's not spin ourselves dizzy trying to maintain the illusion that our president-elect is a new breed of post-partisan politician.

[HGervais]

CNN is reporting that former Senate Majority Leader and Obama national co-chair Tom Dashle has been offered and accepted the HHS job.

CHICAGO (CNN) — Three sources close to the transition and in a position to know tell CNN that former Sen. Tom Daschle is President-elect Barack Obama's choice to be Secretary of Health and Human Services and the former Senate Majority Leader has indicated he wants the job.

Most significantly, Daschle negotiated that he will also serve as the White House health "czar" — or point person — so that he will report directly to the incoming President. The significance is this guarantees that by wearing two hats Daschle, and not White House staffers, will be writing the health care plan that Obama submits to Congress next year.

The sources said the precise timing of the announcement has not been worked out, but Daschle is likely to officially join the Obama transition team as the lead adviser on health issues in the next few weeks. An Obama transition official had no comment.

Daschle is billed as a "special public policy advisor" in the Washington office of the lobbying firm Alston Bird, though he is technically not a federally registered lobbyist. But his wife, Linda Daschle, is a registered lobbyist at the powerful firm Baker Donelson, which does have some health clients.

[HGervais]

Finally!

With all jurisdictions reporting complete but unofficial results, McCain led Obama by 3,632 votes Wednesday out of more than 2.9 million cast — a margin of 0.12 percentage points.

Both men spent considerable resources trying to win Missouri, a state that Obama ultimately did not need for his national victory.

Obama won 365 electoral votes. Missouri's 11 electoral votes will give McCain 173.

This is the first time since 1956 that Missouri didn't go for the eventual winner of the election.

[Ptolemy]

To me it doesn't make Obama seem particularly nasty, it makes those opponents seem somewhat lazy and sloppy. IMO point goes to Obama for not being lazy and not being sloppy and for making sure election rules are followed.

Yes, having opponents disqualified because petitions contained printed signatures instead of cursive is not hardball Chicago politics. In fact, it's noble...and a help to primary voters who were freed of the burden of making an actual choice. I'm not the least bit shocked or appalled by the tactic (frankly, I don't care), but let's not spin ourselves dizzy trying to maintain the illusion that our president-elect is a new breed of post-partisan politician.

I see your point - but I don't entirely agree. Call this spin if you will, but you play to win. If during an important drive in a football game the defense accidentally puts too many people on the field. You as the offense do your best to get the ball snapped before that 12th person can get off - and if the ball is snapped and the guy is still on the field, even if he is streaking for the sideline 20 or 30 yards from the line of scrimmage - the defense still receives a penalty. And if as the offense you decline that penalty or pause to let the guy off the field - you'll be the one blamed if you eventually lose.

I'm NOT saying that is the way things should be (especially in football), in fact I think the opposite. But it is our reality.

If the guy was 69 valid signatures short - is that Obama's fault? Is Obama the bad guy for pointing out where the election rules are not being met? Again, call it spin, but I think what this situation points out is that Obama or Obama's staff paid attention to the details. His opponents didn't. Obama won. I think it is just as 'spinny' to say that this situation means Obama was out to 'free the primary voters of the burden of making an actual choice'.

His opponents didn't meet the criteria to be on the ballot. Obama's fault?

[HGervais]

The thing about Obama that I like is that he does pay attention to the details. He plays the long game. He tackles adversity head on and isn't afraid to adjust but if there is one thing that I really like about him it is his ability to know when to step back and let the opposition self-destruct. He did it with Clinton and he did it with McCain. Make no mistake, he is a tough operator but he is a smart about it. Change doesn't happen on its own. It needs to be fought for. Everything about Obama signals he understands that and almost everything he is doing staff-wise seems to reflect that. Obama will screw up. Everyone does but everything I see about him says he is a person who learns from his mistakes and is willing to alter course when he needs to based on his own errors or changes that occur due to circumstances. After the past 8 years that is the most welcome sight I can imagine.

[Dunnyman]

I see your point - but I don't entirely agree. Call this spin if you will, but you play to win. If during an important drive in a football game the defense accidentally puts too many people on the field. You as the offense do your best to get the ball snapped before that 12th person can get off - and if the ball is snapped and the guy is still on the field, even if he is streaking for the sideline 20 or 30 yards from the line of scrimmage - the defense still receives a penalty. And if as the offense you decline that penalty or pause to let the guy off the field - you'll be the one blamed if you eventually lose.

I'm NOT saying that is the way things should be (especially in football), in fact I think the opposite. But it is our reality.

