The Obama Administration: Who's In, Who's Out
Nov 17, 2008
John Isaacs, our executive director, is maintaining a list of who's in and who's out for key positions in the new Obama administration (No, we haven't penciled Hillary in yet). Right now, there are only 8 positions filled (see below), but check back daily as we expect more to be announced soon.
Key positions announced:
White House Chief of Staff: Rahm Emanuel
Deputy Chief of Staff: Jim Messina Deputy
Chief of Staff: Mona Sutphen
Senior adviser and intergovernmental relations and public liaison: Valerie Jarrett
Senior adviser to the President: Peter Rouse
Legislative affairs: Phil Schiliro
White House counsel: Gregory Craig
Vice President Chief of Staff: Ron Klain
Richard Schiff on "What's Next"
Nov 10, 2008
For fellow fans of The West Wing like myself, this election season seemed to draw a number of (intentional?) parallels with the show. From the unlikely successful candidacy of a young Congressman (Matt Santos or Barack Obama?) against a veteran Senator (Sen. Arnold Vinick or Sen. John McCain), to the optimism and loyalty that seem embodied by presidential figures (Pres. Jed Bartlett and Pres.-elect Barack Obama), the similarities abound.
But the show also has a perhaps less-well-known link to this election: the intelligent commentary and involvement of actor Richard Schiff, who played White House Communications Director Toby Zeigler on the show.
Schiff, a 2008 Drinan Award honoree from the Council, and current member of our National Advisory Board, regularly writes for the Huffington Post. On November 7, he put up a great commentary on "what's next" for the Obama administration.
President Bartlett on The West Wing often said this. Usually at the end of an episode when a thing had been solved or resolved or lost or won and it was, whatever the case, time to move on. We sometimes had spiraling crane shots from above pulling up and away as the mere mortals of government left below continued on their silly work.
The night was pretty nice: Election night in New York City. On Eighth Avenue, from a block away, I heard a roar of a crowd the size and depth you hear in stadiums reserved for moments of historic relevance like World Cup overtime goals or World Series winning home runs or the fall of Max Schmelling from Joe Louis' fists. I reached the digital screen in Times Square to see that California had fallen blue and the fat lady was singing. Along with that lady about a million people joined in, it seemed, singing arias of celebration, crying and laughing and shouting and hugging. Victory.
Full posting after the jump.
Been spending most my life...
Nov 10, 2008
...living in a defense wonk's paradise. (Cross posted from Iraq Insider)
A lot of people think the election of Barack Obama is a gift from above. I wouldn't disagree with that point of view, although I have a very different reason for feeling excited that the era of George W. Bush is coming to an end.
When a new president and congress enter office, it can only mean one thing: GAO Congressional and Presidential Transition Reports on Defense Policy!!!!!!
Like manna from heaven, these reports provide analysts with these really cool things called facts, figures, and data sets. No, they don't spell out defense concepts in lame acronyms like S-U-R-G-E. No, they don't coin cutesy slogans which suggest that if you don't think the United States should rigidly tie its defense budget to 4% of GDP, you hate freedom and like to kill puppies.
Facts. Figures. Data sets. I'm sure new White House and Hill foreign policy staffers will read these reports diligently before starting their new jobs, right? As much fun as it would be to have another Sesame Street clique parallel park the clown car at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. on January 20, I'm really feeling like I want to move past that part of my life.
Seriously. Stop looking at Wonkette and go read GAO reports. Right now.
Obama's victory and Iraq
Nov 06, 2008
Cross posted from Iraq Insider
Marc Lynch pointed out yesterday that of the 10% of voters who thought Iraq was the most important issue in Tuesday's presidential election, 59% supported Obama and 39% supported McCain.
Now, this statistic may be somewhat distorted because McCain, Bush, and Republicans do their darnedest to conflate terrorism and Iraq. It does suggest, however, that people who care the most about Iraq have more confidence in Obama than in McCain to handle the war properly.
This is something we can build on, even if people don't care about Iraq too much right now given the disastrous state of the economy. Iraq will be back in the headlines sooner or later.
Making History - Election Results
Nov 05, 2008
What a historic night! The election of Barack Obama to the presidency was accompanied by an emphatic rejection of the policies of the past eight years, and the election of a new, progressive Congress.
With the support of our generous members, Council for a Livable World helped send at least 5 Council-endorsed candidates to the Senate, and at least 20 to the House of Representatives already. The gains will likely be even larger than these, as a number of the races are still too close to call.
To the Senate! Mark Udall of Colorado, Tom Udall of New Mexico, Jeanne Shaheen of New Hampshire, Frank Lautenberg of New Jersey, and Tim Johnson of South Dakota
To the House! John Adler of New Jersey, Jason Altmire, Patrick Murphy, Joe Sestak and Kathy Dahlkemper of Pennsylvania, Donna Edwards of Maryland, Bill Foster of Illinois, Alan Grayson of Florida, Jim Himes of Connecticut, Steve Kagen of Wisconsin, John Hall, Dan Maffei and Eric Massa of New York, Betsy Markey of Colorado, Glenn Nye of Virginia, Gary Peters of Michigan, Chellie Pingree of Maine, Nikki Tsongas of Massachussets, Carol Shea-Porter of New Hampshire, and John Yarmuth of Kentucky
Still too close to call: Jeff Merkley in Oregon, Al Franken in Minnesota, and a number of races for the House of Representatives
Now that's a productive evening for progressive advocates.
The Next President's Honeymoon
Oct 23, 2008
The next president will inherit the leadership of a country beset with extraordinary domestic and foreign problems, the solution of which will determine his place in history and his chances for re-election.
