cabinet diversity

There has been significant uproar over the "diversity" of Obama's cabinet picks. There are those complaining about a lack of southerners or light skinned african americans or any number of other things. My outlook on this is that there are too many different regions and skin colors and backgrounds for Obama to account for them all. We want him to be selecting for excellence and competence. We dont really want him to look for the best asian person or african american for a job we want him to look for the best person possible for the job.

I really doubt obama is someone who is going to be selecting a lily white cabinet or discriminating against anyone who is lgbt. There is plenty of diversity as far as the view points and politics of the cabinet posts go. From Republicans to progressives Obama is filling out every view in between. There is no point in asking for regional diversity or any of the other things people are clamoring for.

Read more...

No Honeymoon for Obama

The election of Barack Obama to the office of the presidency with the margin that occurred has sparked talk of a mandate. This has in turn sparked conversation about priorities and what obama is going to do first and how he is going to use the mandate before it runs out. The time frame given for Obama to get something done has merged with talk over Obama's first hundred days in office based on a "honeymoon period" where congress would be afraid to oppose such a popular president. This talk is wildly off base.

The American Prospect has an article up right now that discusses patience. Patience in acting and governing. It dovetails well with the point i am trying to make which is that Obama will not have a honeymoon period so he should not count on one but use his typical long term strategy to make the best out of his entire term.

Obama will need a full reservoir of that same patience in the White House, because he'll face similar frantic pressure and second-guessing. He will be surrounded by a crippling crowd of people and groups convinced that if their own No. 1 cause isn't enacted in the first 100 days, it will never happen. The conventional wisdom about the presidency is very much the same as the advice Obama was given in the primaries: Move quickly. Overwhelm the forces of the establishment. Use the momentum of the election to achieve the biggest things possible. You'll never be more powerful than on Jan. 21.
...
For all the romance of Franklin D. Roosevelt's first 100 days, history suggests that presidents do not get a mandate as a mechanical function of their electoral margin, but in fact they build it over time. They earn it not by winning but by governing. They assemble coalitions and use them again and again, and build institutions and make them work. While many good policies and necessary emergency measures were passed in the first 100 days of the New Deal, the innovations that lasted -- those that defined politics until Reagan -- came later, after FDR had consolidated power, forced the Supreme Court to accept a new set of assumptions about government's role in the economy, and won the 1934 mid-term election. Similarly, Reagan did not win a decisive mandate for conservative policies in 1980; rather, like Obama, he was the beneficiary of a coalition made up of equal parts support for his conservatism and revulsion at the previous administration's incompetence. It was not until August 1981, when he assembled bipartisan coalitions to pass his budget- and tax-cutting plans, that Reagan can be said to have had a mandate for conservative policies.

This is not to say that there aren't things that need to be done immediately, such as economic stimulus, closing Guantánamo, and a plan to get out of Iraq. But the changes that will bring about a new political era call for a more patient and steady approach.

Like Roosevelt and Reagan, Obama has the opportunity to become what the political scientist Stephen Skowronek calls a "reconstructive leader," a type that he notes often follows a failed presidency. "John Adams and Thomas Jefferson, John Quincy Adams and Andrew Jackson, James Buchanan and Abraham Lincoln, Herbert Hoover and Franklin Roosevelt, Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan -- these repeated historical pairings ... suggest nothing so much as an intimate connection between manifest incapacity and towering success in presidential leadership," Skowronek wrote the year George W. Bush was elected. Reconstructive leaders "are party builders; they use their authority to consolidate a coalition that will support the new agenda and dominate electoral politics."

Obama is acutely aware of the need for careful planning to achieve success. He is constructing a team of people designed around legislating and governing. He is also an organizer at heart and good organizers understand the value of patience and laying a good foundation before acting. Current indicators point to Obama trying to do what the TAP article suggests, a party and national restructuring presidency.

I mention that Obama should not focus too much on the first 100 days because he is not likely to find that time period more friendly than any other. The GOP minority is committed to fighting him on pretty much everything. People like John Kyl are ready to try and filibuster any judicial nominee and are committed to fighting a bail out of the auto industry.

Senators Richard Shelby of Alabama and Jon Kyl of Arizona said it would be a mistake to use any of the Wall Street rescue money to prop up the automakers. They said an auto bailout would only postpone the industry’s demise.

“Companies fail every day and others take their place. I think this is a road we should not go down,” said Mr. Shelby, the senior Republican on the Senate Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee.

“They’re not building the right products,” he said. “They’ve got good workers, but I don’t believe they’ve got good management. They don’t innovate. They’re a dinosaur in a sense.”

Mr. Kyl, the Senate’s second-ranking Republican, added, “Just giving them $25 billion doesn’t change anything. It just puts off for six months or so the day of reckoning.”

