Democrashield.com


Roland Burris Will Not Seek Re-Election

BURRIS

Usually I wouldn’t celebrate a Democratic Senator declining to seek re-election, but when it’s the ethically-questionable crony of Rod Blagojevich then it’s welcome news:

Sen. Roland Burris, whose deep ties to former Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich seemed to doom his Senate tenure from the start, will not run for a full Senate term in 2010. The move increases Democrats’ chances of holding on to the former Senate seat of President Barack Obama.

Burris has begun informing fellow Democrats about his decision and is expected to make an announcement on Friday, a Democratic official and a friend of Burris’ told The Associated Press. They spoke on condition of anonymity because Burris has yet to discuss his decision publicly.

[...]

Senate Democrats had long made clear they had little tolerance for a full bid from Burris. Other Illinois Democrats have also lined up for a chance to run for the full term.

First-term Treasurer Alexi Giannoulias and Christopher Kennedy, a Chicago businessman and son of the late Robert F. Kennedy, and Chicago Urban League president Cheryle Jackson are all considering wading in.

Thankfully, Roland Burris has a bit more common sense than his corrupt benefactor and realizes that he has no hope of holding on to that Senate seat.  In all honesty, he never should have held it in the first place, but this is an acceptable compromise–Burris can finish out Barack Obama’s term and then step aside and let the people of Illinois choose their next Senator.



Culture Of Corruption: John Ensign’s Hush Money

It looks like Republican Sen. John Ensign didn’t just have an extramarital affair with a married campaign staffer–he also paid her a substantial amount of hush money:

Sen. John Ensign’s attorney acknowledged Thursday that the Nevada Republican’s parents paid nearly $100,000 to the family of his mistress around the time she and her husband left his staff in April 2008.

Paul Coggins, Ensign’s attorney, said in a statement that the senator gave Doug Hampton, Cindy Hampton and their two children gifts worth $96,000 and that “each gift was limited to $12,000.”

[...]

His disclosure comes as the watchdog group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington called on the Justice Department to investigate potential criminal wrongdoing of Ensign reportedly giving Cindy Hampton more than $25,000 in a severance package. The group says that under federal law, failing to report contributions of more than $25,000 can result in five years in jail.

[Emphasis mine]

I would be surprised if this hush money payout didn’t land Sen. Ensign before the Senate Ethics Committee–this is at least a serious breach of the public trust, if not a violation of public disclosure and accountability laws.

Mark Sanford, Sarah Palin, John Ensign–it looks like the GOP is continuing their long, slow collapse. At this rate, there won’t be anyone left to run for President in 2012.



Health Care Reform & The Cult Of Bipartisanship

NowLookSadAndSayDoh

Sen. Harry Reid is finally acting like Majority Leader–he’s instructing Senate Finance Chairman Max Baucus to stop futilely chasing Republican votes for health care reform:

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) on Tuesday ordered Finance Chairman Max Baucus (D-Mont.) to drop a proposal to tax health benefits and stop chasing Republican votes on a massive health care reform bill.

Reid, whose leadership is considered crucial if President Barack Obama is to deliver on his promise of enacting health care reform this year, offered the directive to Baucus through an intermediary after consulting with Senate Democratic leaders during Tuesday morning’s regularly scheduled leadership meeting. Baucus was meeting with Finance ranking member Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) Tuesday afternoon to relay the information.

According to Democratic sources, Reid told Baucus that taxing health benefits and failing to include a strong government-run insurance option of some sort in his bill would cost 10 to 15 Democratic votes; Reid told Baucus it wasn’t worth securing the support of Grassley and at best a few additional Republicans.

[Emphasis mine]

First off, it’s nice to see Reid showing some spine, particularly against conservative Democrats–since the GOP is so weak, they’re really the only ones who can stand in the way of progressive reform.

But this is all part of a greater issue, a recurring problem when it comes to conservative Democrats in Congress–the cult of bipartisanship.

Don’t get me wrong, bipartisanship is a good thing–it’s great to be able to call a particular bill or initiative as ‘bipartisan.’  But bipartisanship should be a means to an end, not an end in and of itself–it should be a way to  help you pass a bill, not a condition for passing that bill.

But sometimes, conservative Democrats appear to care more about how many Republicans vote for a bill than for what the bill itself is supposed to accomplish, which is a problem when you can’t drum up Republican votes for a necessary piece of legislation.

Look, the Republican caucus in Congress is very small–the smallest it’s been in decades, smaller than at any other point in my entire lifetime. And because of that–and because most Republican moderates were defeated and replaced with Democrats–the Republicans who are left in Congress are far more conservative and in ideological lockstep than usual.

In other words, getting GOP support for major progressive initiatives like health care reform is going to be difficult, far more difficult than it was just a few years ago.

And, in the end, the American people don’t care about bipartisanship.  They want Congress to be effective; they want Congress to solve the significant problems our nation is facing.  When it’s all said and done, few people will remember whether or not a major initiative was passed with bipartisan support–but they will remember what that initiative did to help themselves and their families.

Democrats, don’t get caught up in the inside baseball.   Bipartisanship is good, but it isn’t necessary; with the current crop of Republicans in Congress, it certainly isn’t expected.  Just buckle down and pass legislation; if the GOP isn’t on board, that’s their loss, not yours.



Sotomayor Earns Highest Possible Rating From ABA

SCOTUS

Today, the American Bar Association voted–unanimously–to grant Judge Sonia Sotomayor a “well-qualified” rating, the highest rating they give to judicial nominees:

The ABA committee that reviewed her qualifications came out with that unanimous rating of the federal appeals court judge and released it in a letter to White House lawyer Greg Craig.

The Senate Judiciary Committee is set to begin hearings Monday on President Barack Obama’s choice to replace retired Justice David Souter.

[...]

“The American Bar Association’s unanimous, well-qualified rating of Judge Sotomayor is further evidence of the outstanding experience she will bring to the Supreme Court,” said Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., who heads the Senate Judiciary Committee.

“The ABA’s rating _ an evaluation of integrity, professional competence, and judicial temperament _ should eliminate the doubts of naysayers who have questioned Judge Sotomayor’s disposition on the bench.”

So all the Republican attempts to paint Judge Sotomayor as unfit to sit on the Supreme Court were nothing but hollow talking points with no grounds in reality (and in case anyone tries to argue that the ABA has some kind of liberal bias, they also found both John Roberts and Samuel Alito to be “well-qualified”).



And Then There Were 60…

Senator Al Franken (D-MN) was sworn in today as the 60th member of the Senate Democratic caucus.

Watch:

Sen. Franken was accompanied onto the Senate floor by Minnesota’s other Democratic Senator, Amy Klobuchar, as well as former Vice President Walter Mondale, also a Minnesotan.

He will now assume seats on the Senate Judiciary Committee and the Senate Health, Education, Labor & Pensions Committee.



GOP On Health Care: ‘Let Them Eat Cake’

Republican Senator Chuck Grassley (IA) had a bit of difficulty when asked about health care reform at a recent townhall meeting.

See for yourself:

To recap:

After sharing his family’s personal struggle with the burden of high health care costs, an audience member asked, “My question is… why is your insurance so much cheaper than my insurance and so better than my insurance?”

The question made Grassley cranky.

He responded, first, by suggesting the questioner “go work for John Deere,” since they “don’t pay anything” for their insurance plan.

When the questioner refused to let the senator wriggle out of answering the question, Grassley revealed how little he knew about his own insurance plan.

Another audience member had to help the senator out by describing the details of the plan. After she finished, the original questioner again asked, “Okay, so how come I can’t have the same thing you have?”

Grassley’s response: “You can. Just go work for the Federal government.”

[Emphasis added]

Well, that’s one way to cover the 45 million uninsured Americans–create 45 million new federal jobs with health benefits and then hire all of them to work for the government.

Of course, it would be quite expensive to pay 45 additional salaries plus health benefits.  If only someone had a plan that would provide those 45 million uninsured Americans with health coverage without having to hire them to work for the federal government…

In all seriousness, though, keep in mind that Sen. Grassley and every other Republican in Congress all get publicly-funded health care. So they have no problem accepting public health care for themselves and their families, yet they’ll fight tooth and nail to prevent those same benefits from being extended to all Americans.

The GOP has theirs, so why should they worry about the millions of Americans with no health insurance or not enough health insurance? While the Democrats try to reform health care, the GOP is content to sit back and yell ‘let them eat cake!’

No wonder these guys are the minority…

Comments Off


CBO: Public Health Care Option Cheaper & Better Than Expected

HEALTH

Previously, the Congressional Budget Office released an analysis supposedly examining the Democratic health care reform proposal.  Their conclusions found the proposal would cost nearly $1 trillion and still leave millions of Americans uncovered.

But, as it turns out, the CBO’s analysis was flawed–it was based not on what the Democrats were proposing but on old, outdated information.  Conservatives, of course, jumped all over the CBO’s flawed analysis as proof that health care reform with a public option was untenable.

Well, the CBO just released an updated analysis–based on the plan Democrats are actually proposing–and guess what they found:

The plan carries a 10-year price tag of slightly over $600 billion, and would lead toward an estimated 97 percent of all Americans having coverage, according to the Congressional Budget Office, Sens. Edward M. Kennedy and Chris Dodd said in a letter to other members of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee. The AP obtained a copy.

[...]

The letter indicated the cost and coverage improvements resulted from two changes. The first calls for a government-run health insurance option to compete with private coverage plans, an option that has drawn intense opposition from Republicans.

[...]

Additionally, the revised proposal calls for a $750 annual fee on employers for each full-time worker not offered coverage through their job. The fee would be set at $375 for part-time workers. Companies with fewer than 25 employees would be exempt. The fee was forecast to generate $52 billion over 10 years, money the government would use to help provide subsidies to those who cannot afford insurance.

The same provision is also estimated to greatly reduce the number of workers whose employers would drop coverage, thus addressing a major concern noted by CBO when it reviewed the earlier proposals.

