A New Face of the RNC

Former Maryland Lt. Michael Steele was elected as the Chairman of the Republican National Committee today. He now becomes the first African-American male to lead the right wing, anti-gay, anti-choice, religious, big tent party.

More later.

Commerce Secretary

The political blogosphere is abuzz this evening as word is spreading like wildfire that President Obama will name New Hampshire Senator Judd Gregg as the next Secretary of Commerce. This is important as Senator Gregg is a Republican and if he is asked and accepts, his successor will be named by Democratic Governor John Lynch. Thus, converting New Hampshire to an all blue state and giving Democrats in the Senate that magic number of 60! Of course, happens only if the Minnesota Senate Contest is decided in Al Franken's favor.

Nate Silver, a genius with numbers, has a very interesting piece over at FiveThirtyEight:

Should Democrats Beware Republicans Bearing Gifts?

Hmm:

There is a strong possibility that Barack Obama will ask Sen. Judd Gregg (R-NH) to serve as his Secretary of Commerce, Democratic Senate aides tell the Huffington Post.

The move would fill a vacancy that has lingered since Gov. Bill Richardson withdrew his nomination. And provided that Al Franken emerges victorious in the Minnesota recount, it would give Democrats in the Senate a 60th caucusing member, as New Hampshire's Democratic governor John Lynch would appoint Gregg's replacement.
Judd Gregg is up for re-election in 2010 and stands to face a vigorous challenge, most likely from 2nd District Congressman Paul Hodes, but remains reasonably popular and would be the favorite in that race. By Senate standards, he is a relative youngin' at 61 years old, but he's been in politics forever, having first been elected to the House of Representatives at age 33 in 1980. Joining the Obama cabinet, then, is probably not a matter of Gregg's political survival, but more likely would represent a sort of early retirement.

Then again, retirement seems to be a fairly attractive option for a lot of Senate Republicans these days. The fact of the matter is that:

(i) The Republicans will be in the minority in the Senate for at least the next four years. It is close to mathematically impossible for them to re-gain the chamber in 2010 given the seats that are up for grabs in that cycle. There is considerably more upside in 2012, when a lot of freshman Democrats elected in the 2006 wave will be up for re-election, but 2012 is also a year when Obama and his massive turnout operation will be on the ballot. Realistically, the odds of Republicans re-gaining control of the chamber before 2014 are low.

(ii) The working assumption in Washington right now is that Barack Obama will be re-elected in 2012. This is arguably shortsighted -- we know how much things can change in four years. But it's the working assumption being made by both parties for the time being.

(iii) The Republican party establishment wants no part of its senators, instead looking toward its governors and to a much lesser extent the House Republicans as its future.

(iv) While I know nothing about what sort of company Gregg keeps, a lot of Republicans that are close to him ideologically have retired or are planning to do so.

All of this makes the Senate a lonely place to be. If Gregg runs for re-election in 2010 and wins, he is more likely than not facing another six years under a Democratic President, and another four to six years in the minority party.

At the same time, I'm not sure that the Republicans are all that screwed over if Gregg leaves the Senate and a Democrat is appointed in his stead. Yes, it gets the Democrats to their magic number of 60. But 60 is an overrated, fuzzy number given that Olympia Snowe has sided with the administration on 26 of 31 roll call votes so far, and that Susan Collins, Arlen Specter, Lisa Murkowski and George Voinovich aren't far behind her. Moreover, if the Democrats actually get the 60th seat, it will be much harder for them to play the obstructionism card in 2010 -- and much easier, conversely, for the Republicans to play the divided government card.

Now, let's not be too contrarian here: if this happens, it is almost certainly a net gain for Democrats. But it might be relatively small one, given that:

1a) Gregg was voting with the Democrats reasonably often anyway;

1b) His replacement, conversely, would likely be someone fairly moderate who wouldn't vote with the Democrats 100% of the time;

2) Gregg, who has been a pretty reliable fiscal conservative, would presumably have at least some influence shaping policy from the Commerce Department;

3) The perceived benefit to the Democrats from getting a 60th seat is greater than the real one, increasing the risk that they will be seen as overreaching by the time that 2010 rolls around.

-- Nate Silver at 12:08 AM
____________________________________

I generally agree with what Nate has to say regarding this potential appointment. Yes, it could give the Democrats that magic 60, but they would need to be very, very careful how they used it.

What this article does not discuss in this article, but I feel is equally important is how the permanent conservative majority which Karl Rove and George W. Bush were trying to build is now completely dead. I am going to take a shot in the dark here and predict that Democrats will loose a couple of Senate seats in the 2010 Elections and probably a few House seats as well. But, back in the mid-90's with Newt Gingrich and the Republican Revulsion (I mean Revolution), there was talk of a permanent Republican Majority which would last a couple of generations. Now, we have to be careful here, because it is very possible that in 2012 Democrats could loose everything; but, the American people have seen how conservatives run the country. And they do not like it.