The Wall Street implosion has reduced the standard of living for millions of Americans, stifled business activity, dramatically increased unemployment and threatened the value of the dollar.
The Bush administration will have spent at least $1 trillion by inauguration day to rescue the US banking system from the first stage of the emergency. Will there be sufficient funds available to finance the campaign promises on health care, infrastructure, military, education, etc. without running the risk of runaway inflation?
The next president must also resolve the unpopular wars in the Middle East and Central Asia. US troops have been fighting and dying in Afghanistan since 2001, in Iraq since 2003, in Pakistan since 2007 at great cost in blood and treasure. These military engagements cannot continue indefinitely.
The next president may have four years to end these crises, perhaps less, certainly not more. The next election will be congressional and the president had better show serious progress on these issues else his party will suffer at the polls. Then he himself will run for re-election with no chance if the situations are not dramatically improved.
Mount Rushmore will be the reward for success but the choices and the tools available to the next president are limited. New presidents usually have political honeymoons but the next president may have the shortest honeymoon in history.
On Sen. Joe Lieberman: It's the Chairmanship that Counts
Oct 21, 2008
Washington Correspondent Mike Madden of Salon news recently wrote an article about whether or not Democrats should take away Sen. Joe Lieberman's chairmanship of the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.
I hope he is right in predicting that Lieberman will lose his chairmanship, but that is far from a foregone outcome.
Let's say Democrats end up with at least 53 seats, McCain wins, and Palin is Vice-President. In that case, Lieberman's vote isn't needed for the Democrats to control the Senate. The Democatic margin is likely to be even greater no matter who wins the Presidency, so there should be no question that the Senate Democrats will be the majority party in the next Congress.
Lieberman deserves to lose his chairmanship because he violated a core principle: he supported the Republican candidate for President - and not casually - and therefore forefeits the benefits of the Democratic caucus. This has nothing to do with relationships in the cozy Senate club. This is public accountability - if Democrats let Lieberman keep his chairmanship, they will have forefeited elementary accountability and caucus integrity. This is tantamount to the Democrats surrendering to one man and forefeiting their ability to govern. They will have led with weakness.
He should lose his chairmanship, but not be kicked out of the caucus. Anyone who wants to vote with the Democrats as the majority should be permitted to, unless a person is the likes of David Duke.
A separate question is whether Lieberman should lose his Committee assignments and go to the bottom of the Democratic seniority list. (That is what happened to Wayne Morse when he left the Republican Party and became an Independent.) Because Lieberman kept his pledge to Connecticut voters and voted to organize the Senate with Democrats as the majority, kicking him off of his legislative Committees is more problematic. But losing his chairmanship if the Democratic total is at least 52 should be non-negotiable.
This issue will test the Senate Democrats on whether they have political party and caucus accountability. The question for Senate Democrats is do they have the gumption not to keep rewarding a Senator with a chairmanship who supported the Republican candidate for President?
Tea Leaves – Do Republican Strategists Sense a Landslide?
Oct 16, 2008
There are a number of developments in the past few days which may indicate that strategists in the national Republican party believe that the 2008 elections will be a Democratic landslide of historic proportions. Rather than attempting to win any Democratic seats, Republicans are desperately trying to stem their losses.
Granted, studying campaign expenditures to try to determine electoral strategies can be a little like reading tea leaves to determine the future. However, looking at how national campaign strategists decide to spend their limited resources can be a good way of determining which races they believe can win and which they believe they will lose. In the case of the national Republican party this year, which has extremely limited resources, financial decisions may be more telling than usual.
So, what are these telling developments?
• Under the headline GOP may ditch recruits to rescue incumbents Politico reported Tuesday that House Republicans have ceased funding some of their “prized recruits” in order to focus on incumbents. The list of incumbents they consider endangered was a stunner for those of us who follow House races, a number of them were not on anybody’s list of close races.
• Senate Republicans followed suit the next day, canceling their advertising in the Louisiana Senate race, the one Democratic Senate seat that was considered vulnerable this year.
• Even some of those incumbents are getting ditched: The Hill reported today that the national Republican party is pulling out of Michigan’s 9th Congressional District, leaving embattled incumbent Rep. Joe Knollenberg to fend for himself.
• Republicans may not be considering just House and Senate races as hopeless, they may be giving up on John McCain as well. Politico also reported that the Republican National Committee is in triage and “considering tapping into a $5 million line of credit this week to aid an increasing number of vulnerable incumbents.” What is striking is that Republicans would put this last minute cash infusion into Congressional races instead of using it to try to put McCain over the top. The implication is that they believe McCain will lose and the better use of their money is to try to stop Democrats from getting a filibuster proof 60 vote majority in the Senate.
• Picking up on this meme, election guru Stu Rothenberg ran an article in today’s Roll Call (subscription only) with several anonymous Republican strategists debating whether to “throw McCain under the bus” and publicly tell donors the Presidential race is lost and their best hope is to contribute in Senate and House races to try to stop an overwhelming Democratic majority in Congress.
Taken separately, these developments could be explained as tactical decisions unique to each individual race. Taken together, however, they begin to paint a picture of a party not just in disarray, but in blind, panicked retreat and burning its bridges behind it.
2008 Elections Contest Now Open
Oct 16, 2008
Polls today show Barack Obama leading John McCain in the presidential election, but will that lead remain? Will the Democrats have the sweep in the Senate and House of Representatives predicted by some political pundits? Will public disenchantment with incumbents in general instead cause upsets for both parties?
Here’s your chance to make your best guess – and win some money and notoriety while you do it.
