Partisanship, circa 1933

I wrote a post the other day about the lack of partisan aggressiveness on the part of Congressional Democrats. So I decided to take a look back at the period in history to which 2009 is so often compared. During the 72nd Congress of the United States, which met from 1931-1933, the first elected since the 1929 stock market crash and the last before the election of FDR, Congress was as evenly divided along partisan lines as possible. The Senate had 48 Republicans, 47 Democrats and 1 Farmer-Laborer, placing control with the Republicans by 1 vote. In the House, the breakdown was an even 217-217 for Democrats and Republicans and 1 Farmer-Laborer, with the Democrats narrowly in control as a result of some strange deaths and special elections. Does this sound familiar, the country and the Congress being so evenly divided?

Jump forward to 1933. Franklin D. Roosevelt has been elected president, marking a sweeping change from the Hoover administration and 8 years of Republicans in the White House. The 73rd Congress is widely considered to be one of the most productive in our nation's history, rapidly enacting broad-reaching New Deal legislation. With the new Democratic president in office, was the Congress still evenly divided? Far from it. Democrats held 59 seats in the Senate (sound familiar?) and a whopping 317 seats in the House of Representatives. With the exception of a few Congresses, the Democrats would have a tight grip on Congress for nearly the remainder of the 20th Century. When the New Deal was launched, the Democrats aggressively pushed for what they and Roosevelt wanted - and got it, without question. That was good for the country and good for the party. One difference between the 73rd and the 111th Congresses that must be noted was the level of support that the Republican minority gave to the New Deal programs. Senate Minority Leader Charles McNary was criticized from some Republican leaders for never scolding GOP senators who voted for New Deal legislation. That is a far cry from today's Republican party.

My point, once again, is that the Democrats are overwhelming in charge, and it's time to start showing it, to start exercising that legislative muscle. If we truly believe that our progressive ideas will be good for the country, there is no reason we should not push forward with them and enact them into law, with or without Republican support. The country doesn't give a damn about the partisan bickering of the recent past, they are looking for action. The Democrats can do themselves some good by doing what they want, because right now, that happens to also be what is right. It's a win-win.

Elections Have Consequences

I need to vent for a moment. This has been lingering since the transition began. I am a Democrat. I am proud to be a Democrat and proud to represent the 130,000 Democrats in York County, Pennsylvania. I am also both particularly pleased and proud that my party won a commanding victory in the 2008 elections. A solid mandate for a very popular president, sizable gains in the House, and a nearly filibuster-proof majority in the U.S. Senate.

So why is it that, of late, having a "D" next to one's name seems to be a negative? I'm not saying that it's become a scarlet letter; it's not like having an "R" next to your name in the past two election cycles, but our leadership seems to be forgetting that while bipartisanship is a nice thing to talk about during the State of the Union, Americans actually like partisanship; they just dislike the partisan bickering.

There is no reason that John Boehner or Eric Cantor should be having as large a role and presence in the recent debates as they have. Why should what Boehner thinks even matter? They lead the party that Americans threw out four months ago, under the impression that by electing Democrats to run the country, oh I don't know, maybe the country would be run by the Democrats.

Asserting too much power and completely shutting the other side out, to be sure, is dangerous. But we don't have to pretend like this is a 50-50 country at the moment. We, the Democrats, won. We are in charge. We are supposed to be getting what we want. And that's not partisanship for the sake of being partisan, that's doing what the voters asked for when they went to the polls on November 4th.

The GOP is responsible for the terrible mess that we're in; the American people won't mind if the opinion of GOP leaders matters substantially less. After all, elections have consequences.

Castro has a blog?

On Sunday, Cuban dictator Fidel Castro wrote a column in the national newspaper, part of a recurring segment called "Reflections of Fidel" in which he goes on a deranged stream-of-consciousness rant about the name "Rahm Emanuel." Yes, as in the White House Chief of Staff. And it's not a political attack on the second most powerful man in Washington, it's just a crazy analysis of Rahm's name.

Reflections of Fidel: Rahm Emanuel

Where does it come from? I wondered. Over and over, the name came to mind of the brilliant German thinker, Immanuel Kant, who together with Aristotle and Plato, formed a trio of philosophers that have most influenced human thinking. Doubtless he was not very far, as I discovered later, from the philosophy of the man closest to the current president of the United States, Barack Obama.

An hour well spent

In my post from last night, I commented on how President Obama's press conference last night was long. Really long. And shortly after I posted it, I got thinking about how it's both appropriate and important that it lasted as long as it did. The country is in a very serious crisis and the American people need to be engaged and aware in a way unlike anything most of us are accustomed to. We can take an hour out of our lives to sit and carefully listen to the president of the United States explain the situation and answer questions about it.

It's in many ways symbolic of what got us into this mess. For example, last night at 8 pm eastern, millions of Americans were missing out on favorite television shows, such as The Bachelor, because the President was speaking. During the '90s and much of the current decade, our self-involvement and our mutual carelessness said it was more important to spend an hour watching reality television than taking the time to get a grip on our reality by way of a national leader.