Furthermore, the American people are tired of the hypocrisy of the Republican Party. It is "do as I say, not as I do." While the population was staying in the middle, the Republicans kept moving to the right and as much as they say they want limited government, they also want to regulate who we love and what we do with our bodies. That my friends is not limited government, that is government control over our persons. Eavesdropping and spying on the citizens of this country is not "security"; it is government controlling our lives. As much as the Republicans can talk about how they will protect us, their idea of protection is not letting us do anything. It is like a mother who does not want her child to drown so she never lets him near water.

But, we must be very careful with this. Democrats must be conciliatory towards their Republican colleagues. They must ensure that they do not make the same mistakes that Republicans made in 2004 and 2005. If they become arrogant, then they will be kicked out of office. It wasn't that America was embracing the policies of pro-life and war mongering, it was that they were tired of the party in power flaunting that power and not being held accountable.

The recent impeachment of Rod Blagojevich is a prime example. He got drunk with power and thought he was a nation unto himself. He did not think he could be held accountable and lambasted the system in place for that accountability. President Obama has done a great job in his first two weeks in office trying to sound the right tone and reaching out to the other party. He has also kept his party in check. If things continue this way, then we should not have any other Blagojevich type problems and this country will be able heal and move on from the tragedy of the Bush Era.

Gotta Love 'Em

From Politico:

Cornyn could be thorn in Clinton confirmation

By GLENN THRUSH 1/20/09 4:09 AM EST Text Size:

The timing of Clinton’s appointment remains in the hands of Cornyn, who has threatened to block a resolution.

’Twas the night before Inauguration, and Hillary Clinton’s fate was still up in the air.

That Clinton will be the next secretary of state is not in serious doubt after the Foreign Relations Committee recommended her approval 16-1 last week.

But the timing of Clinton’s appointment remains in the hands of Texas Republican John Cornyn, who has threatened to block an Inauguration Day “unanimous consent” resolution approving Clinton’s nomination.

If he follows through, it would force Harry Reid to schedule a full roll call vote, probably on Wednesday, delaying Clinton’s resignation from the Senate — and maybe the appointment of her successor — by 24 hours.

Cornyn — joined by fellow Republicans Dick Lugar and Tom Coburn — has asked the former first lady to improve and increase oversight of her husband’s international charitable fundraising, arguing that foreign powers may try to sway her by contributing to the former president’s foundation.

Late last week, Cornyn, the incoming head of the National Republican Senatorial Committee, penned a letter asking Clinton to revise a five-page disclosure agreement with Obama. As of Monday night, she had not answered to the senator’s satisfaction, a Cornyn spokeswoman suggested.

“It’s the senator’s hope that we will find common ground,” Tina Gray said. “It’s his hope they’ll meet him halfway.”

“He is keeping all of his options on the table,” another spokesman, Kevin McLaughlin, added in an e-mail.

Clinton spokesman Philippe Reines didn’t respond to requests for comment. But a top Democratic aide told Politico he didn’t expect the situation to be resolved, one way or another, until Tuesday afternoon.

Spokeswoman: Biden Was Never Offered the Job

Team Obama is recasting Jill Biden’s comment — on Monday’s “Oprah” — that her husband was offered a choice of the VP job or the secretary of state slot.

A simple misunderstanding, says vice president-elect spokeswoman Elizabeth Alexander:

“Like anyone who followed the presidential campaign this summer, Dr. Jill Biden knew there was a chance that President-elect Obama might ask her husband to serve in some capacity and that, given his background, the positions of vice president and secretary of state were possibilities. Dr. Biden’s point to Oprah today was that being vice president would be a better fit for their family because they would get to see him more and get to participate in serving more. To be clear, President-elect Obama offered Vice President-elect Biden one job only: to be his running mate. And the vice president-elect was thrilled to accept the offer.”

CBC Staffs Up

The Congressional Black Caucus, gearing up for a frenetic session, has hired former Stephanie Tubbs Jones chief of staff Patrice Willoughby as its new executive director.

J. Jioni Palmer, the national press secretary of Media Matters, has been named CBC communications director. Palmer is a former Newsday reporter and recently served as press secretary for the House Ways and Means Committee, which afforded him ample opportunity to show off his bottomless stock of bow ties.

Irene Schwoeffermann, a 2004 Howard University grad, is staying on as coalitions director.

Where’s the Outrage?

One reason Tim Geithner seems to be squeaking through: The usual chain — in which conservative media stokes outrage from the public, which then floods Hill Republicans with anger — seems to have been severed by the financial crisis.

Rush Limbaugh, for one, is puzzled and frustrated.