If the guy was 69 valid signatures short - is that Obama's fault? Is Obama the bad guy for pointing out where the election rules are not being met? Again, call it spin, but I think what this situation points out is that Obama or Obama's staff paid attention to the details. His opponents didn't. Obama won. I think it is just as 'spinny' to say that this situation means Obama was out to 'free the primary voters of the burden of making an actual choice'.

His opponents didn't meet the criteria to be on the ballot. Obama's fault?

No, not Obama's fault, merely an opportunity to win, which he took. In any situation, where it's a win/loss scenario, you play to win. Always. And if the opponent makes a mistake or screws up, by all means, point it out. I watched the Fresno Falcons win a playoff series by pointing out with two minutes to go that an opposing player had an illegal stick, they got the powerplay, scored and won by being smarter than their opponents. I asked the coach about and he said he knew all along, but he waited until it could do him some good. Obama did much the same thing. I consider it a sign of great intellect, and cool reasoning, something we've been missing in the White House now for almost 8 years....

[Ptolemy]

[No, not Obama's fault, merely an opportunity to win, which he took. In any situation, where it's a win/loss scenario, you play to win. Always. And if the opponent makes a mistake or screws up, by all means, point it out. I watched the Fresno Falcons win a playoff series by pointing out with two minutes to go that an opposing player had an illegal stick, they got the powerplay, scored and won by being smarter than their opponents. I asked the coach about and he said he knew all along, but he waited until it could do him some good. Obama did much the same thing. I consider it a sign of great intellect, and cool reasoning, something we've been missing in the White House now for almost 8 years....

I disagree on the sports analogies (even mine from above) - In roller derby we have a saying, "No harm, no foul" - and I like that. If the guy is running off the field and has no impact on the play - then IMO no penalty should be called. The coach waiting to bring up an infraction until it most benefits him is unsportsmanlike in my book. But again the rules are what they are and I can't fault referees, coaches, or players for insisting the rules be followed.

Could Obama have let the other players slide and use their petitions that had been filled out incorrectly, turned in late, or gathered by someone without permission to do so? Sure. Did he know none of his primary opponents would make the cut? I doubt it. Asking that the petitions be validated was within the law and IMO within the spirit of the law. He and his team were doing what they could to maximize his chances of winning. And in this case I think the system worked beautifully. The other candidates didn't make the cut. This isn't a case of a missed communication on the sidelines or somebody accidentaly picking up the wrong hockey stick - this is a candidate (or his or her staff) not paying attention to the details. Obama's staff did pay attention and the result was victory for the guy who assembled and led the better team.

[Future Man]

The Holder nomination doesn't exactly demonstrate a tenacious push to clean up sleazy political influence, though.

I don't know...you take his being agnostic over the Marc Rich pardon away....something he apologized for several years ago....and you have a guy who looks to be a pretty good potential AG. His record as a federal prosecuter is strong as was his time on the bench and as the #2 of the DoJ. Again we need to wait and see if the job is officially offered but strictly on the face of things, he looks like a solid pick.

Did he apologize for his role in Clinton's decision to grant the FALN clemencies too? Clemencies they weren't even asking for? And that the House and Senate overwhelmingly condemned?

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YmM1OGM4OGRiNTI5NTIzOTFkMDAwMTJiNGFlYWFiZGI=

[HGervais]

Did he apologize for his role in Clinton's decision to grant the FALN clemencies too? Clemencies they weren't even asking for? And that the House and Senate overwhelmingly condemned?

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YmM1OGM4OGRiNTI5NTIzOTFkMDAwMTJiNGFlYWFiZGI=

And the reality based response from The Volokh Conspriacy:

Responding to the National Review on Eric Holder:
The National Review Online has posted an editorial criticizing Obama's apparent pick of Eric Holder as Attorney General. NRO's bottom line: "To be blunt, Holder is a terrible selection. If there’s any Obama cabinet nomination that Republicans feel moved to oppose, this should be it."