[...]

In their letter, Kennedy and Dodd said the Congressional Budget Office “has carefully reviewed our complete bill, and we are pleased to report that CBO has scored it at $611.4 billion over 10 years, with the new coverage provisions scored at $597 billion. …The completed bill virtually eliminates the dropping of currently covered employees from employer-sponsored health plans.

[Emphasis mine]

The crux of Republican opposition to health care reform are that it would cost huge amounts of money and it would (allegedly) drive private insurance out of business by causing a large amount of employers to dump their employees onto the public option.

But this new CBO analysis shows that both of those talking points are untrue.  The GOP now has no solid ground upon which to oppose health care reform beyond simple, craven, conservative obstruction.

In fact, the cost of health care reform is so low that we can already pay for it out of the funds allotted in Obama’s budget:

President Barack Obama’s first budget will seek $634 billion over 10 years as a down payment on health care reform, a senior administration official said Wednesday.

Down payment? The Democratic health care reform proposal is so good that the down payment is going to be the only payment.

Of course, Republicans will still obstruct the plan.  But with 60 Democrats in the Senate, the GOP will no longer be able to stand in the way of sensible, necessary health care reform.

Comments Off


Carolyn Maloney Will Primary Kirsten Gillibrand

PRIME

Even more big primary news today–NY Rep. Carolyn Maloney will mount a primary challenge against Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, who was appointed by the very unpopular Governor Paterson to replace Hillary Clinton:

An adviser to Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-N.Y.) confirmed Wednesday that the congresswoman will enter the state’s Senate primary against appointed Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.).

Paul Blank, who works with Democratic consultant Joe Trippi’s firm, said Maloney is officially in the race. Blank is set to serve as a top adviser for her Senate campaign.

“Congresswoman Maloney has made her decision,” Blank said. “She believes times are too tough and our challenges too important for politics as usual.

He added: “Congresswoman Maloney is putting together a campaign team and will make her announcement in two weeks.”

[...]

It might not matter, though, as the GOP doesn’t appear close to landing a big-name candidate. Rep. Pete King (R-N.Y.) said in recent days that he is leaning against running now that he has landed a spot on the House Intelligence Committee. Former Gov. George Pataki (R) is also weighing a run but is not expected to make a bid. A new Marist poll, coincidentally released Wednesday, showed Maloney leading Gillibrand within the margin of error, 38-37. Gillibrand is still unknown to about one-third of voters.

[Emphasis mine]

Maloney’s strength isn’t surprising–she was widely rumored to be eying a Senate run in 2000 before Clinton stepped in, and the district she represents is more populous than Gillibrand’s upstate district was; she has also been serving in Congress since 1993 (as opposed to Gillibrand, who took her seat in 2007).

I don’t have strong opinions on either Gillibrand or Maloney, but considering the GOP’s recruiting failure I don’t see how a primary will hurt–putting pressure on our elected officials to represent their people better is never a bad thing.

Comments Off


Joe Sestak Will Primary Arlen Specter

PRIMARYYYY

Congressman Joe Sestak has decided that he will mount a primary challenge against newly-minted Democratic Senator Arlen Specter:

Wayne County, Pa. – A congressman from the Philadelphia suburbs will challenge U.S. Sen. Arlen Specter in the Democratic Senate primary.

In an interview with The Wayne Independent Wednesday morning, U.S. Rep. Joe Sestak, D-Pa.,confirmed his intention to run against Specter, a long-time Republican who switched to the Democratic party earlier this year.

I am going to get into the race against Arlen Specter … for senator,” said Sestak in his first media interview as part of a three-week tour through all of the Commonwealth’s 67 counties.

[Emphasis mine]

I’m glad to see Sestak enter the race against Specter, because no matter who emerges victorious from the Democratic primary we will be in better shape for it.

Honestly, I’m no fan of Arlen Specter–I would rather have an actual Democrat like Joe Sestak in that seat than someone who only became a Democrat to save his otherwise-doomed career.

Plus–as we learned when Pat Toomey was mounting a challenge against Republican Senator Specter–Arlen Specter is highly susceptible to partisan pressure.  It’s likely that–if he believes Sestak has a shot at beating him–he’s going to start towing the Democratic line more often in order to ensure he wins the primary.

In other words, no matter who wins, we all win–either we end up with a more progressive Democratic candidate or we pressure Specter into being a more progressive Democratic candidate.

So I say welcome to the race, Congressman Sestak.

Comments Off


BREAKING: MN Supreme Court: Franken Won (UPDATED X2)

It’s been nearly 8 months since Election Day.

It’s been more than 6 months since Inauguration Day.

And, finally, Minnesota’s outstanding Senate race has been decided.

Minnesota’s Supreme Court has affirmed [PDF] that Al Franken is the duly-elected junior Senator from Minnesota, having garnered more votes than former Senator Norm Coleman.

Of course, Franken still needs a certificate of election signed by his state’s governor, Republican Tim Pawlenty. But Pawlenty said that he would abide by the Supreme Court’s decision:

Minnesota law does not allow the governor to sign an election certificate until the state court process is complete. And when it is, and they direct me to sign the certificate, I’m going to sign it. There’s not going to be any undue delay or the like. But I’m going to follow the direction of the courts in that regard and we’re going to be having a decision here in the coming weeks … I have to follow the law. If the Minnesota Supreme Court says, “You sign the certificate” — and there’s not an appeal or some other contrary direction from a federal court — you know, that’s my duty. I can’t just ignore that or say I don’t feel like following a directive from the Minnesota Supreme Court. That would not be the responsible thing to do.

[Emphasis mine]

There’s a chance that Coleman could appeal this decision to the federal judiciary, which may give Pawlenty room to once again put off signing a certificate.

But the Minnesota Supreme Court should be the final say in this case, and they have resoundingly affirmed that Al Franken is the junior Senator from Minnesota.

UPDATE: I should note that the decision was unanimous–the court ruled 5-0 in Franken’s favor.

Here’s the key part of the ruling:

For all of the foregoing reasons, we affirm the decision of the trial court that Al Franken received the highest number of votes legally cast and is entitled under Minn. Stat. § 204C.40 (2008) to receive the certificate of election as United States Senator from the State of Minnesota.

UPDATE II: Norm Coleman just conceded; congratulations to Senator Al Franken!

Comments Off


GOP Makes No Gains From Sotomayor Obstruction (UPDATED)

Turning back to domestic politics for a bit, the GOP is failing to reap political benefits from opposing Judge Sotomayor’s nomination to the Supreme Court:

Nearly a month after President Barack Obama picked her for the Supreme Court, Republican senators say Sonia Sotomayor isn’t serving as the political lightning rod some in their party had hoped she would be.

“She doesn’t have the punch out there in terms of fundraising and recruiting, I think — at least so far,” said Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.), who most likely will be elected as the No. 4 Republican in Senate leadership this week.

[...]

“Right now, you don’t have the fever pitch you did over the filibuster,” said [Sen. Lindsey]Graham, a member of the Judiciary Committee. “It depends on how she does [at the hearings]. If she performs well, no. If she performs poorly, potentially, yes.”

“I don’t think she’s the kind of person that invites that kind of reaction,” said Sen. Mel Martinez (R-Fla.) of the possibility of making major political gains over Sotomayor’s nomination. “I don’t think her judicial record warrants the ability to do that with her.”

Who could have imagined that an experienced, talented, highly-accomplished judge with a history of moderate, sensible decisions would turn out to be completely uncontroversial?

The GOP bungled this from the start. They only had two options–filibuster or let Sotomayor slide.  It would have been extremely hard for them to filibuster; in fact, it’s likely Sotomayor will be confirmed by a wide margin.

Therefore, conservatives would have been smart just to let Obama have his nominee and avoid a political battle.  Plus, going along with him on this one would have helped dispel the perception that the GOP is made up of kneejerk obstructionists; sometimes, a little bipartisanship can go a long way.

Instead, conservatives attacked Judge Sotomayor from the start, desperately grasping at one ineffective attack after the next, clearly lacking any semblance of a strategy. Now conservatives are being forced to eat their words as the likelihood of Judge Sotomayor’s confirmation looms.

It looks like Republicans have become completely politically tone-deaf. They obstruct for the sake of obstructing without giving a single thought to whether or not they can succeed; they waste political capital on battles they can never hope to win, and then pat themselves on the back for their self-defeating and ultimately pointless opposition.  Once again, the GOP has failed to deliver; no wonder people are abandoning their party in droves.

UPDATE: Hispanics, especially, are abandoning the GOP in droves:

The latest numbers from the nonpartisan Research 2000 for Daily Kos find that only eight percent of Latinos view the [GOP] favorably, while an astonishing 86 percent view it unfavorably.

That’s a real shift from what were already pretty bad numbers from before the Sotomayor nominatino, when 11% of Latinos viewed the GOP favorably, and 79% viewed it unfavorably.

One of the big stories today is that Republicans are realizing that there’s no political percentage in fighting the Sotomayor nomination. It’s striking that Latino opinion about the GOP is dropping so fast, even at a moment when GOP opposition to Sotomayor appears to be flagging, as opposed to intensifying.

This continuing drop among Latinos, coming at a time when many party strategists recognize the party’s desperate need to broaden its appeal, only reminds us that not only are there few apparent upsides in opposing Sotomayor, there are potentially serious costs, too.

[Emphasis mine]

Comments Off


BREAKING: Ensign Resigns Leadership Position

In the wake of Sen. John Ensign admitting that he had an extramarital affair with a campaign staffer, the Las Vegas Sun is now reporting that he has resigned his leadership position as the 4th highest-ranking Republican in the Senate:

Nevada Sen. John Ensign resigned his leadership positition today as chair of his party’s policy committee in the Senate after admitting having an extramarital affair with a former member of his campaign staff.

Ensign had been a rising star in his party Republican Policy Committee chairman, the the fourth-ranking leader of his party in the Senate. This year, he was mentioned as a possible presidential contender in 2012.