And why shouldn't it have been? During the Clinton administration, Americans were doing very well economically, the government was balancing its budget and American troops were out of harms way...what could the president have to say that is so important? And then during the Bush administration, when things were suddenly serious again, with wars raging and corruption rampant, we had a president who hated the idea of a press conference almost as much as the American people hate Bernie Madoff. We got nothing important out of his press conferences or speeches, so why listen? Well, those days are over, and it's time to start listening - really listening - to what our leaders have to say.

The American people may not always like or agree with what President Obama has to say, but you have got to give the man one thing - no answer last night was intentionally misleading. The Bush years (and yes, also the Clinton years) were a game of avoiding giving a straight answer to a reporter's question. President Obama last night actually answered the questions. And answered, and answered, and answered. But we needed answers, and we needed really long ones, because this crisis will be longer if we insist on the evasive, short answers.

The Hour Long Press Conference

The President just concluded his first prime-time press conference since taking office, and it's a startling contrast to the pressers of the past 8 years. It was clear, thoughtful, honest, articulate...just great overall. It was also very, very long. He spent 57 minutes on the air, during prime time. I bet the networks were thrilled. But it was as close to a home run of a sales pitch as one could hope for. If any American watching tonight was undecided about the stimulus or confused about the economic situation, the Professor-President went to great lengths to change that.

His answer below is the argument that the filter of the news media has prevented from being fully articulated, and it's a compelling argument for not just the stimulus, but other crucial goals of this administration:

This is another concern that I've had in some of the arguments that I'm hearing. When people suggest that what a waste of money to make federal buildings more energy-efficient -- why would that be a waste of money? We're creating jobs immediately by retrofitting these buildings or weatherizing 2 million Americans' homes, as was called for in the package. So that right there creates economic stimulus, and we are saving taxpayers, when it comes to federal buildings, potentially $2 billion. In the case of homeowners, they will see more money in their pockets. And we're reducing our dependence on foreign oil in the Middle East. Why wouldn't we want to make that kind of investment?

The same applies when it comes to information technologies and health care. We know that health care is crippling businesses and making us less competitive, as well as breaking the banks of families all across America. And part of the reason is we've got the most inefficient health care system imaginable. We're still using paper. We're -- we're still filing things in triplicate. Nurses can't read the prescriptions that doctors -- that doctors have written out. Why wouldn't we want to put that on an -- put that on an electronic medical record that will reduce error rates, reduce our long-term cost of health care, and create jobs right now?

Education, yet another example. The suggestion is, why should the federal government be involved in school construction? Well, I visited a school down in South Carolina that was built in the 1850s. Kids are still learning in that school -- as best they can. When the -- when the railroad -- when the -- it's right next to a railroad, and when the train runs by the whole building shakes and the teacher has to stop teaching for a while. The -- the auditorium is completely broken down and they can't use it. So why wouldn't we want to build state-of-the-art schools with science labs that are teaching our kids the skills they need for the 21st century, that will enhance our economy and, by the way, right now will create jobs?

And this answer was possibly the clearest explanation I have heard from anyone as to how we ended up in the financial mess we're in today. I imagine a lot of Americans watching tonight had an "a-ha!" moment as this particular professor - the President - just had a breakthrough with his students:

Well, first of all, I don't think it's accurate to say that consumer spending got us into this mess. What got us into this mess initially were banks taking exorbitant, wild risks with other people's monies, based on shaky assets. And because of the enormous leverage, where they had $1 worth of assets and they were betting $30 on that $1, what we had was a crisis in the financial system.

That led to a contraction of credit, which in turn meant businesses couldn't make payroll or make inventories, which meant that everybody became uncertain about the future of the economy.

So people started making decisions accordingly, reducing investments, initiating layoffs, which in turn made things worse.

More tomorrow...

How Washington Changes People

As a disclaimer (and I think it should go without saying) I like Tom Daschle, I respect Tom Daschle, I'm proud to know Tom Daschle. This ad, however, which recently resurfaced from Senator Daschle's 1986 re-election campaign, in which he boasts of driving a beat up car to the Capitol. Of course, Senator Daschle saw his nomination for HHS Secretary slip away as a result of unpaid taxes on a car and driver here in Washington. It's not a dig at Tom Daschle, but just a great piece of irony and an evidence of how Washington truly does change people. (This was aired on the global edition of the Daily Show, which airs on CNN - it may have also aired in the U.S.)

"The writer is president of the United States"

The President published the following op-ed in this morning's Washington Post


What Americans expect from Washington is action that matches the urgency they feel in their daily lives -- action that's swift, bold and wise enough for us to climb out of this crisis.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/02/04/AR2009020403174.html?hpid%3Dopinionsbox1&sub=AR

"I screwed up."

Such a simple sentence, yet so difficult for every president that preceded him.  Imagine if President Bush had been able to admit that every once in a while?

Daschle's out

Former Sen. Tom Daschle (D-SD) has just withdrawn his pending nomination to be Secretary of Health and Human Services.  This is an unfortunate turn of events for a smart, dedicated man who could have been a strong leader on  universal health care; additionally, Tom has been a dedicated public servant and is a honest man who clearly made an error that ended up hurting him.