NRO makes two basic arguments against Holder. First, he is a "conventional" liberal. According to NRO,
[Holder] is convinced justice in America needs to be “established” rather than enforced; he’s excited about hate crimes and enthusiastic about the constitutionally dubious Violence Against Women Act; he’s a supporter of affirmative action and a practitioner of the statistical voodoo that makes it possible to burden police departments with accusations of racial profiling and the states with charges of racially skewed death-penalty enforcement; he’s more likely to be animated by a touchy-feely Reno-esque agenda than traditional enforcement against crimes; he’s in favor of ending the detentions of enemy combatants at Guantanamo Bay and favors income redistribution to address the supposed root causes of crime.
In any other time, Holder would simply be an uninspired choice. But these are not ordinary times — we face a serious, persistent threat from Islamist terrorists. At the same time, Democrats have expressed outrage over both the alleged politicization of the Justice Department and the reckless disregard of its storied traditions. For these times, it is difficult to imagine a worse choice for AG than Eric Holder.
I don't know Holder well (I once shook his hand, I think), and I don't have any particular reason to defend him. But I don't quite follow the argument here. Holder's views sound a lot like President-Elect Obama's, which are in turn more or less the views you might expect to be held by a Democrat appointee. Isn't that what you would expect from a Democratic President? Of course, you don't have to vote for the Democratic nominee: I didn't. But the Democrat won, and surely the standard for measuring who would be a good pick for AG has to factor this into account. Also, to the extent the NRO is arguing that Holder is too political or somehow has "recklessly disregarded" DOJ's traditions, the editorial hasn't even bothered to provide evidence for it. (Having served under Holder myself at DOJ for 2 and a half years, I can say that I never thought of him as political.)

Next, NRO argues that Holder played too much of a role in controversial pardons and commutations that President Clinton granted. The lead example is of the Marc Rich pardon, which was the subject of a Congressional report that labeled Holder's role "unconscionable." But the NRO leaves out that the report was directed by Dan Burton, a ferocious Clinton critic who was famous for believing that Vince Foster was murdered (you may recall Burton as the guy who reenacted Foster's death in his backyard by shooting a pumpkin that was supposed to stand in for Foster's head in order to help show Foster must have been murdered). A report championed by Dan Burton hardly seems like a neutral source for a judgment like that.

More broadly, the idea that Holder somehow furthered the Rich pardon to help himself become AG never quite made sense to me. Holder was already a natural pick for AG in a Democratic administration, and it's unclear why he would have thought that helping Jack Quinn with a private client would help get him that job — or how giving the pardon that the President wanted to grant a "neutral leaning favorable" review would be a way of helping Quinn. The story just doesn't make sense. I am certainly open to hearing more about it: Maybe there are details to the story that remain unknown that make the criticism of him more understandable. I trust the confirmation hearings will go through these issues again, and that certainly seems fair. But based on what we know so far, the case that Holder's conduct was "unconscionable" seems pretty weak to me.

I recognize, based on yesterday's post on Holder, that this post is likely to enrage a number of our more partisan Republican readers. Holder is a "Dem," after all, and some Republicans are eager to get back in the aggressive posture of attacking the Dems with whatever they can. But in my experience, Holder was an honorable and apolitical public servant. It might serve Republican party interests to go on the attack against him, but it doesn't strike me as either fair or honorable to do so.

[Chris_Sax]

Holder is a Drug Warrior, so he can get bent.

[HGervais]

Funny in a very wrong way. Palin being interviewed in Alaska giving her typical blah-blah-blah line of crap....all the while turkeys are being killed in the background. Gobble gobble gobb....

[HGervais]

Looks like President-elect Obama is set ot name New York Federal Reserve President Timothy Geithner as Treasury secretary and with that the Dow surged nearly 500 points.
It looks like Hillary Clinton is ready to accept the job at State or so says The New York Times. Still don't know how I feel about that one.
And something else for the weekend shows to chew on it looks like Bill Richardson is in line for the Commerce job according to The Washington Post.
Discus. Rinse. Discus at greater length.

[Future Man]

I like Bill Richardson. Don't know abuot his qualifications for the post but he has always seemed like a good man to me, an earnest public servant with no taste for spin.

[Dunnyman]

I like Bill Richardson. Don't know abuot his qualifications for the post but he has always seemed like a good man to me, an earnest public servant with no taste for spin.

Future, he's a babykiller liberal Democrat. He's Satan. Plus, he's of Hispanic heritage and not to be trusted. Come to your senses, man.

[Future Man]

I like to throw you guys a bone every now and then.

[HGervais]

Barack Obama.....knowing the future.

[HGervais]

I mentioned at some point in the Race To The White thread that people would be surprised by just how pragmatic & realistic Obama's world view seemed to be based on the advisors I saw in his orbit. None of those advisors carries more weight to someone like me than former Air Force general and National Security Advisor to the first, competent President Bush, Brent Scowcroft. The Wall Street Journal tracks down & explores the realtionship between the president-elect and the foriegn policy advisor right here.

[HGervais]

Looks like it is a done deal and Robert Gates is staying put at Defense for at least a year. Combine Gates and what looks to be the appointment of Gen. James Jones as National Security Advisor and Obama is putting together as impressive a national security team as he has for the economy.

