Meghan McCain: No Longer Funny

I've humored Meghan McCain - mostly because she's cute. Yes, I know I should be judging her by her ideas and not her appearance. It was a mistake on my part. I can't humor her any longer.

Other than being the daughter of a former presidential candidate and attractive, I have no idea what she offers to the political discourse.

Not only that, but the more she talks, the more she contradicts herself.

She outdoes herself in her recent Daily Beast article:

But as harsh as I’ve been about some elements of the GOP, I find aspects of the Democratic Party infinitely worse. Just as I fear the far right would undermine a conservative resurgence, the far left of Obama’s party threatens to do the exact same thing to him and his administration.

Ah, I see. In case Ms. McCain hadn't realized this, Democrats are in power, with their majorities growing in 2008, because the party celebrates diversity. Even to the frustration of Liberal members. The Democratic Party has members from conservative, moderate, and liberal districts. Republicans simply put - do not. She's afraid of the fringes of both parties, but what she doesn't realize is that's all that is left in the House of Representatives and increasingly heading that direction in the Senate. Her own Dad is lucky Janet Napolitano chose to join the Obama administration. He was looking at a likely to defeat at her hands in 2010.

Ms. McCain celebrates the unity Republicans have shown:

It is no secret that the Republican Party, for all its faults, consistently displays party unity. For all the criticism that the Bush administration came in for, risks were taken (like supporting the Iraq troop surge) that wound up benefiting the GOP in the long run.

Just how much did supporting the surge help Republicans? Did they win the presidency in 2008 or pick up any seats in congress (other than the New Orleans House seat from corrupt Rep. William Jefferson)? His replace, Joesph Cao who has remained true to Eric Cantor and voted against the stimulus bill and the budget against the wishes of his constituents, has been threatened with recall. Just how successful have Republicans been?

One moment Ms. McCain says Republicans should be concerned about the far right and the next she congratulates their unity. She seems to recognize that the tactics of her far right has scared off our generation of voters, but she fails to recognize that the unity and lack of diverse voices in congress is just as distancing. If Republicans are all expected to vote in unison, why would I support a "moderate" Republican as Cao once claimed he was?

This party unity that so thrills her is what freezes even her out of having any real influence. She certainly has got that memo:

As a consequence, some have requested I leave the party altogether, and say that I am now an unwelcome member...

Any criticism I give of the Republican Party is out of love, and as someone who feels knowledgeable and experienced enough to give constructive criticism.

Ms. McCain goes on to cite two erroneous examples Democratic disunity:

Look at Obama’s stimulus bill—as soon as he handed it over to the House, Democrats loaded it with so many appropriations they made it impossible to pass.

But the bill did pass or is she not aware?

(He goes on to cite Sen. Kent Conrad’s endorsement of farm payments and Democrats' opposition to Obama’s plan to limit tax deductions for the rich.) Now, I may not agree with Obama either, but if such a left-leaning magazine so blatantly recognizes the writing on the wall when it comes to extreme members of the Democratic Party hijacking message and power, then it is obviously a major concern.

Conrad is far from a liberal Democrat, so how exactly is he an extreme (and by extreme, I assume she means liberal) hijacking Obama's message? It appears that if anything, the problem Obama is having is with Business-centric Democrats who would rather subsidize companies than save money, without working towards Obama's health care reforms, all in the name of claiming to be a deficit hawk.

These DINOs in the Senate, Conrad, Evan Bayh, Blanche Lincoln, Mark Pryor and the rest, would rather give tax breaks to the wealthiest than work with the rest of the Democratic majority to pass Obama's agenda.

The best question Ms. McCain asks is: "Can politics ever become truly centrist and bipartisan?"

The answer here is surprising. Because the Democratic Party has such diversity and 60 votes is needed to make for cloture, simply working within the Democratic caucus guarantees a truly centrist perspective. Democrats need every one of their 58 senators and two Republican moderates to push through a bill.

This of course doesn't make politics bipartisan. Politics won't be bipartisan until Republicans decide to break ranks and begin working with the president.

The people support Obama. The people want Republicans to participate in governance and until they do so, Republican unity is going to leave them a geographically isolated party and leave Ms. McCain voiceless in the Republican wilderness.
----------------
Now playing: Talib Kweli & Hi-Tek - Africa Dream

Sen. Claire McCaskill on Fire

h/t sgwhiteinfla

I'd intended on posting this yesterday, but I got wrapped up in schoolwork and celebrating my birthday. Sen. Claire McCaskill was my favorite supporter of Obama during the Democratic primaries. She was a fierce ally of his and her sharp responses to the "Clinton Machine" won me over.