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell released a brief statement, saying Ensign has “accepted responsibility for his actions and apologized to his family and constituents. He offered, and I accepted, his resignation as chairman of the Policy Committee.”

Comments Off


BREAKING: Sen. Ensign Admits Affair (UPDATED)

See those Republican family values in action:

Sen. John Ensign (R-Nev.) has acknowledged an extramarital affair with a campaign staffer in a statement released by his office. “I deeply regret and am very sorry for my actions,” said Ensign.

[...]

The affair, which was with a woman who worked for both Ensign’s re-election campaign and his Battle Born leadership political action committee, began in December 2007 and ended in August 2008.

Of course, Ensign opposes same-sex marriage–in 2006, he voted for a constitutional amendment that would have banned it.  In 2004, Ensign took to the Senate floor and said:

Marriage recognizes the ideal of a father and mother living together to raise their children. Marriage is the cornerstone on which our society was founded.

[...]

I would simply point out that marriage, and the sanctity of that institution, predates the American Constitution and the founding of our nation. Marriage, as a social institution, predates every other institution on which ordered society in America has relied.

So John Ensign believes in the “sanctity of marriage” enough to want to deny same-sex couples the right to marry, but not so much that he won’t have an extramarital affair with a campaign staffer. Hypocrite, much?

And keep in mind that John Ensign isn’t just another Republican Senator–he’s the former Chairman of the National Republican Senatorial Committee and serves as the 4th highest-ranking Republican in the United States Senate.

I wonder what Ensign’s Republican colleagues think of his interpretation of the “sanctity of marriage”?

UPDATED: And the sanctimony and hypocrisy continue:

During the height of the scandal surrounding Bill Clinton’s affair with Monica Lewinsky, the Nevada Republican denounced the president’s conduct as “an embarrassing moment for the country.”

I think we have to feel very sad for the American people and Hillary and Chelsea,’ he said.

Weeks later, Ensign would call on Clinton to resign. “I came to that conclusion recently, and frankly it’s because of what he put his whole Cabinet through and what he has put the country through,” he was quoted saying at the time. “He has no credibility left,” he added.

[...]

In fact, not only did Ensign envision the Lewinksy affair as a political boon for Republicans, he actively made it an issue in his campaign against Reid. At one point during the campaign, Ensign accused his opponent of having a double standard when it came to politicians and sexual dalliances. Reid, he argued, had been much tougher on former Sen. Robert Packwood — who resigned from the Senate under allegations of sexual harassment — than he was with Clinton.

[Emphasis mine]

So, according to John Ensign himself:

  • This is an embarrassing moment for the country.
  • John Ensign has no credibility left.
  • John Ensign has to resign.

You heard it from the horse’s mouth, folks.

Comments Off


Invisible Reform

Ohio’s Republican Senate candidate, Rob Portman, goes extremely off-message talking about the GOP’s health care reform plan:

“I will tell you, I don’t think there is a Republican alternative at this point,” he said. He said he reached that conclusion after talking to Senate leaders and lawmakers about the GOP’s position. “There isn’t one,” he said.

You heard it straight from the elephant’s mouth: the Democrats have a health care reform plan and the Republicans don’t. So not only is the GOP the Party of No, they’re also the Party of No Ideas.

But hey, they have talking points. Because there’s the modern GOP for you, putting hollow messaging over real reform.

No wonder these guys are in the minority.

Comments Off


BREAKING: Obama Picks Sotomayor For SCOTUS (UPDATED X6)

President Barack Obama has nominated Judge Sonia Sotomayor, of the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, to replace David Souter as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court.

A few things to keep in mind:

  • Judge Sotomayor has a strong history of bipartisan support–she was nominated to her current position by President Bill Clinton; before that, she was nominated to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York by President George H. W. Bush.
  • This makes Sonia Sotomayor more bipartisan than John Roberts, who was nominated to the D.C. Circuit court by George W. Bush, who then nominated him to the Supreme Court.
  • This also makes Judge Sotomayor more bipartisan than Samuel Alito, who was nominated for the Third Circuit Court of Appeals by President George H. W. Bush and nominated to the Supreme Court by President George W. Bush.
  • When George W. Bush was making court appointments, conservatives claimed that the Senate’s constitutional duty to provide “advice and consent” on judicial nominees meant that they could only oppose a court nominee if he/she were unqualified, not due to ideological differences. Conservatives also claimed that filibustering judicial nominees was unconstitutional, demanding a definitive “up or down” vote on all nominees. When the possibility of a Democratic filibuster arose, Republicans threatened to eliminate the filibuster entirely for this very reason.
  • No matter who President Obama nominated–whether he chose a judge with broad bipartisan support like Sotomayor or someone more ideological–conservatives were going to call that nominee a “liberal” and an “activist judge.” Conservatives aren’t interested in determining whether or not Judge Sotomayor is fit to serve (since she undeniably is); they’re interested in smearing her for no other reason than the fact that she was appointed by a Democratic President.
  • UPDATE: Another important point: Judge Sotomayor has been a member of the federal judiciary longer than any other sitting Supreme Court Justice had at the time of their nomination.

UPDATE: The only solid criticism conservatives have been able to make about Sotomayor was her ruling that the City of New Haven could throw out its promotional test for firefighters and start over with a new test, since the city believed the test had a “disparate impact” on minority firefighters and they feared that those minority firefighters could sue.

That doesn’t exactly seem like a slam-dunk disqualifier to me or doctrinaire liberal ruling to me. Frankly, if that’s the most Republicans can criticize Sotomayor on then I don’t think she or President Obama have much to worry about.

UPDATE II: Here’s more proof that Judge Sotomayor, contrary to the right’s talking points, is not some kind of hard-line far left doctrinaire liberal:

  • In Center for Reproductive Law and Policy v. Bush, Judge Sotomayor voted to uphold the Bush administration Mexico City policy, which requires foreign organizations receiving U.S. funds to “neither perform nor actively promote abortion as a method of family planning in other nations,” as constitutional.
  • Judge Sotomayor dissented in Pappas v. Giuliani, claiming that the NYPD could not terminate an employee from his desk job for sending racist materials through the mail, since the First Amendment protects speech by the employee “away from the office, on [his] own time,” even if that speech was “offensive, hateful, and insulting.”

In other words, contrary to what the GOP would have you believe, Judge Sotomayor seems like a fair-minded legal scholar with significant respect for the Constitution and the rule of law.

UPDATE III: And let’s keep in mind some of John Roberts’ and Samuel Alito’s more controversial rulings before they were appointed to the Supreme Court:

  • In Hedgepeth v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority, Roberts ruled that it was constitutional for police to strip-search a 12-year-old girl for violating the Washington Metro’s zero-tolerance policy toward eating food in subway stations.
  • In Doe v. Groody, Alito claimed that it was constitutional for police to strip-search a mother and her 10-year-old daughter while they were carrying out a search warrant for the house they lived in.
  • In Chadwick v. Janecka, Alito held that that there was “no federal constitutional bar” to the “indefinite confinement” of a man imprisoned for civil contempt because he claimed he could not pay his $2.5 million debt to his wife.

I doubt you could nominate someone to the Supreme Court who doesn’t have some kind of controversial opinion or ruling in their past.

Yet, Congress has confirmed nominees with some objectionable rulings/opinions to the Supreme Court. Just because Republicans can find one or two of Sotomayor’s opinions they disagree with doesn’t–and shouldn’t–disqualify her from serving on the Supreme Court.

UPDATE IV: The following eight Republican Senators voted to confirm Sotomayor for the Second Circuit Court of Appeals:

Bennett (Utah)
Cochran
Collins
Gregg
Hatch
Lugar
Snowe
Specter (has since switched to the Democrats)

In other words, the GOP won’t be able to defeat Sotomayor’s nomination without several instances of stunning legislative hypocrisy.

UPDATE V: MSNBC just talked to Senator Orrin Hatch, one of the eight Republicans who voted to confirm Judge Sotomayor in 1998. He brought up two points that I think need to be dealt with:

Sonia Sotomayor was only nominated to the federal bench by George H. W. Bush so that Senate Democrats would confirm one of Bush’s more conservative nominees.

Regardless, Sonia Sotomayor was nominated to the federal bench by a Republican President. Every judicial nomination is affected politics and political calculations, but George H. W. Bush still thought Sotomayor was accomplished, qualified, and had the appropriate temperament and respect for the rule of law to serve as a federal judge.

While some Republican Senators voted to confirm Judge Sotomayor to the Second District Court of Appeals, that court is far less important than the Supreme Court; thus, Sotomayor now should be held to different standards.

Actually, I’d argue that federal courts of appeal are extraordinarily important considering that the Supreme Court only accepts about 1% of the cases that are brought before it. In other words, federal courts of appeal are far more often the last resort for major constitutional cases than the Supreme Court.

I’m not claiming that every federal appeals court judge is automatically qualified to be a Supreme Court justice, but it’s pretty appalling for Republicans to claim they only voted to confirm Sonia Sotomayor because the Second Circuit Court of Appeal wasn’t worth their opposition.

UPDATE VI: And the RNC boneheadedly sent their Sotomayor talking points to the press, so feel free to take a gander at their playbook for sinking the Sotomayor nomination.

Comments Off


KY-SEN: Bunning Out?

It seems like Republican Senator Jim Bunning will not run for re-election in 2010:

In a move that signals a retirement announcement from Sen. Jim Bunning (R-Ky.) is imminent, Kentucky Secretary of State Trey Grayson (R) has formed an exploratory committee to run for Senate.

I won’t say Bunning is actually retiring until he makes it official, since there have been a lot of rumors about him stepping aside that turned out to be false.

Mitch McConnell and much of the GOP establishment wants Bunning to step aside, mostly due to his age, erratic behavior on the campaign trail and his anemic fundraising.  The establishment could simply be encouraging Grayson to run and feeding this story to the DC press in order to put some pressure on Bunning to step aside.

