Matthew Cooper
Recently by Matthew Cooper
Jul 30 2009, 4:59PM
Alternative Theories on Obama's Poll Decline
The Washington elites are abuzz over Obama's poll decline. Of course, polls are mercurial, everchanging and go up and down. Nevertheless they do reflect a reality of public perception at a particular moment and they create their own dynamic. New research from the folks at Pew suggests that the economy, health care and Obama's comments on the Henry Louis Gates arrest have helped push his numbers down. All those things certainly make sense. While everybody wants health care reform in the abstract, people are bound to be disappointed when it comes to specifics. And the economy continues to suffer despite an uptick in the financial markets. The Gates episode seems to have hurt Obama most with non-Hispanic whites who may more naturally side with the police that Obama claims acted "stupidly" before walking his comments back.
Jul 29 2009, 5:05PM
Food Safety Fail
With all the talk of how we eat--from Michael Pollan's bestsellers to Michelle Obama's victory garden to the Food channel here at The Atlantic--it's worth noting that Congress missed an opportunity today to pass a law that would strengthen food safety, at least according to the bill's supporters. The Food Safety Enhancement Act went down to defeat this afternoon, mostly because of Republican voters but also an odd coalition of conservative and liberal Democrats.
The website Gastronomalies notes that the penalties for violations of existing food safety laws would have been upped considerably under the bill. The downside of the measure was that it did nothing to regulate some of the more gruesome practices of factory farms--stun baths, chickens so fattened and immobilized they have heart attacks, cows in their own feces, and all the other horror messes documented in the film Food Inc and books like Fast Food Nation.
The website Gastronomalies notes that the penalties for violations of existing food safety laws would have been upped considerably under the bill. The downside of the measure was that it did nothing to regulate some of the more gruesome practices of factory farms--stun baths, chickens so fattened and immobilized they have heart attacks, cows in their own feces, and all the other horror messes documented in the film Food Inc and books like Fast Food Nation.
Jul 29 2009, 2:45PM
What to Watch in the Health Care Debate
Amidst all the crazy health care negotiations, one thing to keep your eye on is this: Will the Senate Finance Committee come to dominate the process. Multiple congressional committees are working on health care, all with their own ideas. But the Senate Finance Committee is probably the most important to watch because its chairman, Max Baucus, the Montana Democrat, has vowed to produce a bipartisan bill. Other bills incorporate Republican amendments but that's not quite the same thing. Anyway, I bring all this up today because Baucus announced this afternoon that they have a bill that keeps the cost under $1 trillion and is all paid for--mostly through Medicare cuts. It eschews the so-called public option that Democrats and the administration consider so essential to reducing costs and getting insurance to the uninsured.
Jul 29 2009, 11:52AM
The Irrelevance of Iraq
While traveling in Turkey this morning, Defense Secretary Robert Gates suggested that Iraq troop withdrawal could be accelerated. Some 5,000 American troops could come home because violence levels in the country were generally down and Iraqi security forces were doing well on their own. Two brigades, or about 10,000 troops, are to be withdrawn from Iraq by this year and Gates said it was possible one more brigade, or 5,000 troops, could come home, too. What's amazing is how little this orderly withdrawal seems to be benefiting the Obama administration. Of course, with an economy still in turmoil and a renewed commitment to Afghanistan and a push for universal health care, the fate of 5,000 troops coming home early is bound to get lost in the shuffle. Still, this is a case where the administration is doing what it said it would do and it's all going pretty well--not withstanding the spasms of violence that continue to plague Iraq.