“Having a guy in charge of the IRS with multiple tax issues might have sullied the Immaculate Inauguration, but now that Barack Obama has determined it won’t be a problem, it won’t be a problem,” Limbaugh said last week. “I still can’t figure out why they’ve dumped [Commerce pick Bill] Richardson. They threw him under the bus for far less than what’s gone on here.

“Why are the American people not up in arms about this?”

Whatever the answer, relatively few commentators or editorial pages have called outright for Geithner’s cowlicked scalp.

An exception: the Rocky Mountain News, which demanded Monday that Geithner withdraw his nomination and decried “the relatively muted reaction by Republicans to these disturbing revelations.”

But there’s been no coordinated national outcry such as the one that led to the defeat of the first bank bailout vote in the House. And it’s noteworthy that the campaign against the Treasury pick, such as it is, has been led by a Northern moderate (Arlen Specter) and not by some senator from a region farther south or west, where the Dittoheads traditionally rule.

Even Limbaugh seems to let Geithner off the hook a bit, blaming his tax woes on an overly complicated IRS code.

“I mean, it’s so common. It ensnares so many worthwhile public servants. It’s a mistake everybody makes. It’s such a common mistake. Isn’t it time to get rid of the mistake, which is the law, not the people?”

Well Begun Is Half-Done

In a new Rasmussen survey, 10 percent of Americans say the economy is getting better. Twelve percent say economic conditions in the United States are already “good” or “excellent.”

_________________
Call it a hunch, but I think we might be in for a lot of this in the next few years. You know, the democrats tried to play nice with most of Bush's appointments, you would think the republican's would do the same for Obama! Fat chance.

I Love Paul Krugman

From The New York Times:

January 2, 2009
Op-Ed Columnist

Bigger Than Bush

By PAUL KRUGMAN

As the new Democratic majority prepares to take power, Republicans have become, as Phil Gramm might put it, a party of whiners.

Some of the whining almost defies belief. Did Alberto Gonzales, the former attorney general, really say, “I consider myself a casualty, one of the many casualties of the war on terror”? Did Rush Limbaugh really suggest that the financial crisis was the result of a conspiracy, masterminded by that evil genius Chuck Schumer?

But most of the whining takes the form of claims that the Bush administration’s failure was simply a matter of bad luck — either the bad luck of President Bush himself, who just happened to have disasters happen on his watch, or the bad luck of the G.O.P., which just happened to send the wrong man to the White House.

The fault, however, lies not in Republicans’ stars but in themselves. Forty years ago the G.O.P. decided, in effect, to make itself the party of racial backlash. And everything that has happened in recent years, from the choice of Mr. Bush as the party’s champion, to the Bush administration’s pervasive incompetence, to the party’s shrinking base, is a consequence of that decision.

If the Bush administration became a byword for policy bungles, for government by the unqualified, well, it was just following the advice of leading conservative think tanks: after the 2000 election the Heritage Foundation specifically urged the new team to “make appointments based on loyalty first and expertise second.”

Contempt for expertise, in turn, rested on contempt for government in general. “Government is not the solution to our problem,” declared Ronald Reagan. “Government is the problem.” So why worry about governing well?

Where did this hostility to government come from? In 1981 Lee Atwater, the famed Republican political consultant, explained the evolution of the G.O.P.’s “Southern strategy,” which originally focused on opposition to the Voting Rights Act but eventually took a more coded form: “You’re getting so abstract now you’re talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you’re talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is blacks get hurt worse than whites.” In other words, government is the problem because it takes your money and gives it to Those People.

Oh, and the racial element isn’t all that abstract, even now: Chip Saltsman, currently a candidate for the chairmanship of the Republican National Committee, sent committee members a CD including a song titled “Barack the Magic Negro” — and according to some reports, the controversy over his action has actually helped his chances.

So the reign of George W. Bush, the first true Southern Republican president since Reconstruction, was the culmination of a long process. And despite the claims of some on the right that Mr. Bush betrayed conservatism, the truth is that he faithfully carried out both his party’s divisive tactics — long before Sarah Palin, Mr. Bush declared that he visited his ranch to “stay in touch with real Americans” — and its governing philosophy.

That’s why the soon-to-be-gone administration’s failure is bigger than Mr. Bush himself: it represents the end of the line for a political strategy that dominated the scene for more than a generation.

The reality of this strategy’s collapse has not, I believe, fully sunk in with some observers. Thus, some commentators warning President-elect Barack Obama against bold action have held up Bill Clinton’s political failures in his first two years as a cautionary tale.

But America in 1993 was a very different country — not just a country that had yet to see what happens when conservatives control all three branches of government, but also a country in which Democratic control of Congress depended on the votes of Southern conservatives. Today, Republicans have taken away almost all those Southern votes — and lost the rest of the country. It was a grand ride for a while, but in the end the Southern strategy led the G.O.P. into a cul-de-sac.