If Bunning is the candidate, it’s likely that Lt. Gov Dan Mongiardo will be able to take him out, thus making this a relatively-easy Democratic pickup.  But if he does step aside–or get defeated by Grayson–then it becomes significantly harder for Democrats to win here.

So I’m reporting the rumor, but taking it with a huge grain of salt.



BREAKING: Arlen Specter To Switch Parties, Run As Democrat In 2010 (UPDATED X5)
Welcome home, Arlen.

Welcome home, Arlen.

The Washington Post has it:

Pennsylvania Sen. Arlen Specter will switch his party affiliation from Republican to Democrat and announced today that he will run in 2010 as a Democrat, according to sources informed on the decision.

Specter’s decision would give Democrats a 60 seat filibuster proof majority in the Senate assuming Democrat Al Franken is eventually sworn in as the next Senator from Minnesota. (Former Sen. Norm Coleman is appealing Franken’s victory in the state Supreme Court.)

“I have decided to run for re-election in 2010 in the Democratic primary,” said Specter in a statement. “I am ready, willing and anxious to take on all comers and have my candidacy for re-election determined in a general election.”

[Emphasis mine]

This changes everything.

UPDATE: First, there’s the question of what Specter’s switch puts back on the table–since he doesn’t have to pander to the right wing of his party anymore, will he vote more liberally? Will it be easier for the Democrats to win him over on key votes now?

Second, this puts even greater pressure on Norm Coleman to step aside in Minnesota–Al Franken would give the Democrats a 60-seat filibuster-proof majority, thus making the resolution of MN’s Senate contest even more important.

Third, this throws the entire PA-SEN race into disarray. Will more Republicans join Pat Toomey in vying for the GOP nod? Will any Democrats challenge Specter in the Democratic primary?
If a Democrat challenges Specter from the left, could he be pressured to vote more liberally–like how Toomey’s challenge from the right pressured Specter to vote more conservatively?

We have no answers yet, but this is undeniably good news for the Democrats and bad news for the GOP. I wonder how small the Republicans’ tent can get–it’s already looking pretty tiny from where I’m standing.

UPDATE II: MSNBC is reporting that one of the conditions of Specter’s switch is that nobody is allowed to challenge him for the Democratic nomination. I’m not exactly happy about that, but I guess I’ll accept it.

And I want to remind everyone that Specter won’t be a party-line vote–in fact, I predict there will be a number of times he votes against the Democratic caucus, just as he voted against the GOP caucus. He won’t be a reliable 60th vote, but he will be a 60th vote, and that’s what matters.

UPDATE III: The entire conservative movement is currently having a sour grapes party; you can practically smell the vinegar from here.

Even though Specter’s switch puts the GOP’s Senate caucus at 40 members, the fewest they’ve had since January of 1979, they’re still pretending that Specter’s departure is a good thing.

Because sitting by and watching all the moderates abandon your party in droves has done wonders for the GOP since 2005, right?

UPDATE IV: Whether or not you think this is good news for the GOP depends on whether or not you think Pat Toomey can beat Arlen Specter.

Problem is, PA has been trending bluer for a long time. For instance, compare the results of the 2000 Senate election to the 2006 Senate election:

2000

Rick Santorum: 52.4%

Ron Klink: 45.5%

2006

Rick Santorum: 41.3%

Bob Casey: 58.6%

Or look at how many Congressional seats have changed hands in the past 4 years alone:

2005

GOP: 12

DEM: 7

2009

GOP: 8

DEM: 11

Or look at the popular vote shift between the 2004 and 2008 Presidential elections:

2004

Kerry: 51%

Bush: 48%

2008

Obama: 54%

McCain: 44%

No matter how you look at it, PA has been trending bluer in the past few years; it isn’t particularly fertile ground for Republicans, let alone far-right Republicans like Pat Toomey.

Plus, Specter has the advantage of being a longtime incumbent, is regarded as a well-respected Senate moderate, and his party switch is already being spun as him putting his beliefs ahead of partisanship.

Toomey won’t win. He might be more popular than Specter among Pennsylvania Republicans, but Pennsylvania Republicans haven’t been the majority in Pennsylvania for a good long time.

UPDATE V: More proof that PA has been getting more hostile toward Republicans:

1998

Arlen Specter: 61%

Bill Lloyd: 35%

2004

Arlen Specter: 52.6%

Joe Hoeffel: 42%


Comments Off


The Era Of Big Government…

…is still popular.

After passing the conservative-dubbed spendulus/porkulus/Generational Theft Act of 2009, Congress is…the most popular it’s been in more than 4 years:

Americans’ job approval rating of Congress is up an additional 8 points this month, after a 12-point increase last month, and now stands at 39% — the most positive assessment of Congress since February 2005.

[Emphasis mine]

picture-10

Congress’ popularity is up among all groups, but mostly among Democrats and Independents:

gallup02

So, what does this tell us? First, conservatives are far outside the mainstream–they spent weeks maligning the economic stimulus package, only to see Congress’ approval ratings shoot up after it was passed.

Second, despite all the right-wing gibbering about socialism or deficits or whatever their latest talking point is, the American people clearly want to see their government doing something about the economic crisis.  Part of the reason why Congress was so unpopular between 2007 and early 2009 was because, with a Republican President, very little got done.  Now that Bush is gone, Congress and the President are finally getting to work solving some of our nation’s most pressing problems, and clearly the American people appreciate that.

Keep doing what you’re doing, Congress; taking action and being effective is the best way to refute garbage right-wing talking points.

Comments Off


Gimmickry

Conservative blogger Patrick Ruffini discusses Sam “Joe the Plumber” Wurzelbacher:

Joe the Plumber — a one or two day campaign gimmick — has become a poster boy for conservatism. To say that the McCain campaign milked Joe Wurzelbacher’s story and then some would be the understatement of the century. Now, conservatives are making him a foreign war correspondent and he is sure to be feted at CPAC — so I’m sure to get a certain amount of grief for what I’m writing now.

If you want to get a sense of how unserious and ungrounded most Americans think the Republican Party is, look no further than how conservatives elevate Joe the Plumber as a spokesman. The movement has become so gimmick-driven that Wurzelbacher will be a conservative hero long after people have forgotten what his legitimate policy beef with Obama was.

I think “gimmick-driven” is, quite possibly, the most astute criticism of the Republican Party I have ever heard.

Remember when John McCain “suspended” his Presidential campaign to fly to Washington and fix the economic crisis? Remember when McCain chose Sarah Palin to be his running mate?

Remember the GOP’s response to the economic stimulus package, which turned into a never-ending circus of embarrassing political gimmicks? Republican lawmakers complained about how many pages the bill was, even though—obviously—the length of a bill has no impact whatsoever on whether or not it’s a good piece of legislation. They complained about the cost of the bill, which would have been a worthy criticism had they not made it in the stupidest way possible, gabbing on about how high a stack of 1 trillion $1 bills would reach or how, if you spent a million dollars a day since the birth of Jesus, you wouldn’t spend as much money as was contained in that bill.

Yes, the stimulus bill had a big price tag, but nobody was trying to hide it. President Obama and the Democrats said from the start that we needed a large stimulus package; it wasn’t like everyone needed the GOP to tell them what the bill cost.

The sheer cost of the bill wasn’t important; what was important was the return on investment, how much economic growth that money would create. In the end, the GOP gave no coherent, worthwhile reason to oppose the bill. Where was their economics?

The list of gimmicks goes on and on: embracing Twitter as quick-fix to their poor messaging, hosting pointless “tea parties,” forcing a Michael Steele hip-GOP image makeover, etc. The right is hoping they’ll stumble across a magic bullet that will rocket them back into the majority, which is the kind of short-sighted, shallow thinking that’s going to keep them in the minority.

As Ruffini says,

Conservatives should not need Joe the Plumber to prove their middle class bona fides. We are naturally the party of the middle, and we don’t need gimmicks to prove it.

I agree with part of Ruffini’s point–the GOP shouldn’t need gimmicks, their policies should  be able to speak for themselves.  For instance, picking a random middle-class person to read your talking points doesn’t prove you’re the party of the middle class; embracing policies that help the middle class prove you’re the party of the middle class.

Somewhere along the way, Republicans forgot that the underpinning of politics is policy and they jettisoned political substance in favor of whatever stunt they hope will win the day’s news cycle.  Getting the conservative movement to kick it’s gimmickry habit and getting them to be serious once again should be the first step toward any kind of Republican revival.



Pork!

Remember the weeks-long Republican campaign to derail the economic stimulus package? Remember all the ranting about “pork” and complaining about “wasteful spending dressed in ’stimulus’ clothes“? Remember the Republicans complaining that it was”generational theft“  “larded up with wasteful spending“?

Well, turns out the Republicans have no problem with wasteful spending when it benefits them:

A ten percent increase in the budget for Congressional operations was needed because Senate Republicans wanted to retain previous staff levels despite having lost roughly 20 percent of their ranks in the 2008 elections, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) said Wednesday.

[...]

Reid, asked about the increase at a press conference, initially dodged the question, speaking instead about spending in general.

The unsatisfied reporter repeated the question about a ten percent raise for the congressional budget. “How is that going to help get out of the depression?” she pressed.

Don’t blame us, said Reid.

“We had a situation — you should direct that question to Senator McConnell,” he said, referring to the Senate Minority Leader, “because we had trouble organizing this year. He wanted to maintain a lot of their staffing even though they had lost huge numbers. And the only way we could get it done is to do what we did. So you should direct that question to Senator McConnell.”

A McConnell spokesman didn’t immediately return a phone call.

Oh, the hypocrisy.

So, according to Republican logic, spending money to help the American people through an economic crisis is wasteful pork that should be opposed at all costs, yet spending a couple billion dollars to give Congressional Republicans bigger staffs is a completely worthwhile and necessary expense.

When it comes to helping you, the GOP is the Party of No.  But when it comes to helping themselves, the GOP is the Party of Gimmie Gimmie Gimmie. ‘Let them eat cake’ indeed.