Jul 16 2009, 4:00PM
Bork on Sotomayor and Himself
Robert Bork, who was rejected by the Senate in 1987, is still kind of, um, bitter. The almost comic video from Newsmax.com features an interview in which he says that Sonia Sotomayor doesn't follow the law and that her "wise Latina" line should have been disqualifying. I thank my friends at Talkingpointsmemo.com for the heads up. Here's the video:
I have a few thoughts about Bork, some sympathetic and some not so much. First, I think the now generation-long conservative gripe about his not getting on the Supreme Court has a lot of merit. The Ted Kennedy attack on Bork was pretty outrageous, arguing that the Justice wanted a return to segregated lunch counters among other past evils. Bork was and is a critic of the Warren Court in the mold of Antonin Scalia--although he was to the right of Scalia on issues like flag burning. But his views were utterly lampooned by the Democrats. When his nomination went down, Republicans were outraged. His would-be successor, Douglas Ginsburg, had to withdraw his nomination after his marijuana use came to light. He's still on the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals. After that fiasco, an exhausted Senate confirmed Anthony Kennedy 97-0.
So Bork has some reason to be bitter but he's been milking it for years now. For someone who says he doesn't want judges to litigate and wants politics left to the politicians, he's still shocked that politics somehow tainted his nomination. But the Senate is a political body and just as it struck down two of President Nixon's Supreme Court nominees it knocked down Bork. In the Borkian view, which he repeats on the video, the Supreme Court was once a serent place but because the Warren Court was so whacked out. (Miranda rights! Brown v. Board!) it injected itself into the political sphere and thus its fights got more extreme. There's something to that. Even pro-choice liberals like Ruth Bader Ginsburg have questioned the court's decision in Roe.
But the fact is that presidential court nominees have gotten pretty respectful hearings. Certainly John Roberts and Sam Alito did.
I have a few thoughts about Bork, some sympathetic and some not so much. First, I think the now generation-long conservative gripe about his not getting on the Supreme Court has a lot of merit. The Ted Kennedy attack on Bork was pretty outrageous, arguing that the Justice wanted a return to segregated lunch counters among other past evils. Bork was and is a critic of the Warren Court in the mold of Antonin Scalia--although he was to the right of Scalia on issues like flag burning. But his views were utterly lampooned by the Democrats. When his nomination went down, Republicans were outraged. His would-be successor, Douglas Ginsburg, had to withdraw his nomination after his marijuana use came to light. He's still on the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals. After that fiasco, an exhausted Senate confirmed Anthony Kennedy 97-0.
So Bork has some reason to be bitter but he's been milking it for years now. For someone who says he doesn't want judges to litigate and wants politics left to the politicians, he's still shocked that politics somehow tainted his nomination. But the Senate is a political body and just as it struck down two of President Nixon's Supreme Court nominees it knocked down Bork. In the Borkian view, which he repeats on the video, the Supreme Court was once a serent place but because the Warren Court was so whacked out. (Miranda rights! Brown v. Board!) it injected itself into the political sphere and thus its fights got more extreme. There's something to that. Even pro-choice liberals like Ruth Bader Ginsburg have questioned the court's decision in Roe.
But the fact is that presidential court nominees have gotten pretty respectful hearings. Certainly John Roberts and Sam Alito did.
Jul 16 2009, 11:03AM
Is The Holder-White House Fight For Real?
I won't claim to be sourced on the whole White House v. Department of Justice fight about whether to launch a criminal investigation into torture during the Bush era. Recent news reports have suggested that Attorney General Eric Holder is considering such an investigation and that the White House, which had inveighed against it, would prefer it not go forward. Newsweek's excellent piece by former colleague and friend, Dan Klaidman, portrayed Holder as an independent spirit who is deeply troubled by the facts surrounding the treatment of detainees and is inclined to launch a full-scale investigation to the chagrin of a president who has said that he'd rather look forward. The White House is said to be alarmed by Holder's independence but are they really?
Jul 15 2009, 2:44PM
Scalia, Sotmayor And The Protestant Rebellion That Wasn't
A few commentators haven noted that if Sonia Sotomayor is confirmed, she'll be the sixth Catholic to sit on the court. There will be two Jews and one Protestant. That this is a total non-issue says so much about the country, how it's changed and our notions of diversity. Anti-Catholicism was a mainstay of American life for so long. One need only recall the 1960 presidential campaign of John F. Kennedy and his assurances that he wouldn't take orders from the Pope and contrast it with that of John F. Kerry who, in 2004, had to address windsurfing more than his religion. So it's remarkable that today this is not an issue. No Protestant group lobbied for another WASP on the court. It just worked out that six Catholics wound up on the bench, not by design but by the organic choices of multiple presidents.