Mr. Obama therefore has room to be bold. If Republicans try a 1993-style strategy of attacking him for promoting big government, they’ll learn two things: not only has the financial crisis discredited their economic theories, the racial subtext of anti-government rhetoric doesn’t play the way it used to.

Will the Republicans eventually stage a comeback? Yes, of course. But barring some huge missteps by Mr. Obama, that will not happen until they stop whining and look at what really went wrong. And when they do, they will discover that they need to get in touch with the real “real America,” a country that is more diverse, more tolerant, and more demanding of effective government than is dreamt of in their political philosophy.

Two-Face

From Think Progress:

Apparently, GOP Minority Leader Mitch McConnel doesn't believe in the $800 billion stimulus plan that President-Elect Obama wants to pass upon his swearing in is not worth it. In fact, he is leading the GOP's fight against it.

So, $700 billion for Wall Street is great, but when it comes to the American people, he says, "Screw you!"

Is there any wonder why the GOP lost in November?

Trend or Flash-in-the-Pants

Much has been written over the past month about the Presidential election on November 4th and whether it was a trend or a one time thing. Many pundits have said that it spells doom and gloom for the Republican Party. Others have suggested that it was a fluke Obama won. Here is my analysis of the election and what it all means.

1. The Republican Party is not dead. It is far from dead. They will come back meaner and more ferocious in two and four years. However, the Republican brand is not being looked upon in a favorable light. They have a lot of soul searching to do over the next several years. What direction do party leaders want to take the party? Do they swing hard right and make themselves a Christian party? If that is direction they go in, that spells doom for the brand. If party leaders focus on core conservative values; fiscal responsibility, national defense, smaller government, then there is a future for the party. The republicans need to get away from being the morality police for the nation. It is my belief that is one of the reasons they lost so horribly in November. No one likes having others beliefs pushed upon them. After eight years of a President who has consistently told us what we should believe and how we should believe it, the American people are tired. They want to be left alone in their own bedrooms and free to make their own choices in regards to their bodies.

2. The elections in 2000 and 2004 were two of the closest elections in American History. Those elections told us that this country wasn't so much divided evenly, but the citizens of this country were not sure what direction they wanted this nation to move. The fact that President Bush won in 2004 by 3 million votes on a national level and 150,000 votes in Ohio, shows that this nation wasn't sure what it wanted. If this country was truly a "center right" nation as many pundits have suggested, then Barack Obama would never have been able to win election by the widest margin of a non-incumbent in history. The United States Senate would not have come two seats away from being filibuster proof and Democrats would have picked up 20 plus seats in the House of Representatives. We are not a center right nation. We are nation which believes in the best of what people have to offer, whether that is right or left, is inconsequential.

3. If we look back to the elections of 1992 and 1996 you can see the beginnings of a trend toward a more blue America. It is my belief that the 2000 and 2004 elections were just a bump in that road. The southwestern United States were trending blue in 1992 and 1996. Bill Clinton won Colorado, New Mexico and Nevada in 1992. He won Arizona, New Mexico and Nevada in 1996. Also, Bill Clinton won Montana in 1992. As much as the media wants to make those states out to be red states, they truly are not. They are not the biggest battlegrounds either. The new battlegrounds are Virginia, Ohio, Florida, Indiana, North Carolina, Missouri, Georgia and West Virginia. George Bush won Colorado, New Mexico and Nevada by very slim margins. Obama just picked up where Bill Clinton left off. In order for the Republican Party to win the Presidency in 2012, they are going to need to figure out how to win back Virginia, North Carolina and Indiana.

4. This is election showed the American people are tired of the divisive policies of the past 8 years. Remember, President Bush ran on a platform of bipartisanship. What we got was 8 years of the most divisive politics and policies this country has since The Civil War. When Americans voted for President Bush they believed in his assertion of "compassionate conservatism" and not letting politics run policy. Instead, politics was the policy of this country and President Bush ran a White House that had a "take no prisoners" attitude. If you did not agree with the President, you were an enemy. There was not room for a middle ground.

Finally, the biggest question is this: What does President-Elect Obama have to do to keep the Democratic majorities and get re-elected in four years? He needs to run this country like he ran his campaign. He must surround himself with the best people in their fields, regardless of their political affiliation. He must listen to both Democrats and Republicans and create policy that is good for the entire country, not just one portion of the population. President-Elect Obama must deliver on his promises during the campaign. If nothing else, enacting Universal Health care, creating green jobs and alternative energy sources, relinquishing our dependence on foreign oil and foreign financial markets is essential. However, to achieve these things, he will need to work closely with Republicans. If he is able to achieve these things, I believe he will easily win re-election in 2012 and by a wider margin than he won this year.