Comments Off


President Obama’s Speech To The Nation (UPDATED)

Here is the full text of President Barack Obama’s speech to be delivered this evening before a joint session of Congress:

Remarks of President Barack Obama – As Prepared for Delivery

Address to Joint Session of Congress

Tuesday, February 24th, 2009

Madame Speaker, Mr. Vice President, Members of Congress, and the First Lady of the United States:

I’ve come here tonight not only to address the distinguished men and women in this great chamber, but to speak frankly and directly to the men and women who sent us here.

I know that for many Americans watching right now, the state of our economy is a concern that rises above all others. And rightly so. If you haven’t been personally affected by this recession, you probably know someone who has – a friend; a neighbor; a member of your family. You don’t need to hear another list of statistics to know that our economy is in crisis, because you live it every day. It’s the worry you wake up with and the source of sleepless nights. It’s the job you thought you’d retire from but now have lost; the business you built your dreams upon that’s now hanging by a thread; the college acceptance letter your child had to put back in the envelope. The impact of this recession is real, and it is everywhere.

But while our economy may be weakened and our confidence shaken; though we are living through difficult and uncertain times, tonight I want every American to know this:

We will rebuild, we will recover, and the United States of America will emerge stronger than before.

The weight of this crisis will not determine the destiny of this nation. The answers to our problems don’t lie beyond our reach. They exist in our laboratories and universities; in our fields and our factories; in the imaginations of our entrepreneurs and the pride of the hardest-working people on Earth. Those qualities that have made America the greatest force of progress and prosperity in human history we still possess in ample measure. What is required now is for this country to pull together, confront boldly the challenges we face, and take responsibility for our future once more

Now, if we’re honest with ourselves, we’ll admit that for too long, we have not always met these responsibilities – as a government or as a people. I say this not to lay blame or look backwards, but because it is only by understanding how we arrived at this moment that we’ll be able to lift ourselves out of this predicament.

The fact is, our economy did not fall into decline overnight. Nor did all of our problems begin when the housing market collapsed or the stock market sank. We have known for decades that our survival depends on finding new sources of energy. Yet we import more oil today than ever before. The cost of health care eats up more and more of our savings each year, yet we keep delaying reform. Our children will compete for jobs in a global economy that too many of our schools do not prepare them for. And though all these challenges went unsolved, we still managed to spend more money and pile up more debt, both as individuals and through our government, than ever before.

In other words, we have lived through an era where too often, short-term gains were prized over long-term prosperity; where we failed to look beyond the next payment, the next quarter, or the next election. A surplus became an excuse to transfer wealth to the wealthy instead of an opportunity to invest in our future. Regulations were gutted for the sake of a quick profit at the expense of a healthy market. People bought homes they knew they couldn’t afford from banks and lenders who pushed those bad loans anyway. And all the while, critical debates and difficult decisions were put off for some other time on some other day.

Well that day of reckoning has arrived, and the time to take charge of our future is here.

Now is the time to act boldly and wisely – to not only revive this economy, but to build a new foundation for lasting prosperity. Now is the time to jumpstart job creation, re-start lending, and invest in areas like energy, health care, and education that will grow our economy, even as we make hard choices to bring our deficit down. That is what my economic agenda is designed to do, and that’s what I’d like to talk to you about tonight.

It’s an agenda that begins with jobs.

As soon as I took office, I asked this Congress to send me a recovery plan by President’s Day that would put people back to work and put money in their pockets. Not because I believe in bigger government – I don’t. Not because I’m not mindful of the massive debt we’ve inherited – I am. I called for action because the failure to do so would have cost more jobs and caused more hardships. In fact, a failure to act would have worsened our long-term deficit by assuring weak economic growth for years. That’s why I pushed for quick action. And tonight, I am grateful that this Congress delivered, and pleased to say that the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act is now law.

Over the next two years, this plan will save or create 3.5 million jobs. More than 90% of these jobs will be in the private sector – jobs rebuilding our roads and bridges; constructing wind turbines and solar panels; laying broadband and expanding mass transit.

Because of this plan, there are teachers who can now keep their jobs and educate our kids. Health care professionals can continue caring for our sick. There are 57 police officers who are still on the streets of Minneapolis tonight because this plan prevented the layoffs their department was about to make.

Because of this plan, 95% of the working households in America will receive a tax cut – a tax cut that you will see in your paychecks beginning on April 1st.

Because of this plan, families who are struggling to pay tuition costs will receive a $2,500 tax credit for all four years of college. And Americans who have lost their jobs in this recession will be able to receive extended unemployment benefits and continued health care coverage to help them weather this storm.

I know there are some in this chamber and watching at home who are skeptical of whether this plan will work. I understand that skepticism. Here in Washington, we’ve all seen how quickly good intentions can turn into broken promises and wasteful spending. And with a plan of this scale comes enormous responsibility to get it right.

That is why I have asked Vice President Biden to lead a tough, unprecedented oversight effort – because nobody messes with Joe. I have told each member of my Cabinet as well as mayors and governors across the country that they will be held accountable by me and the American people for every dollar they spend. I have appointed a proven and aggressive Inspector General to ferret out any and all cases of waste and fraud. And we have created a new website called recovery.gov so that every American can find out how and where their money is being spent.

So the recovery plan we passed is the first step in getting our economy back on track. But it is just the first step. Because even if we manage this plan flawlessly, there will be no real recovery unless we clean up the credit crisis that has severely weakened our financial system.

I want to speak plainly and candidly about this issue tonight, because every American should know that it directly affects you and your family’s well-being. You should also know that the money you’ve deposited in banks across the country is safe; your insurance is secure; and you can rely on the continued operation of our financial system. That is not the source of concern.

The concern is that if we do not re-start lending in this country, our recovery will be choked off before it even begins.

You see, the flow of credit is the lifeblood of our economy. The ability to get a loan is how you finance the purchase of everything from a home to a car to a college education; how stores stock their shelves, farms buy equipment, and businesses make payroll.

But credit has stopped flowing the way it should. Too many bad loans from the housing crisis have made their way onto the books of too many banks. With so much debt and so little confidence, these banks are now fearful of lending out any more money to households, to businesses, or to each other. When there is no lending, families can’t afford to buy homes or cars. So businesses are forced to make layoffs. Our economy suffers even more, and credit dries up even further

That is why this administration is moving swiftly and aggressively to break this destructive cycle, restore confidence, and re-start lending.

We will do so in several ways. First, we are creating a new lending fund that represents the largest effort ever to help provide auto loans, college loans, and small business loans to the consumers and entrepreneurs who keep this economy running.

Second, we have launched a housing plan that will help responsible families facing the threat of foreclosure lower their monthly payments and re-finance their mortgages. It’s a plan that won’t help speculators or that neighbor down the street who bought a house he could never hope to afford, but it will help millions of Americans who are struggling with declining home values – Americans who will now be able to take advantage of the lower interest rates that this plan has already helped bring about. In fact, the average family who re-finances today can save nearly $2000 per year on their mortgage.

Third, we will act with the full force of the federal government to ensure that the major banks that Americans depend on have enough confidence and enough money to lend even in more difficult times. And when we learn that a major bank has serious problems, we will hold accountable those responsible, force the necessary adjustments, provide the support to clean up their balance sheets, and assure the continuity of a strong, viable institution that can serve our people and our economy.

I understand that on any given day, Wall Street may be more comforted by an approach that gives banks bailouts with no strings attached, and that holds nobody accountable for their reckless decisions. But such an approach won’t solve the problem. And our goal is to quicken the day when we re-start lending to the American people and American business and end this crisis once and for all.

I intend to hold these banks fully accountable for the assistance they receive, and this time, they will have to clearly demonstrate how taxpayer dollars result in more lending for the American taxpayer. This time, CEOs won’t be able to use taxpayer money to pad their paychecks or buy fancy drapes or disappear on a private jet. Those days are over.

Still, this plan will require significant resources from the federal government – and yes, probably more than we’ve already set aside. But while the cost of action will be great, I can assure you that the cost of inaction will be far greater, for it could result in an economy that sputters along for not months or years, but perhaps a decade. That would be worse for our deficit, worse for business, worse for you, and worse for the next generation. And I refuse to let that happen.

I understand that when the last administration asked this Congress to provide assistance for struggling banks, Democrats and Republicans alike were infuriated by the mismanagement and results that followed. So were the American taxpayers. So was I.

So I know how unpopular it is to be seen as helping banks right now, especially when everyone is suffering in part from their bad decisions. I promise you – I get it.

But I also know that in a time of crisis, we cannot afford to govern out of anger, or yield to the politics of the moment. My job – our job – is to solve the problem. Our job is to govern with a sense of responsibility. I will not spend a single penny for the purpose of rewarding a single Wall Street executive, but I will do whatever it takes to help the small business that can’t pay its workers or the family that has saved and still can’t get a mortgage.

That’s what this is about. It’s not about helping banks – it’s about helping people. Because when credit is available again, that young family can finally buy a new home. And then some company will hire workers to build it. And then those workers will have money to spend, and if they can get a loan too, maybe they’ll finally buy that car, or open their own business. Investors will return to the market, and American families will see their retirement secured once more. Slowly, but surely, confidence will return, and our economy will recover.

So I ask this Congress to join me in doing whatever proves necessary. Because we cannot consign our nation to an open-ended recession. And to ensure that a crisis of this magnitude never happens again, I ask Congress to move quickly on legislation that will finally reform our outdated regulatory system. It is time to put in place tough, new common-sense rules of the road so that our financial market rewards drive and innovation, and punishes short-cuts and abuse.

The recovery plan and the financial stability plan are the immediate steps we’re taking to revive our economy in the short-term. But the only way to fully restore America’s economic strength is to make the long-term investments that will lead to new jobs, new industries, and a renewed ability to compete with the rest of the world. The only way this century will be another American century is if we confront at last the price of our dependence on oil and the high cost of health care; the schools that aren’t preparing our children and the mountain of debt they stand to inherit. That is our responsibility.