McCaskill hails from a red state and yet she still doesn't fear stepping on the toes of Republicans. Her Twitter is by far my favorite political Twitter and a must follow for anyone interested in Democratic politics. This video perfectly captures Sen. McCaskill fully. Gotta love the woman.

Quote of the Day #3 - 03.02.09

“I was briefly encouraged by the courageous comments made my counterpart in the Republican Party over the weekend challenging Rush Limbaugh as the leader of the Republican Party and referring to his show as ‘incendiary’ and ‘ugly.’ However, Chairman Steele’s reversal this evening and his apology to Limbaugh proves the unfortunate point that Limbaugh is the leading force behind the Republican Party, its politics and its obstruction of President Obama’s agenda in Washington. Just this weekend, Rush Limbaugh repeated his claim that he is rooting for the President to fail. The last time Rush Limbaugh said he wanted the President to fail, virtually every single Republican in Congress followed his lead and voted against the President’s plan to create or save 3.5 million jobs.

“As Congress works to pass the President’s budget, Republicans need to stop following divisive figures like Rush Limbaugh, stop apologizing to him and put aside the failed politics of the past so we can put our economy back on track, reform our health care system, break our dependence on foreign oil, improve our schools, and lay the foundation for long-term growth in the 21st Century.” - Tim Kaine, DNC Chair

----------------
Now playing: Trentemøller - Into the Trees (Serenetti Part 3)

Obama says 'Bring it on'

Obama's weekly address have typically been drab. This morning was different. He brought a level of combativeness that I haven't seen since the general election. He brings it:


2/28/09: Your Weekly Address from White House on Vimeo.

Most notably:

"I realize that passing this budget won't be easy. Because it represents real and dramatic change, it also represents a threat to the status quo in Washington. I know that the insurance industry won't like the idea that they'll have to bid competitively to continue offering Medicare coverage, but that's how we'll help preserve and protect Medicare and lower health care costs for American families. I know that banks and big student lenders won't like the idea that we're ending their huge taxpayer subsidies, but that's how we'll save taxpayers nearly $50 billion and make college more affordable. I know that oil and gas companies won't like us ending nearly $30 billion in tax breaks, but that's how we'll help fund a renewable energy economy that will create new jobs and new industries. I know these steps won't sit well with the special interests and lobbyists who are invested in the old way of doing business, and I know they're gearing up for a fight as we speak. My message to them is this:

"'So am I.'

"The system we have now might work for the powerful and well-connected interests that have run Washington for far too long, but I don’t. I work for the American people. I didn’t come here to do the same thing we’ve been doing or to take small steps forward, I came to provide the sweeping change that this country demanded when it went to the polls in November."

It was shocking. He called out the lobbyist. He calls out student loan companies. He steps up tot the place and into the place of the people's representative. He's reframed the argument. He's using every bit of the mandate he earned by winning the election and the landslide it turned into. The WaPo has an interesting article today on Obama's attempts to stay connected to life outside of the White House bubble. Today's address was perfectly inline with these attempts. He's going to use all 67% to push through his agenda. Republicans have decided to put their effort into splitting up Obama and Pelosi. The New York Times, Newseek, and Politico are all being used as pawns in this game. The thing is both Pelosi and Obama believe they are doing the people's work. This bravado is a reason I first became interested in him. This should be some great political theater.
----------------
Now playing: Bel Biv DeVoe - Let Me Know Something?!

More on my Klobuchar Love

You've got to love any politician who can include Prince, Bob Dylan, Hannah Montana and First Ave. in a question. She gets much respect from me for looking at this problem and the framing of the question.
<via>

Amy Klobuchar on Morning Joe

I've been a big fan of Kloubuchar for some time. I voted her in in 2006 and I'm proud of the work she's done since then, especially on toy safety, and her op/ed in the WaPo was quite good. I hope she gets plenty of airtime in the coming years. A recent article in Politico showed another side, a more humorous, although always affable, of Klobuchar. It was exciting to see.

The 'Liberal Lion'

I was raised to respect the Kennedy's. I can remember my mother telling me her version of JFK's passing and her following of John John and Caroline from a distance. I wasn't aware of Teddy's prowess in the Senate until high school. I'd read JFK's Profile in Courage in middle school.