There is no talk there of letting a president Obama go forward unopposed because he was just elected and we know the gop does not believe that obama has received a mandate,

When Franklin D. Roosevelt won his second term for president in 1936, the defeated Republican candidate, Gov. Alf Landon of Kansas, won only two states, Maine and Vermont, and Democrats controlled both houses of Congress by wide margins.

But Obama's win was nothing like that. He may have opened the door to enactment of the long-deferred liberal agenda, but he neither received a broad mandate from the public nor the needed large congressional majorities.

The Democrats fell several votes short of the 60-vote filibuster-proof Senate that they were seeking and also failed to get rid of a key Senate target: Republican leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky.

Republicans, though discouraged by the election's outcome, believe Obama will be hard-pressed not so much to enact his agenda but to keep his popular majority, which he considers centrist, as he moves to enact ultra-liberal legislation, particularly the demands of organized labor.

Obama is going to have to fight the GOP every step of the way. He will take his time and map out a strategy that he best believes will deliver success over his entire term. he gets 4 years in office so why would he waste all but the first 100 days? he wont.

Obama is committed to long term thinking. Everyone has probably heard his quote about how we cant solve global warming with him changing his light bulbs. He views the solutions to our problems as solvable only through collective action sustained over time. Instant fixes are not sufficient to deal with out problems. The notion that Obama, a cautious and pragmatic person is going to commit to the first 100 days or bust idea is wrong. He has no honeymoon period so dont look to see him acting as if he does.

Read more...

Obama Gonna Do What Obama Gonna Do.

There is a lot of discussion about what Obama is going to do with regards to appointments and with his agenda and whether he is going to be governing from the center or the left or any number of other things. While this speculation is fun and amusing the issue is whether or not any one has any influence over what Obama is planning to do with regards to these topics. I really dont think it matters what pundits or bloggers or reporters or the press says about these things, it wont have any impact whatsoever on what obama plans to do.

If we look back on the primaries and on the election is there an instance where what the press or the blogosphere was saying forced Obama to materially change his plans regarding policy, strategy or tactics. One thing people admire about Obama is his ability to game plan and then stick to that plan. The 50 state strategy and the relentless focus on ground level organizing are just a couple of examples of important long term strategies implemented by Obama.

What then will influence the Obama administration? can they be moved at all towards one policy or another? Obama has committed himself to limiting lobbyist access and has no real affinity for the press and he does not care about what the blogosphere is doing. It will be interesting to see if phone calls the the white house switchboard have the same impact that calls to a senator do.

Read more...

The Election of Barack Obama

The election of Obama is a very important step forward for America. It fulfills the best promises of our nation, that a person rises and falls on the merits of their own ability regardless of skin color or heritage or sexual affiliation or religious affiliation. Well maybe not sexual affiliation just yet. I think the most important part about electing an African American to the presidency is that he was the best man for the job. I could not have voted for him if he did not meet that requirement.

Obama truly ran a race designed to be as free of sleaze as he could make it. He largely succeeded at this and in doing so has provided hope that others will follow in this path and run on issues and problem solving. Obama allows our country to breathe a giant sigh of relief that Bush, despite his best efforts, has failed to totally destroy the country.

Obama has a big win and a solid mandate to follow through on his policy proposals. I hope he chooses to get that health care done first. There is a lot on his plate including the closure of Gitmo. Not to mention the massive economic issues he must deal with.

Obama though is not perfect. He seems to be very much focused on moving forward without dealing with the sins of the past. I hope i am wrong about that because i think it is truly important that we deal with those who have so disgraced us in the eyes of the world. It is not enough to simply work to undue what they have done, we need to provide a disincentive to ever try and do it again. Accountability should be the watch word. Sadly i dont see obama following through on this, but i hope i am wrong.

So congratulations to everyone who worked their asses off to get him elected and to america for having the good sense to vote for him. He was truly the best choice, the best person for the moment. Now the work of governing and fixing our problems begins.

Read more...

Obama Should Govern From the Left

As the prospect of an Obama victory becomes more likely many commentators are feverishly penning articles that demand Obama respect, (1) this is a center right country, (2) everyone is really just voting against Bush, (3) "bi-partisanship", (4) the dangers of liberal over-reach. All of these arguments are designed to do one thing, make sure that Obama does not actually govern as *Gulp* a liberal. Obama was never going to be a kucinich or sandersesque leftist but he is solidly left of center and, apparently, this is very scary. There is no reason for him to hide his non-conservativeness or govern in a manner other than that which he promised to govern. Obama has promised to govern from the left and it is the correct thing to do.

What has Obama promised to do?