Jul 15 2009, 6:38AM
The Health-Care Surtax And Its Discontents
Democrats in the House of Representatives released their version of a health-care bill yesterday. While it marks just one phase in the complex legislative process, it's still a signal moment and one that poses opportunities and risks for the Obama administration. On one hand, it's really happening--a bill that could greatly expand health insurance coverage to milllions of Americans who don't have it. On the other hand, the ideal of near-universal insurance comes with a price tag and with a way to pay for it. The House Democrats went with a surtax on the wealthy, as much as a 5.4 percent tax on families making more than $350,000 a year. There's a common sense aspect to this: You want health care. You need the money. It's got to come from somewhere. Why not those who are able to afford it?
Jul 14 2009, 5:53AM
Exit Steve Rattner
I know and like Steve Rattner, which doesn't make me especially unique. The New York financier is well known in Washington and New York, where he started the Quadrangle Group investment firm after years at Lazard Freres and other firms. His wife, Maureen White, was a finance director of the Democratic National Committee, and the two are well connected in politics in both cities. The Rattners are close to the Clintons, and Steve was an outspoken supporter of Chuck Schumer in his 1998 Senate bid and for New York City Mayor Mike Bloomberg. For what it's worth, I hosted a panel with Katie Couric, Brian Williams and George Stephanopoulos at Quadrangle's annual Foursquare conference this past year and spoke on another occasion in front of his group.
Like a lot of people, I was surprised to hear yesterday that Rattner was giving up his role as Obama's chief auto adviser so quickly after the General Motors restructuring. The New York Times has an account. Mickey Kaus offers a number of theories over here at Slate.
One issue seems to be an investigation by New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo into the practices of investment firms, like Quadrangle, seeking new business especially managing pension funds. Some other investment firms like the private-equity giant, the Carlyle Group, have paid fines. The Times also quotes an adminstration official noting that Rattner's work was largely over.
I guess for me there are two interesting aspects of the story. The first is how thorny it's been for Treasury to bring in people to help fix the financial mess. They've had to grant waivers over various lobbying restrictions, and they've been at pains to find people with the expertise to fix the mess that we're in but who were not themselves part of the mess. That's a small applicant pool. Leaving aside the merits of the Cuomo investigation, it's likely to make that pool even smaller.
Like a lot of people, I was surprised to hear yesterday that Rattner was giving up his role as Obama's chief auto adviser so quickly after the General Motors restructuring. The New York Times has an account. Mickey Kaus offers a number of theories over here at Slate.
One issue seems to be an investigation by New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo into the practices of investment firms, like Quadrangle, seeking new business especially managing pension funds. Some other investment firms like the private-equity giant, the Carlyle Group, have paid fines. The Times also quotes an adminstration official noting that Rattner's work was largely over.
I guess for me there are two interesting aspects of the story. The first is how thorny it's been for Treasury to bring in people to help fix the financial mess. They've had to grant waivers over various lobbying restrictions, and they've been at pains to find people with the expertise to fix the mess that we're in but who were not themselves part of the mess. That's a small applicant pool. Leaving aside the merits of the Cuomo investigation, it's likely to make that pool even smaller.