[Gobear]

Looks like it is a done deal and Robert Gates is staying put at Defense for at least a year. Combine Gates and what looks to be the appointment of Gen. James Jones as National Security Advisor and Obama is putting together as impressive a national security team as he has for the economy.

Meh. I knew that Obama was a DLC centrist, i.e., not a liberal, but his appointments reek of "more of the same" to me. I still would vote for him again if only to keep Sarah Palin from being VP, but it is disheartening to see my most cynical expectations confirmed.

[HGervais]

Meh. I knew that Obama was a DLC centrist, i.e., not a liberal, but his appointments reek of "more of the same" to me. I still would vote for him again if only to keep Sarah Palin from being VP, but it is disheartening to see my most cynical expectations confirmed.

I think you are underestimating what Gates allows Obama to accomplish. As Obama noted today he is the one who lays out the vision and it is up to his appointments to carry out his policies. If after two years we have left Iraq, are in a better position with Afghanistan and have managed to box in Iran, will Gates have just been more of the same? Obama has not deviated one bit from what he was talking about on the campaign trail and he is putting people in place with proven track records to achieve his goals. Robert Gates is a smart guy who has displayed not only great competence but also a distinct lack of idealogical zeal. Congress trusts him & the military brass trusts him. I guess I fail to see where giving yourself the best chance to be effective is cynical. As for James Jones, any guy who can be denied three jobs because of the objections of Dick Cheney can't be all bad. Again, smart, independent and competent.
*Edit*
Also worth noting that while Gates will probably remain his deputies would more than likely change. This bit from Politico:
EXCLUSIVE: Secretary Gates’ deputy at the Pentagon is slated to be Richard Danzig, who was Navy secretary under President Clinton. The #3 (policy) will PROBABLY be Michele Flournoy, a Clinton administration veteran who was dual-hatted as principal deputy assistant secretary of defense for strategy and threat reduction, and deputy assistant secretary of defense for strategy.

[HGervais]

President-elect Obama's Thanksgiving message. I really can't help it. I love this guy.

[HGervais]

Obama's pick of retired general Eric Shinseki as Secretary of Veterans Affairs is another in a long series of pragmatic moves that also highlights what a tough political operator he is. James Fallows sums up the artistry of the pick best:

Barack Obama is all about bipartisanship, conciliation, binding up wounds, and so forth. Great! If only more presidents saw things that way.

But in his (reported) choice of Eric Shinseki as Secretary of Veterans Affairs, there is also an extremely refined aspect of sticking in the shiv.

Whenever he talks about this selection, Obama (plus his lieutenants) can describe it completely, sufficiently, and strictly in the most bipartisan high-road terms. They have selected a wounded combat veteran; a proven military leader and manager; a model of personal dignity and nonpartisan probity: an unimpeachable choice. Symbolic elements? If people want them, they can work with Shinseki's status as (to my recollection at the moment) the first Asian-American in a military-related cabinet position, not to mention a Japanese-American honored for lifelong military service on Pearl Harbor Day.

As for the other symbolic element -- that Obama is elevating the man who was right, when Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Cheney, et al were so catastrophically wrong -- that is something that neither Obama nor anyone around him need say out loud, ever. The nomination is like a hyper-precision missile, or what is known in politics as a "dog whistle." The people for whom this is a complete slap in the face don't need to be told that. They know -- and know that others know it too. So do the people for whom it is vindication. And all without Obama descending for one second from his bring-us-together higher plane.

The artistry here is remarkable. Along with the inspired nature of this choice.

[Future Man]

Well IF that's really the motivation it's hard to feel inspired. But that's a lot to ask of leaders these days.

[HGervais]

No the motivation is that you have a very qualified individual who is especially attuned to the needs of our veterans and you have another overture to a skeptical military by Obama. That he is one of the only generals to show the balls in telling Rumsfeld & company the truth they didn't want to hear, and to be proven so right in the aftermath, is just gravy. And Mike, so what are we just supposed to forget everything that was done by the Bush administration? Are we supposed to ignore the mistakes, the lapses of judgment and the pure elevation of politics over policy? Are we supposed to just sweep away the things that were done to civil liberties and the Constituition these past 7 years? If the outgoing administration were guilty of all these things were a Democratic one and not a Republican administration don't you think people who think like you would be howling for blood? If Obama wants to pick a solid & competent person to head up an agency AND it gives him a chance to flip the middle finger at the yahoos who put this country in such a mess in the process, more power to him. Shinseki is an inspired choice on a lot of different levels.