In the next few days, I will submit a budget to Congress. So often, we have come to view these documents as simply numbers on a page or laundry lists of programs. I see this document differently. I see it as a vision for America – as a blueprint for our future.

My budget does not attempt to solve every problem or address every issue. It reflects the stark reality of what we’ve inherited – a trillion dollar deficit, a financial crisis, and a costly recession.

Given these realities, everyone in this chamber – Democrats and Republicans – will have to sacrifice some worthy priorities for which there are no dollars. And that includes me.

But that does not mean we can afford to ignore our long-term challenges. I reject the view that says our problems will simply take care of themselves; that says government has no role in laying the foundation for our common prosperity.

For history tells a different story. History reminds us that at every moment of economic upheaval and transformation, this nation has responded with bold action and big ideas. In the midst of civil war, we laid railroad tracks from one coast to another that spurred commerce and industry. From the turmoil of the Industrial Revolution came a system of public high schools that prepared our citizens for a new age. In the wake of war and depression, the GI Bill sent a generation to college and created the largest middle-class in history. And a twilight struggle for freedom led to a nation of highways, an American on the moon, and an explosion of technology that still shapes our world.

In each case, government didn’t supplant private enterprise; it catalyzed private enterprise. It created the conditions for thousands of entrepreneurs and new businesses to adapt and to thrive.

We are a nation that has seen promise amid peril, and claimed opportunity from ordeal. Now we must be that nation again. That is why, even as it cuts back on the programs we don’t need, the budget I submit will invest in the three areas that are absolutely critical to our economic future: energy, health care, and education.

It begins with energy.

We know the country that harnesses the power of clean, renewable energy will lead the 21st century. And yet, it is China that has launched the largest effort in history to make their economy energy efficient. We invented solar technology, but we’ve fallen behind countries like Germany and Japan in producing it. New plug-in hybrids roll off our assembly lines, but they will run on batteries made in Korea.

Well I do not accept a future where the jobs and industries of tomorrow take root beyond our borders – and I know you don’t either. It is time for America to lead again.

Thanks to our recovery plan, we will double this nation’s supply of renewable energy in the next three years. We have also made the largest investment in basic research funding in American history – an investment that will spur not only new discoveries in energy, but breakthroughs in medicine, science, and technology.

We will soon lay down thousands of miles of power lines that can carry new energy to cities and towns across this country. And we will put Americans to work making our homes and buildings more efficient so that we can save billions of dollars on our energy bills.

But to truly transform our economy, protect our security, and save our planet from the ravages of climate change, we need to ultimately make clean, renewable energy the profitable kind of energy. So I ask this Congress to send me legislation that places a market-based cap on carbon pollution and drives the production of more renewable energy in America. And to support that innovation, we will invest fifteen billion dollars a year to develop technologies like wind power and solar power; advanced biofuels, clean coal, and more fuel-efficient cars and trucks built right here in America.

As for our auto industry, everyone recognizes that years of bad decision-making and a global recession have pushed our automakers to the brink. We should not, and will not, protect them from their own bad practices. But we are committed to the goal of a re-tooled, re-imagined auto industry that can compete and win. Millions of jobs depend on it. Scores of communities depend on it. And I believe the nation that invented the automobile cannot walk away from it.

None of this will come without cost, nor will it be easy. But this is America. We don’t do what’s easy. We do what is necessary to move this country forward.

For that same reason, we must also address the crushing cost of health care.

This is a cost that now causes a bankruptcy in America every thirty seconds. By the end of the year, it could cause 1.5 million Americans to lose their homes. In the last eight years, premiums have grown four times faster than wages. And in each of these years, one million more Americans have lost their health insurance. It is one of the major reasons why small businesses close their doors and corporations ship jobs overseas. And it’s one of the largest and fastest-growing parts of our budget.

Given these facts, we can no longer afford to put health care reform on hold.

Already, we have done more to advance the cause of health care reform in the last thirty days than we have in the last decade. When it was days old, this Congress passed a law to provide and protect health insurance for eleven million American children whose parents work full-time. Our recovery plan will invest in electronic health records and new technology that will reduce errors, bring down costs, ensure privacy, and save lives. It will launch a new effort to conquer a disease that has touched the life of nearly every American by seeking a cure for cancer in our time. And it makes the largest investment ever in preventive care, because that is one of the best ways to keep our people healthy and our costs under control.

This budget builds on these reforms. It includes an historic commitment to comprehensive health care reform – a down-payment on the principle that we must have quality, affordable health care for every American. It’s a commitment that’s paid for in part by efficiencies in our system that are long overdue. And it’s a step we must take if we hope to bring down our deficit in the years to come.

Now, there will be many different opinions and ideas about how to achieve reform, and that is why I’m bringing together businesses and workers, doctors and health care providers, Democrats and Republicans to begin work on this issue next week.

I suffer no illusions that this will be an easy process. It will be hard. But I also know that nearly a century after Teddy Roosevelt first called for reform, the cost of our health care has weighed down our economy and the conscience of our nation long enough. So let there be no doubt: health care reform cannot wait, it must not wait, and it will not wait another year.

The third challenge we must address is the urgent need to expand the promise of education in America.

In a global economy where the most valuable skill you can sell is your knowledge, a good education is no longer just a pathway to opportunity – it is a pre-requisite.

Right now, three-quarters of the fastest-growing occupations require more than a high school diploma. And yet, just over half of our citizens have that level of education. We have one of the highest high school dropout rates of any industrialized nation. And half of the students who begin college never finish.

This is a prescription for economic decline, because we know the countries that out-teach us today will out-compete us tomorrow. That is why it will be the goal of this administration to ensure that every child has access to a complete and competitive education – from the day they are born to the day they begin a career.

Already, we have made an historic investment in education through the economic recovery plan. We have dramatically expanded early childhood education and will continue to improve its quality, because we know that the most formative learning comes in those first years of life. We have made college affordable for nearly seven million more students. And we have provided the resources necessary to prevent painful cuts and teacher layoffs that would set back our children’s progress.

But we know that our schools don’t just need more resources. They need more reform. That is why this budget creates new incentives for teacher performance; pathways for advancement, and rewards for success. We’ll invest in innovative programs that are already helping schools meet high standards and close achievement gaps. And we will expand our commitment to charter schools.

It is our responsibility as lawmakers and educators to make this system work. But it is the responsibility of every citizen to participate in it. And so tonight, I ask every American to commit to at least one year or more of higher education or career training. This can be community college or a four-year school; vocational training or an apprenticeship. But whatever the training may be, every American will need to get more than a high school diploma. And dropping out of high school is no longer an option. It’s not just quitting on yourself, it’s quitting on your country – and this country needs and values the talents of every American. That is why we will provide the support necessary for you to complete college and meet a new goal: by 2020, America will once again have the highest proportion of college graduates in the world.

I know that the price of tuition is higher than ever, which is why if you are willing to volunteer in your neighborhood or give back to your community or serve your country, we will make sure that you can afford a higher education. And to encourage a renewed spirit of national service for this and future generations, I ask this Congress to send me the bipartisan legislation that bears the name of Senator Orrin Hatch as well as an American who has never stopped asking what he can do for his country – Senator Edward Kennedy.

These education policies will open the doors of opportunity for our children. But it is up to us to ensure they walk through them. In the end, there is no program or policy that can substitute for a mother or father who will attend those parent/teacher conferences, or help with homework after dinner, or turn off the TV, put away the video games, and read to their child. I speak to you not just as a President, but as a father when I say that responsibility for our children’s education must begin at home.

There is, of course, another responsibility we have to our children. And that is the responsibility to ensure that we do not pass on to them a debt they cannot pay. With the deficit we inherited, the cost of the crisis we face, and the long-term challenges we must meet, it has never been more important to ensure that as our economy recovers, we do what it takes to bring this deficit down.

I’m proud that we passed the recovery plan free of earmarks, and I want to pass a budget next year that ensures that each dollar we spend reflects only our most important national priorities.

Yesterday, I held a fiscal summit where I pledged to cut the deficit in half by the end of my first term in office. My administration has also begun to go line by line through the federal budget in order to eliminate wasteful and ineffective programs. As you can imagine, this is a process that will take some time. But we’re starting with the biggest lines. We have already identified two trillion dollars in savings over the next decade.

In this budget, we will end education programs that don’t work and end direct payments to large agribusinesses that don’t need them. We’ll eliminate the no-bid contracts that have wasted billions in Iraq, and reform our defense budget so that we’re not paying for Cold War-era weapons systems we don’t use. We will root out the waste, fraud, and abuse in our Medicare program that doesn’t make our seniors any healthier, and we will restore a sense of fairness and balance to our tax code by finally ending the tax breaks for corporations that ship our jobs overseas.

In order to save our children from a future of debt, we will also end the tax breaks for the wealthiest 2% of Americans. But let me perfectly clear, because I know you’ll hear the same old claims that rolling back these tax breaks means a massive tax increase on the American people: if your family earns less than $250,000 a year, you will not see your taxes increased a single dime. I repeat: not one single dime. In fact, the recovery plan provides a tax cut – that’s right, a tax cut – for 95% of working families. And these checks are on the way.

To preserve our long-term fiscal health, we must also address the growing costs in Medicare and Social Security. Comprehensive health care reform is the best way to strengthen Medicare for years to come. And we must also begin a conversation on how to do the same for Social Security, while creating tax-free universal savings accounts for all Americans.

Finally, because we’re also suffering from a deficit of trust, I am committed to restoring a sense of honesty and accountability to our budget. That is why this budget looks ahead ten years and accounts for spending that was left out under the old rules – and for the first time, that includes the full cost of fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan. For seven years, we have been a nation at war. No longer will we hide its price.