Reading over this morning part one of a seven part series on Teddy you begin to see just how much work Joe and Rose Kennedy put into fulfilling the dynasty that it often taken for granted or mocked today.

A few money quotes:

Something worthwhile. That was one of the many mantras the Kennedy parents imposed upon their children. Do something with your lives. Make something of yourselves. Give something back to others. Joe Kennedy Sr. set up million-dollar trust funds and told his children they'd never have to earn money; they should devote their lives to public service.

...Second place was never good enough for their father, whose parenting slogans included, "I don't want any losers in this family," and "No sour pusses." There would be no "rich, idle bums," either.

... With nine children, Rose had to run a tight ship, and she set household rules that few dared break for fear of a whack from her infamous wooden coat hanger. Child-rearing was a strict endeavor in that era and Rose, a perfectionist, followed the books to the letter. The children were to get up at the same time every day and go to bed at the same time. Dinner was always at 7:30, and Rose would lead the way into the dining room. At the end of the meal, she would lead the way out.

...In 1975, when Ted was a third-term senator and Rose was 85, she wrote him: "I watched you speak about drugs last Friday night . . . Please say, 'If I were President,' not 'If I was president.' The reason is the old what used to be known in Latin as condition contrary to fact. For instance, 'if I were he,' etc."

...Perhaps the toughest parental scolding was that which compared the siblings with one another. In a letter that reveals much about the family dynamic, Joe wrote the 11-year-old Teddy: "You didn't pass in English or Geography and you only got 60 in Spelling and History. That is terrible. . . . You wouldn't want to have people say that Joe and Jack Kennedy's brother was such a bad student, so get on your toes."

...Just as important was a note he got from Joe, who couldn't resist a family comparison: "You did a great job winning that event. Scholastically, it certainly fits with anything anybody has ever done before — including your father!"

The simple fact the Globe started the series is a symbol that Teddy won't be around much longer. From what I've read, the push for health care reform the first year of the Obama administration is a thank you for Teddy. It's appropriate to end this with Teddy's "The Dream Will Never Die" speech (part 2).

Politics is Hollywood For Ugly People

As mentioned by Tiffani in an earlier comment, I'm curious how the media and conservatives would respond if a Democrat ever said what Rep. Pete Sessions (TX-R) said:

"Insurgency, we understand perhaps a little bit more because of the Taliban," Sessions said. "And that is that they went about systematically understanding how to disrupt and change a person's entire processes. And these Taliban -- I'm not trying to say the Republican Party is the Taliban. No, that's not what we're saying. I'm saying an example of how you go about [sic] is to change a person from their messaging to their operations to their frontline message. And we need to understand that insurgency may be required when the other side, the House leadership, does not follow the same commands, which we entered the game with."

Obama and Democrats in general just aren't very good at theater politics. Well- that's not true. Bill and Hillary are great at playing the game. Remember her throwing back shots of Crown Royal? You can see that in the last two weeks of media coverage over the stimulus package Republicans have dominated the airwaves. There are plenty of Dem pols in D.C that could be making the case for the package. It shouldn't have had to come down to Obama to finally step up. We have media types arguing about whose tax-cuts are better, when we spent the entire presidential campaign doing the same thing.

Tiffani is right. Comments like this from a Democrat would ring calls of treason from the right.

We're Taking it Back

John Cole is bitchin' about the pomp and circumstance of the inauguration:

I can’t tell if it is just my general lack of enthusiasm for crowds, but there just seems to be a bit of unseemly gushing- this feels like Princess Di or something. I realize that the rise of cable news and 24/7 coverage means that it is going to be either the inauguration or some kidnapped blonde teenager, but I don’t know- it just seems excessive.

While I sympathize with Cole, he acknowledges "helped Bush get elected" and he "was in full-fledged wingnut phase, and I remember cheerleading the landing on the carrier" when Bush spoke under the "mission accomplished" sign.

These are important because as a former wingnut he doesn't recognize the need for progressive patriotism. John Nichols at The Nation has an excellent article on it this week. For eight years liberals have been treated as second class citizens and told they don't love America if they question the administration. Obama's election has allowed many who believed they'd never again find reason to show their patriotism.