Jul 13 2009, 1:45PM
Lindsey Graham's Swing Shtick
You have to like Lindsey Graham's air of reasonableness. My colleague, Chris Good, notes that the senior senator from South Carolina put on a good performance this morning, saying publicly that he might vote to confirm Sonia Sotomayor for the Supreme Court. Amidst all the preening by the Senate Judiciary Committee members, Graham's hiccups of honesty--saying Sotomayor would be confirmed barring a meltdown--seemed refreshing even if they were obviously true. It's a good week, though, to read Geoff Earle's 2005 piece in The Washington Monthly on Graham, who is less moderate than he appears to be. Graham earned a reputation as a thoughtful moderate during the Clinton impeachment hearings, but in fact he'd signed on to a resolution calling for an impeachment inquiry--months before the Lewinsky scandal came to light. (The measure was introduced by Bob Barr, the former Republican congressman who would become the Libertarian Party candidate for president in 2008.) Earle notes that while Graham was a consistent voice against torture--a position stemming from his role as an Air Force attorney--he was never a tough voice against Rumsfeld at the time of Abu Ghraib.
Jul 11 2009, 3:20PM
The Obama Speech Newt and Rove (And America) Could Love
You don't have to be a conservative Republican to think President Obama gave an extraordinary speech in Ghana today. But conservative reaction to the address has already been favorable. Newt Gingrich wrote on Twitter that "The Obama speech in ghana is a very positive speech about importance of self government and responsibility of Africans for their own future." Karl Rove noted that Obama praised George W. Bush's increase of HIV/AIDS assistance to Africa. The speech, which was the highlight of the president's one-day visit to Africa, had obvious emotional import from the start--the first African-American president, the son of a Kenyan, comes to the country where so many slaves began their journey to North America. (After his speech, Obama visited the famed gate of no-return where so many slaves departed Africa for the West.)
Jul 10 2009, 4:30PM
The Jockeying For Obama's Old Senate Seat
The jockeying to replace Roland Burris as the next United States Senator from Illinois continues. Earlier this week, Democrats were bummed to hear that the state's attorney general, Lisa Madigan, was going to decline to run for the seat being held by Burris and that used to be held by a fellow named Barack Obama. Republicans were doubly encouraged to hear that Mark Kirk, a relatively moderate and popular Republican congressman from the state, was likely to get in the race. Now, Chris Cillizza at The Washington Post is reporting that Kirk is not going to get in the race after all. Why does this matter? Because the race for a seat vacated by a president is important.
Jul 10 2009, 12:02PM
Winning the Sotomayor Witness Game
Generally, the witnesses in a Supreme Court confirmation hearing take a backseat to the nominee himself. Sure, there was Anita Hill and all of the drama surrounding Clarence Thomas's extraordinary confirmation hearings. But can you remember anything about those who testified for or against Sam Alito or Ruth Bader Ginsburg? I couldn't. In general, it's the interplay between the senators and the nominees themselves that attracts attention. But this time it could be different. Both sides have tapped big guns for and against the nomination of Sonia Sotomayor to be the first Hispanic and only the third female associate justice in the history of the Supreme Court. I'd give a slight edge to the GOP, for sheer cleverness in designing their witness list. Here's why.
Jul 9 2009, 10:59AM
Even With Sen. Franken, Employee Free Choice Act Is Stuck
The arrival of Al Franken is encouraging supporters of the Employee Free Choice Act, but the bill remains stuck in the Senate. Franken has signed on as a co-sponsor of the bill and announced as much to cheers at an AFL-CIO event in his honor on Tuesday night. But the problem that's plagued the bill for months still remains: 60 Democrats don't support it and the Republicans are determined to filibuster the measure, which has united the business community like nothing else in recent memory. Among those Democratic Senate votes still trying to be nailed down are Blanche Lincoln and Mark Pryor of Arkansas, Arlen Specter, Jim Webb and Mark Warner of Virginia, Michael Bennet of Colorado, and Ben Nelson of Nebraska. Dianne Feinstein has been less than enthusiastic about the proposal, which is sometimes called Card Check. No Republicans are backing the bill. Chuck Schumer of New York and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid are trying to find a compromise that can get the 60 votes. With Robert Byrd and Ted Kennedy in ailing health, the proposition is even dicier.