We are now carefully reviewing our policies in both wars, and I will soon announce a way forward in Iraq that leaves Iraq to its people and responsibly ends this war

And with our friends and allies, we will forge a new and comprehensive strategy for Afghanistan and Pakistan to defeat al Qaeda and combat extremism. Because I will not allow terrorists to plot against the American people from safe havens half a world away.

As we meet here tonight, our men and women in uniform stand watch abroad and more are readying to deploy. To each and every one of them, and to the families who bear the quiet burden of their absence, Americans are united in sending one message: we honor your service, we are inspired by your sacrifice, and you have our unyielding support. To relieve the strain on our forces, my budget increases the number of our soldiers and Marines. And to keep our sacred trust with those who serve, we will raise their pay, and give our veterans the expanded health care and benefits that they have earned.

To overcome extremism, we must also be vigilant in upholding the values our troops defend – because there is no force in the world more powerful than the example of America. That is why I have ordered the closing of the detention center at Guantanamo Bay, and will seek swift and certain justice for captured terrorists – because living our values doesn’t make us weaker, it makes us safer and it makes us stronger. And that is why I can stand here tonight and say without exception or equivocation that the United States of America does not torture.

In words and deeds, we are showing the world that a new era of engagement has begun. For we know that America cannot meet the threats of this century alone, but the world cannot meet them without America. We cannot shun the negotiating table, nor ignore the foes or forces that could do us harm. We are instead called to move forward with the sense of confidence and candor that serious times demand.

To seek progress toward a secure and lasting peace between Israel and her neighbors, we have appointed an envoy to sustain our effort. To meet the challenges of the 21st century – from terrorism to nuclear proliferation; from pandemic disease to cyber threats to crushing poverty – we will strengthen old alliances, forge new ones, and use all elements of our national power.

And to respond to an economic crisis that is global in scope, we are working with the nations of the G-20 to restore confidence in our financial system, avoid the possibility of escalating protectionism, and spur demand for American goods in markets across the globe. For the world depends on us to have a strong economy, just as our economy depends on the strength of the world’s.

As we stand at this crossroads of history, the eyes of all people in all nations are once again upon us – watching to see what we do with this moment; waiting for us to lead.

Those of us gathered here tonight have been called to govern in extraordinary times. It is a tremendous burden, but also a great privilege – one that has been entrusted to few generations of Americans. For in our hands lies the ability to shape our world for good or for ill.

I know that it is easy to lose sight of this truth – to become cynical and doubtful; consumed with the petty and the trivial.

But in my life, I have also learned that hope is found in unlikely places; that inspiration often comes not from those with the most power or celebrity, but from the dreams and aspirations of Americans who are anything but ordinary.

I think about Leonard Abess, the bank president from Miami who reportedly cashed out of his company, took a $60 million bonus, and gave it out to all 399 people who worked for him, plus another 72 who used to work for him. He didn’t tell anyone, but when the local newspaper found out, he simply said, ”I knew some of these people since I was 7 years old. I didn’t feel right getting the money myself.”

I think about Greensburg, Kansas, a town that was completely destroyed by a tornado, but is being rebuilt by its residents as a global example of how clean energy can power an entire community – how it can bring jobs and businesses to a place where piles of bricks and rubble once lay. “The tragedy was terrible,” said one of the men who helped them rebuild. “But the folks here know that it also provided an incredible opportunity.”

And I think about Ty’Sheoma Bethea, the young girl from that school I visited in Dillon, South Carolina – a place where the ceilings leak, the paint peels off the walls, and they have to stop teaching six times a day because the train barrels by their classroom. She has been told that her school is hopeless, but the other day after class she went to the public library and typed up a letter to the people sitting in this room. She even asked her principal for the money to buy a stamp. The letter asks us for help, and says, “We are just students trying to become lawyers, doctors, congressmen like yourself and one day president, so we can make a change to not just the state of South Carolina but also the world. We are not quitters.”

We are not quitters.

These words and these stories tell us something about the spirit of the people who sent us here. They tell us that even in the most trying times, amid the most difficult circumstances, there is a generosity, a resilience, a decency, and a determination that perseveres; a willingness to take responsibility for our future and for posterity.

Their resolve must be our inspiration. Their concerns must be our cause. And we must show them and all our people that we are equal to the task before us.

I know that we haven’t agreed on every issue thus far, and there are surely times in the future when we will part ways. But I also know that every American who is sitting here tonight loves this country and wants it to succeed. That must be the starting point for every debate we have in the coming months, and where we return after those debates are done. That is the foundation on which the American people expect us to build common ground.

And if we do – if we come together and lift this nation from the depths of this crisis; if we put our people back to work and restart the engine of our prosperity; if we confront without fear the challenges of our time and summon that enduring spirit of an America that does not quit, then someday years from now our children can tell their children that this was the time when we performed, in the words that are carved into this very chamber, “something worthy to be remembered.” Thank you, God Bless you, and may God Bless the United States of America.

And here’s the response to President Obama, delivered by Let Them Eat Cake Caucus Chairman Bobby Jindal:

Good evening. I’m Bobby Jindal, Governor of Louisiana.

Tonight, we witnessed a great moment in the history of our Republic.
In the very chamber where Congress once voted to abolish slavery, our
first African-American President stepped forward to address the state
of our union. With his speech tonight, the President completed a
redemptive journey that took our nation from Independence Hall … to
Gettysburg … to the lunch counter … and now, finally, the Oval Office.

Regardless of party, all Americans are moved by the President’s
personal story – the son of an American mother and a Kenyan father,
who grew up to become leader of the free world. Like the President’s
father, my parents came to this country from a distant land. When
they arrived in Baton Rouge, my mother was already 4 ½ months
pregnant. I was what folks in the insurance industry now call a
‘pre-existing condition.’ To find work, my dad picked up the yellow
pages and started calling local businesses. Even after landing a job,
he could still not afford to pay for my delivery – so he worked out an
installment plan with the doctor. Fortunately for me, he never missed
a payment.

As I grew up, my mom and dad taught me the values that attracted them
to this country – and they instilled in me an immigrant’s wonder at
the greatness of America. As a child, I remember going to the
grocery store with my dad. Growing up in India, he had seen extreme
poverty. And as we walked through the aisles, looking at the endless
variety on the shelves, he would tell me: ‘Bobby, Americans can do
anything.’ I still believe that to this day. Americans can do
anything. When we pull together, there is no challenge we cannot
overcome.

As the President made clear this evening, we are now in a time of
challenge. Many of you listening tonight have lost jobs. Others
have seen your college and retirement savings dwindle. Many of you
are worried about losing your health care and your homes. And you are
looking to your elected leaders in Washington for solutions.

Republicans are ready to work with the new President to provide those
solutions. Here in my state of Louisiana, we don’t care what party
you belong to if you have good ideas to make life better for our
people. We need more of that attitude from both Democrats and
Republicans in our nation’s capital. All of us want our economy to
recover and our nation to prosper. So where we agree, Republicans
must be the President’s strongest partners. And where we disagree,
Republicans have a responsibility to be candid and offer better ideas
for a path forward.

Today in Washington, some are promising that government will rescue us
from the economic storms raging all around us.

Those of us who lived through Hurricane Katrina, we have our doubts.

Let me tell you a story.

During Katrina, I visited Sheriff Harry Lee, a Democrat and a good
friend of mine. When I walked into his makeshift office I’d never
seen him so angry. He was yelling into the phone: ‘Well, I’m the
Sheriff and if you don’t like it you can come and arrest me!’ I asked
him: ‘Sheriff, what’s got you so mad?’ He told me that he had put out
a call for volunteers to come with their boats to rescue people who
were trapped on their rooftops by the floodwaters. The boats were
all lined up ready to go – when some bureaucrat showed up and told
them they couldn’t go out on the water unless they had proof of
insurance and registration. I told him, ‘Sheriff, that’s ridiculous.’
And before I knew it, he was yelling into the phone: ‘Congressman
Jindal is here, and he says you can come and arrest him too!’ Harry
just told the boaters to ignore the bureaucrats and start rescuing
people.

There is a lesson in this experience: The strength of America is not
found in our government. It is found in the compassionate hearts and
enterprising spirit of our citizens. We are grateful for the support
we have received from across the nation for the ongoing recovery
efforts. This spirit got Louisiana through the hurricanes – and this
spirit will get our nation through the storms we face today.

To solve our current problems, Washington must lead. But the way to
lead is not to raise taxes and put more money and power in hands of
Washington politicians. The way to lead is by empowering you – the
American people. Because we believe that Americans can do anything.

That is why Republicans put forward plans to create jobs by lowering
income tax rates for working families … cutting taxes for small
businesses … strengthening incentives for businesses to invest in new
equipment and hire new workers … and stabilizing home values by
creating a new tax credit for home-buyers. These plans would cost
less and create more jobs.

But Democratic leaders in Congress rejected this approach. Instead of
trusting us to make wise decisions with our own money, they passed the
largest government spending bill in history – with a price tag of more
than $1 trillion with interest. While some of the projects in the
bill make sense, their legislation is larded with wasteful spending.
It includes $300 million to buy new cars for the government, $8
billion for high-speed rail projects, such as a ‘magnetic levitation’
line from Las Vegas to Disneyland, and $140 million for something
called ‘volcano monitoring.’ Instead of monitoring volcanoes, what
Congress should be monitoring is the eruption of spending in
Washington, DC.

Democratic leaders say their legislation will grow the economy. What
it will do is grow the government, increase our taxes down the line,
and saddle future generations with debt. Who among us would ask our
children for a loan, so we could spend money we do not have, on things
we do not need? That is precisely what the Democrats in Congress just
did. It’s irresponsible. And it’s no way to strengthen our economy,
create jobs, or build a prosperous future for our children.

In Louisiana, we took a different approach. Since I became governor,
we cut more than 250 earmarks from our state budget. And to create
jobs for our citizens, we cut taxes six times – including the largest
income tax cut in the history of our state. We passed those tax cuts
with bipartisan majorities. Republicans and Democrats put aside
their differences, and worked together to make sure our people could
keep more of what they earn. If it can be done in Baton Rouge, surely
it can be done in Washington, DC.