There are many things to celebrate this week and Cole recognizes most of them: Bush leaving office, first black prez, Democrats in power, but the freedom to let go and show, "Yes, we too love America." Republicans don't have a monopoly on patriotism. Obama recognizes that his supporters and America needs a cathartic moment. He can build up goodwill and it's smart politics to give s many Americans a chance to feel like they are apart of this moment.
----------------
Now playing: Arcade Fire - Guns Of Brixton

This is How We Roll

This is more like it. Sunday SFGate lightly glossed over the roles many Californians will play in the Obama administration. Today the Washington Post digs in and shows why the Chronicle is severely lacking as a paper. The WaPo covers three of the most important Californians in D.C, all of which the Chronicle left out, Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Rep Henry Waxman and Senator Barbara Boxer.

"It's unique in terms of the power of this state in modern times," said James A. Thurber, who directs the Center for Congressional and Presidential Studies at American University. To find another example of a state wielding such national influence, Thurber had to reach back to Texas in the 1950s, when Sam Rayburn was the House speaker and Lyndon B. Johnson was the Senate majority leader."

Waxman pushed out Rep. John D. Dingell earlier this year to head the House Energy and Commerce Committee. This new authority will give Waxman the ability to morph federal environmental laws that had been hindered by Dingell's loyalty to the Michigan car industry.

The money quote:

"It's not a question of passing new landmark laws," Boxer said. "It's a matter of getting these agencies back in gear. We have great tools, but they have not been functioning. For the past eight years, they've been sitting idle. The Californians coming, they don't have to rewrite the laws. They just have to enforce them. It's like the EPA has been asleep for eight years. The Californians are coming to wake the sleeping beauty."

Boxer's not telling the full truth. They know full well they want to enact policy change. The most likely coming in a cap and trade system that Obama ran on. It's sometimes difficult for Californians to forget the rest of the country doesn't have the same priorities as we do. But this is where Pelosi comes in. Dems still want to stay in power. It'll be entertaining watching it all unfold.

----------------
Now playing: Erykah Badu - The Healer

Center for American... Progress, Really?

Matt Yglesias is one of my favorite bloggers. Earlier this year he left the Atlantic Monthly for the think tank Center for American Progress. CAP's CEO John Podesta is leading President-elect Obama's transition team so CAP has been in the news a lot this year. Melody Barnes, Executive Vice President for Policy at CAP, is one of the most progressive members of Obama's team will direct the White House Domestic Policy Council. On the opposite end from CAP is Third Way, a slightly left of center think tank that became well known through the Clinton's.

On the 19th, Yglesias posted this entry:
I’m getting sort of tired of the endless discussion of whether Barack Obama is a wholesome liberal or an evil centrist, but I have to say something about one aspect of this story:

“Barack Obama has never made any bones about it: He is a moderate,” said Matt Bennett, co-founder of Third Way, a moderate public policy think tank. “People who ignored that did so at their peril.”

Third Way is a neat organization — I used to work across the hall from them. And they do a lot of clever messaging stuff that a lot of candidates find very useful. But their domestic policy agenda is hyper-timid incrementalist bullshit. There are a variety of issues that they have nothing whatsoever to say on, and what policy ideas they do have are laughable in comparison to the scale of the problems they allegedly address. Which is fine, because Third Way isn’t really a “public policy think tank” at all, it’s a messaging and political tactics outfit. But Barack Obama’s policy proposals aren’t like that. At all. Nor do personnel on his policy teams — including the more ideologically moderate members — stand for anything that’s remotely as weak a brew as the stuff Third Way puts out. And yet, Third Way loves Barack Obama and says he’s a moderate just like them. Which is great. But everyone needs to see that these things are moving in two directions simultaneously. At the very same time Obama is disappointing progressive supporters on a number of fronts, he’s also bringing moderates on board for things that are way more ambitious than anything they were endorsing two or three years ago.

The entry was forgetable to most. I mean, it wasn't even as snarky as Yglesias could be, and then this evening, Jennifer Palmieri hijacked Yglesias blog and posted this entry:

This is Jennifer Palmieri, acting CEO of the Center for American Progess Action Fund.

Most readers know that the views expressed on Matt’s blog are his own and don’t always reflect the views of the Center for American Progress Action Fund. Such is the case with regard to Matt’s comments about Third Way. Our institution has partnered with Third Way on a number of important projects - including a homeland security transition project - and have a great deal of respect for their critical thinking and excellent work product. They are key leaders in the progressive movement and we look forward to working with them in the future.

What's interesting here is now that the Dems are in power there is a power struggle for control of the party. Will Clinton's triangulated poll driven Dem policies win out or will a pragmatic formation of a new center be allowed to form? Yglesias was obviously given a spanking to, but it's unclear what steps led to Palmieri's entry. Check out the comments to her entry for more on this battle.