Favoring aggressive action to control greenhouse-gas emissions, he is open to considering nuclear power and has explicitly credited Republicans for promoting market-oriented approaches to environmental problems (and he has attracted the scorn of some on the left for doing so). A sharp critic of No Child Left Behind, he has spoken favorably about merit pay for teachers. Offering an ambitious health care plan, he would not require adults to purchase health insurance. His goal is to make health care available, not to force people to buy it--a judgment that reflects Obama's commitment to freedom of choice, his pragmatic nature (an enforcement question: Would those without health care be fined or jailed?), and his desire to produce a plan that might actually obtain a consensus. And, while he would raise taxes on the very richest Americans, he is hardly anti-business; indeed, he proposes to eliminate the capital gains tax for start-ups and small companies.

and for another take,

He’s running on a platform that promises universal preschool, dramatic cuts in carbon emissions and investments in clean energy infrastructure, health insurance that would be affordable for all, comprehensive immigration reform, substantial labor law reform, large new spending on K-12 initiatives, and tax reform to make the federal code much more progressive overall.

Is it really the suggestion of the arguments in the intro that Obama not follow through on these proposals? I think that to make the case that Obama should not actually do the things he has promised requires a stronger evidential showing than has been produced so far. In order to prevent Obama from enacting his promised initiatives we would need clear and convincing evidence that the American public is not supportive of them. I don't see that evidence.

Let's look at one issue in particular that many of the people who make claims about "bi-partisanship" want to see both sides get together and work out a new plan and not the one Obama campaigned on. If we look at two recent polls on the issue we find first a CBS News/New York Times Poll. Sept. 12-16, 2008 where 50% of respondents support fundamental changes and 35% support complete overhaul. To give some direction to this fundamental change we can gauche the attitudes of voters on universal coverage. On this topic an ABC News/Washington Post Poll from June found 66% supported coverage for all even if it meant an accompanying tax increase. Obama's position where he advances coverage without ending the employer based system fits squarely into the majority opinion in these two polls. Clearly people want the type of reform Obama is offering. If Obama's position already has solid majority support why should he let it be watered down and altered?

This finding is not limited to health care alone. A brand new CNN/Opinion Research Corporation Poll found that when asked, "whether you agree or disagree with each of the following candidates on the issues that matter the most to you" 60% of them agreed that Obama is in alignment with them on the issues matter. If you do not like a poll as a basis for governing then consider that on Tuesday we have an actual election with the goal of deciding who we want to lead the country.

Elections are to determine the direction we want our country to go in. Voters have a choice between McCain and Obama and their myriad different policy positions. Some have argued that this election is not a ratification of Barack Obama and his policy choices at all but a simple repudiation of Bush. This argument makes the fundamental mistake of distinguishing Bush from the actions of the party which he lead. The Republican Party controlled every branch of government from 2000-2006. During that time frame we did not see the Republicans in either the house or the senate standing up to Bush and opposing the governing decisions that the American people are rejecting. The Republicans never sought to regulate the banking industry, the never sought to close Guantanamo, they opposed withdrawal from Iraq, they opposed S-CHIP, they were more than willing to support Alberto Gonzalez and the politicization of the DOJ. Bush was supposed to be the standard bearer for the conservative movement and his presidency will be the biggest failure in American History and the Republican party has held his hand all the way down.

The general point is that the American people are rejecting the failure of the Republican party in governance. If you really dont want to connect that failure to an ideological issue fine, but realize that there policy attitude has not changed. They will continue to advocate the same failed policy proscriptions without cleaning up the mess left behind by Bush. This will make working with them nearly impossible. Why would a President Obama compromise with the group that lead us headlong into this mess and refuses to change? Make no mistake the Republican's left in Congress after this election will not be the most moderate and interested in helping a president Obama.

So what does the political world look like on Wednesday if the gurus at ABC News are right? They all announced their guesses Sunday morning, and the average of their projections is 352 electoral votes for Obama plus a pickup for the Democrats of 24 seats in the House and 7 or 8 seats in the Senate.

If this happens, the upshot is that both parties get moved to the right. Most of the Democratic pickups will be in centrist states and districts, which will move the Democratic caucus moderately toward the center. At the same time, it will remove these centrist states and districts from the Republican side, which will make the GOP caucus not just smaller, but even more conservative than it is now. As a touchstone, the Republican Study Committee, the hardcore conservative wing of the House GOP contingent, currently represents a little over half of their total strength. After Tuesday they're likely to represent nearly two-thirds, which means that the rump of the House Republican caucus remaining after Tuesday is likely to be almost entirely in the hands of the most faithful of the movement conservative faithful. These true believers are not likely to give in quickly to the notion that hardcore conservative ideology needs a bit of freshening up if the party wants to regain its competitive edge. On the contrary, they'll probably double down, convinced that they lost only because John McCain and George Bush abandoned the true faith that America truly yearns for.

It is hard to image that the American people really want a president Obama who caves to the people who represent the exact thing they threw out of office. The American people want competency and success after eight long years of failure. That means simply delivering on what Obama has promised them. If Obama takes his plans, ratified and supported by the voting public, and executes them every thing will be fine. If instead he tries to moderate them and fails then his ideological background or governing from "the center" will be meaningless in the eyes of voters. We know the conservative plans don't work so why would we continue to use them? Obama should go with his natural instincts, left of center governance.

Read more...