To strengthen our economy, we need urgent action to keep energy prices
down. All of us remember what it felt like to pay $4 at the pump -
and unless we act now, those prices will return. To stop that from
happening, we need to increase conservation … increase energy
efficiency … increase the use of alternative and renewable fuels …
increase our use of nuclear power – and increase drilling for oil and
gas here at home. We believe that Americans can do anything – and if
we unleash the innovative spirit of our citizens, we can achieve
energy independence.

To strengthen our economy, we also need to address the crisis in
health care. Republicans believe in a simple principle: No American
should have to worry about losing their health coverage – period. We
stand for universal access to affordable health care coverage. We
oppose universal government-run health care. Health care decisions
should be made by doctors and patients – not by government
bureaucrats. We believe Americans can do anything – and if we put
aside partisan politics and work together, we can make our system of
private medicine affordable and accessible for every one of our
citizens.

To strengthen our economy, we also need to make sure every child in
America gets the best possible education. After Katrina, we
reinvented the New Orleans school system – opening dozens of new
charter schools, and creating a new scholarship program that is giving
parents the chance to send their children to private or parochial
schools of their choice. We believe that, with the proper education,
the children of America can do anything. And it should not take a
devastating storm to bring this kind of innovation to education in our
country.

To strengthen our economy, we must promote confidence in America by
ensuring ours is the most ethical and transparent system in the world.
In my home state, there used to be saying: At any given time, half
of Louisiana is under water – and the other half is under indictment.
No one says that anymore. Last year, we passed some of the
strongest ethics laws in the nation – and today, Louisiana has turned
her back on the corruption of the past. We need to bring
transparency to Washington, DC – so we can rid our Capitol of
corruption … and ensure we never see the passage of another trillion
dollar spending bill that Congress has not even read and the American
people haven’t even seen.

As we take these steps, we must remember for all our troubles at home,
dangerous enemies still seek our destruction. Now is no time to
dismantle the defenses that have protected this country for hundreds
of years, or make deep cuts in funding for our troops. America’s
fighting men and women can do anything. And if we give them the
resources they need, they will stay on the offensive … defeat our
enemies … and protect us from harm.

In all these areas, Republicans want to work with President Obama. We
appreciate his message of hope – but sometimes it seems we look for
hope in different places. Democratic leaders in Washington place
their hope in the federal government. We place our hope in you – the
American people. In the end, it comes down to an honest and
fundamental disagreement about the proper role of government. We
oppose the National Democrats’ view that says — the way to strengthen
our country is to increase dependence on government. We believe the
way to strengthen our country is to restrain spending in Washington,
and empower individuals and small businesses to grow our economy and
create jobs.

In recent years, these distinctions in philosophy became less clear -
because our party got away from its principles. You elected
Republicans to champion limited government, fiscal discipline, and
personal responsibility. Instead, Republicans went along with
earmarks and big government spending in Washington. Republicans lost
your trust – and rightly so.

Tonight, on behalf of our leaders in Congress and my fellow Republican
governors, I say: Our party is determined to regain your trust. We
will do so by standing up for the principles that we share … the
principles you elected us to fight for … the principles that built
this into the greatest, most prosperous country on earth.

A few weeks ago, the President warned that our nation is facing a
crisis that he said ‘we may not be able to reverse.’ Our troubles are
real, to be sure. But don’t let anyone tell you that we cannot
recover – or that America’s best days are behind her. This is the
nation that cast off the scourge of slavery … overcame the Great
Depression … prevailed in two World Wars … won the struggle for civil
rights … defeated the Soviet menace … and responded with determined
courage to the attacks of September 11, 2001. The American spirit
has triumphed over almost every form of adversity known to man – and
the American spirit will triumph again.

We can have confidence in our future – because, amid today’s
challenges, we also count many blessings: We have the most innovative
citizens …the most abundant resources … the most resilient economy …
the most powerful military … and the freest political system in the
history of the world. My fellow citizens, never forget: We are
Americans. And like my dad said years ago, Americans can do anything.

Thank you for listening. God bless you. And God bless America.”

Comments Off


Schumer: Take It Or Leave It (UPDATED)

Today, Senator Schumer sent a letter to the White House arguing that the economic stimulus package doesn’t allow Governors to turn down certain parts of their state’s stimulus funds–they have to accept all or nothing:

As you know, Section 1607(a) of the economic recovery legislation provides that the Governor of each state must certify a request for stimulus funds before any money can flow. No language in this provision, however, permits the governor to selectively adopt some components of the bill while rejecting others. To allow such picking and choosing would, in effect, empower the governors with a line-item veto authority that President Obama himself did not possess at the time he signed the legislation. It would also undermine the overall success of the bill, as the components most singled out for criticism by these governors are among the most productive measures in terms of stimulating the economy.

In other words, the Bobby Jindals of America, the GOP Let-them-eat-cake caucus can’t take funding for that shiny new transportation project they’ve been eyeing while rejecting funds to help their constituents keep food on their tables.

It’s all or nothing–either Governors accept all the stimulus funds allocated to their states or they reject all of the money and leave their constituents to fend for themselves.

So what say you now, Governors Jindal, Sanford, and Barbour?

UPDATE: And the GOP’s oppose-it-at-all-costs strategy toward the economic stimulus package leads to problems like this:

In an interview with the Washington Times, the Republican governor of Utah on Monday said his party’s leaders in Congress’ lack of new ideas renders them so “inconsequential” that he doesn’t even bother to talk to them.

That’s not the Governor or California or Vermont or Rhode Island saying that; that’s the Governor of dead-red Utah calling the national Republican leadership “inconsequential”.

I wonder if the GOP realized that their opposition to the stimulus package would eventually become a wedge issue for their own party?

Comments Off


Missouri Loves Company

Former Missouri State Treasurer–and failed 2008 Gubernatorial candidate–Sarah Steelman will challenge former House Minority Whip Roy Blunt for  MO’s open Senate seat in 2010:

“I’m in the process of laying the groundwork that I need to get done before making an official announcement,” Steelman told POLITICO. “I’m definitely strongly leaning towards doing this.”

[...]

In the interview, Steelman took some sharp jabs at Blunt, describing the seven-term congressman Blunt as being part of the “old-boys’ network” who has spent too much time in Washington.

Roy Blunt is another white guy in a suit, and I think the public wants change,” Steelman said. “There’s a good old boys’ network out there that’s hard to penetrate… and it’s not always in the best interest of the party or for conservative principles.”

[...]

In an interview with the St. Louis-Dispatch, Blunt flatly said that “Steelman can’t win the primary.”

I smell a bruising primary fight.

Blunt is part of the failed GOP establishment–he was the interim Majority Leader after Tom DeLay’s resignation and served as the #2 Republican in the House during the 110th Congress. In addition, his son Matt served an unremarkable term as Missouri’s Governor.

But Steelman’s record leaves a bit to be desired.  She served one term as the State Treasurer before losing the Republican Gubernatorial primary to Kenny Hulshof, who went on to lose to Democrat Jay Nixon in the general election.

Personally, I think Steelman would be a better bet if for no other reason than all of the political baggage Blunt brings into the race.  No matter what, though, it looks like there’s a bloody primary fight brewing, which could very well cripple the GOP’s shot at holding onto this seat.



America To The GOP: Drop Dead

The political results of the stimulus package fight are in, and it looks like Obama and the Democrats are the winners while the Republicans–as always–are the losers:

Obama’s overall approval rating: 67% APPROVE / 24% DISAPPROVE

Obama’s approval rating on handling the economy: 68% APPROVE / 27% DISAPPROVE

Economic stimulus package approval rating: 52% APPROVE / 41% DISAPPROVE

Confidence that the stimulus package will improve the economy: 54% CONFIDENT / 45% NOT CONFIDENT

Congressional Democrats’ approval rating: 49% APPROVE / 45% DISAPPROVE

Congressional Republicans’ approval rating: 33% APPROVE / 59% DISAPPROVE

Has Obama cooperated enough with Republicans: 62% RIGHT AMOUNT / 30% NOT ENOUGH 6%  TOO MUCH

Have Republicans cooperated enough with Obama: 27% RIGHT AMOUNT / 64% NOT ENOUGH / 5% TOO MUCH

So, according to the American people:

  • Obama is doing a good job, particularly on the economy.
  • The economic stimulus package was a good idea.
  • The economic stimulus package will help the economy.
  • Congressional Democrats did a good job on the stimulus package.
  • Congressional Republicans did a poor job on the stimulus package.
  • Obama worked with Republicans enough but Republicans didn’t work with Obama enough.

The GOP’s opposition to Obama and the stimulus was supposed to be their ticket back into the majority, but it looks like it’s turning into a ticket for a one-way ride on the failboat.

Comments Off


BREAKING: Kathleen Sebelius To Head HHS

The New York Times reports:

President Obama has settled on Gov. Kathleen Sebelius of Kansas, a key ally with a record of working across party lines, as his top choice for secretary of health and human services, advisers said Wednesday.

Should she be nominated, Ms. Sebelius would bring eight years of experience as her state’s insurance commissioner as well as six years as a governor running a state Medicaid program. But with Mr. Obama about to begin a drive to expand health coverage — an issue on which the parties have deep ideological divisions — her strongest asset in the White House view may be her record of navigating partisan politics as a Democrat in one of the country’s most Republican states.

Unless her tenure at HHS is extraordinarily brief, this will kill Sebelius’ chances of being elected to the Senate in 2010.  She’s probably the only Democrat in Kansas with a realistic shot of winning that race, so if she accepts this would destroy the Democrats’ chances of picking up Sam Brownback’s Senate seat.

Still, I don’t doubt that–if confirmed–she would be a fantastic Secretary.  After the Daschle debacle, I’ll simply be happy if she has paid all of her taxes on time.