Jul 8 2009, 3:38PM
Sotomayor's Allies
Emily Bazelon has a great and revealing interview with Ruth Bader Ginsburg in the upcoming edition of The New York Times Magazine. Most of it centers on the role of women on the court, all of which is interesting. The full-throated endorsement of Sonia Sotomayor is itself interesting, the gentle ribbing of Breyer and Scalia as aggressive questioners on the Court and her deep affection for the late Chief Justice WIlliam Rehnquist and her thoughts on his growing sensitivity to feminist causes all make for good reading on the Sotomayor hearings. It's hard to believe that the interview wasn't timed to help Sotomayor not that she needs much help.
I spoke with a Democratic Senator just after Sotomayor made her first round of courtesy calls to Judiciary Committee members. He's not someone who would oppose Sotomayor in any event but he said something which was quite interesting: Sotomayor was incredibly charming, collegial. For him, it helped put to rest the idea that she was somehow uncollegial. "She'll be really potent in conference," the Senator told me, referring to the sessions where the Justices hammer out how they'll vote.
Sotomayor will rightfully get questioned about the New Haven Firefighters case where the Court reversed the Second Circuit ruling and struck down the Connecticut city's aggressive affirmative action plan. She'll get knocked around a bit for her "wise Latina" comments. But she seems heading to an incredibly smooth hearing next week. I'll be especially interested to watch Orin Hatch who was a vocal advocate for Steven Breyer and Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Will he be on board for Sotomayor. I'm sure conservative stalwarts like Jon Kyl and Jeff Sessions will vote against her. There's a reflexive wing in both parties. (Bill Bradley voted against David Souter.) But Hatch is the swing vote I'll watch. And even if he decides to lay down a marker against her, it'll be a pretty easy set of hearings.
I spoke with a Democratic Senator just after Sotomayor made her first round of courtesy calls to Judiciary Committee members. He's not someone who would oppose Sotomayor in any event but he said something which was quite interesting: Sotomayor was incredibly charming, collegial. For him, it helped put to rest the idea that she was somehow uncollegial. "She'll be really potent in conference," the Senator told me, referring to the sessions where the Justices hammer out how they'll vote.
Sotomayor will rightfully get questioned about the New Haven Firefighters case where the Court reversed the Second Circuit ruling and struck down the Connecticut city's aggressive affirmative action plan. She'll get knocked around a bit for her "wise Latina" comments. But she seems heading to an incredibly smooth hearing next week. I'll be especially interested to watch Orin Hatch who was a vocal advocate for Steven Breyer and Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Will he be on board for Sotomayor. I'm sure conservative stalwarts like Jon Kyl and Jeff Sessions will vote against her. There's a reflexive wing in both parties. (Bill Bradley voted against David Souter.) But Hatch is the swing vote I'll watch. And even if he decides to lay down a marker against her, it'll be a pretty easy set of hearings.
Jul 7 2009, 9:06AM
One Man's Case For Sanford And Palin
Just when the Mark Sanford and Sarah Palin moments seem to be at a close, Stanley Fish, offers a defense of the two beleaguered Republican governors in the New York Times. His point is that their rambling, televised speeches--both so criticized--represented genuine, authentic moments without guile or cunning. Palin was hurting; Sanford was in love. "So what's the bottom line story?," Fish, a literary theorist and legal scholar, notes "Simple. Sanford is in love. Palin is in pain. Sometimes what it seems to be is what it is." Fish acknowledges that he'd never in his right mind vote for Sanford or Palin but he saves his scorn for the pundits and critics who tried to discern deeper meaning in the statements of the two governors. Was Palin really running for president in '12? Was this how Sanford thought he'd resurrect his national ambition? It was clear amidst their rambling, unstructured statements, Fish observes, that there was no master plan.