With this I have a question and a proposal.

1) Will Senator Daschle be leaving his position as Director of the White House Office of Health Care Reform? (Did he officially take that job yet?...It's not Senate confirmable).

2) Nominate Howard Dean.

Former Gov. Howard Dean, (D-VT), is superbly qualified to lead the Department of Health and Human Services, and his appointment would be embraced politically.  Quite honestly, after an impressive performance as Chairman of the DNC, Governor Dean deserves a position, and HHS Secretary is a great fit.  Gov. Dean is a physician who was an early leader in the health care debate, enacting legislation while governor that made Vermont the first state to guarantee health insurance for all children under age 18.  He proved over the past 4 years that he knows how to manage a large organization, think innovatively, and put up a tough political fight.   One major problem:  Dean and Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel, don't, uh, exactly like each other.  But I think Rahm could be willing to put that aside.  After all, grown ups are running the White House again.

Brooks: Ward 3 Morality

David Brooks has a great piece in this morning's New York Times :

Ward 3 Morality

"For those who don’t know, Ward Three is a section of Northwest Washington, D.C., where many Democratic staffers, regulators, journalists, lawyers, Obama aides and senior civil servants live. Thanks to recent and coming bailouts and interventions, the people in Ward Three run the banks and many major industries. Through this power, they get to insert themselves into the intricacies of upscale life, influencing when private jets can be flown, when friends can lend each other their limousines and at what golf resorts corporate learning retreats can be held."

Daschle's glasses

With the news that former Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle, nominee for Secretary of Health and Human Services, failed to pay over $120,000 in taxes since leaving the Senate, there's been a bit of an uproar in Washington. Leader Daschle is meeting in closed session with the Senate Finance Committee today, and some believe this could actually derail his nomination. But aren't we all ignoring the bigger faux pas? Mr. Daschle's red glasses.

Who's protecting Hillary?

I got to thinking the other day: who is in charge of protecting Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton? The Secretary of State is protected by special agents of the Bureau of Diplomatic Security within the State Department. However, as a former first lady, Mrs. Clinton is entitled to lifetime protection by the U.S. Secret Service. I imagine this poses a bit of a turf war between the State Department and the Department of Homeland Security, deciding who it's protecting - the Secretary of State or the former First Lady?

Senator ? (D-NH)

As is now old news at this point, the President is expected tomorrow to name Senator Judd Gregg (R-NH), ranking member of the Budget Committee, as his nominee for Secretary of Commerce. More then adding to the bipartisanship of the Obama cabinet in a critical cabinet post during this economic crisis, this is a move of either political brilliance or just simple math. Either way, I'm surprised it took us this long to come up with the idea. Gregg would obviously vacate his Senate seat, leaving it up to yet another governor to appoint a replacement. (This whole governors-naming-senators thing has been fun...why let it stop?) The governor of New Hampshire, John Lynch, is a Democrat. If Gov. Lynch were to appoint a Democrat (and if the Senate seats Al Franken (D-MN) who has been certified the winner) the Democrats will have 60 votes in the U.S. Senate, also known as a filibuster-proof majority. (Assuming you count Joe Lieberman, and feel free not to count him.) Meaning we could do pretty much whatever we wanted. The Republican party would be utterly obsolete for two years. Granted, that could get very dangerous and end up hurting the party in the long run. But man, those would be a great two years, wouldn't they? Maybe. If we had money to spend and could focus on more of our social and civil rights priorities, but whether it's 59 Democrats or 60, it's still going to be the economy, the economy, the economy, with any time left over going to Iraq. That, and Senator Gregg may have a caveat (according to the Post): he'll only resign if Gov. Lynch appoints a Republican - likely J. Bonnie Newman. I guess we'll see tomorrow.

The Oval Office: Locker room experience?

Former White House Chief of Staff under President Bush, Andrew Card, recently said the following on a right-wing talk show:

I found that Ronald Reagan and both President Bushes treated the Oval Office with tremendous respect. They treated the Office of the Presidency with tremendous respect. And some of that respect was reflected in how they expected people to behave, how they expected them to dress when they walked into the symbol of freedom for the world, the Oval Office. And yes, I'm disappointed to see the casual, laissez faire, short sleeves, no shirt and tie, no jacket, kind of locker room experience that seems to be taking place in this White House and the Oval Office.

First of all, the President and his aides were photographed in the Oval wearing shirts and ties, not cleats and gym shorts. They haven't turned the place into Animal House. What they have done is understood that respect for the Oval Office - and more importantly, for the Office of the President - is shown through the mature, lawful and honest exercising of the duties entrusted to it. President Bush may have required a suit jacket, but maybe he should have required a copy of the Constitution instead.

I applaud Michael Phelps

Towson's own Michael Phelps, the 14-time Olympic gold medalist, was photographed recently taking a bong hit at the University of South Carolina (go Camecocks!). And for that, I dislike you a little less; although people who went to high school with you have said you get loud, annoying, and obnoxiously cocky when you're high.