Jul 6 2009, 2:27PM
How To Think About McNamara
My colleauge, Marc Ambinder, has a smart take on Robert McNamara here. It's a safe bet that Robert McNamara's death won't get the coverage afforded Farrah Fawcett or even Ed McMahon. The former Defense Secretary and Vietnam War architect led a life as big as the 20th century, from whiz kid at the Ford Motor Company through Vietnam and then on to the World Bank. His regrets and agony over Vietnam became legend in his later years and his work for liberal causes like the nuclear freeze movement of the 1980s made him an ally of those who used to protest outside his office at the Pentagon. Mickey Kaus asked in the New Republic more than 20 years ago whether any single American had done more damage than McNamara.
Jul 6 2009, 11:40AM
Palin: Could She Take it Back?
Could Sarah Palin rescind her intent to resign? My friend and colleague, Josh Marshall, raises that intriguing possibility here. He notes that Larry Craig indicated that he intended to resign his office and then never did. (The arrested Idaho Republican did decline to run for reelection in 2008.) Could Palin, facing a bewildering array of criticism, decide at the last minute that she wants to stick around? It's unlikely, as Josh acknowledges, but it's no more erratic than Ross Perot who dropped out of the 1992 presidential race only to reenter it later. And it's no odder than the behavior of Marc Sanford in South Carolina.
It's hard to see how it would behoove Palin to suddenly take back her offer of resignation. She'd have to explain why she was so adamant about it. And Alaska Republicans would be even more sick of her. But it does have the advantage of letting her serve out her term. And she could claim, as Perot did, that she was responding to popular demand. Perot cited the public for his getting in the race the first time in 1992 and then again when he returned to the race that fall. The odd billionaire wound up with 19 percent of the popular vote, the highest garnered for a third party since 1912 and Teddy Roosevelt's Bull Mosse run for the presidency. So if the public was willing to forgive such lunacy then who's to say they wouldn't do it this time? Can I take a crack at her opening remarks?
"Gosh, the elites of this country say that you can't change your mind and rethink a major decision that has consequences for Alaska and all Americans. But they don't seem to understand what average people here in Wasilla and across the country know and that is that the freedom--yes, the freedom--to change your mind is the opposite of the so-called, quote Big Brother mentality. And what about our troops fighting for that freedom? Aren't they doing a great job? So as I made plans with Todd and everyone to start this next chapter in our lives we heard from lots of ordinary citizens who said it would be great if you helped promote freedom from outside government but why not stay in because we need more people like you? And ya know what? I listened to those people through their email and their Twitter Tweets and their Facebook and ya know what? I understood what they said. And so I've decided to make a personal sacrifice and stay on as governor where I can serve the peoples of this great state."
It's hard to see how it would behoove Palin to suddenly take back her offer of resignation. She'd have to explain why she was so adamant about it. And Alaska Republicans would be even more sick of her. But it does have the advantage of letting her serve out her term. And she could claim, as Perot did, that she was responding to popular demand. Perot cited the public for his getting in the race the first time in 1992 and then again when he returned to the race that fall. The odd billionaire wound up with 19 percent of the popular vote, the highest garnered for a third party since 1912 and Teddy Roosevelt's Bull Mosse run for the presidency. So if the public was willing to forgive such lunacy then who's to say they wouldn't do it this time? Can I take a crack at her opening remarks?
"Gosh, the elites of this country say that you can't change your mind and rethink a major decision that has consequences for Alaska and all Americans. But they don't seem to understand what average people here in Wasilla and across the country know and that is that the freedom--yes, the freedom--to change your mind is the opposite of the so-called, quote Big Brother mentality. And what about our troops fighting for that freedom? Aren't they doing a great job? So as I made plans with Todd and everyone to start this next chapter in our lives we heard from lots of ordinary citizens who said it would be great if you helped promote freedom from outside government but why not stay in because we need more people like you? And ya know what? I listened to those people through their email and their Twitter Tweets and their Facebook and ya know what? I understood what they said. And so I've decided to make a personal sacrifice and stay on as governor where I can serve the peoples of this great state."
Jul 4 2009, 7:54PM
The Palin Thing Is Still Wacko
A day later, the Palin speech is still one of the most bizarre events in politics that one can remember. (Mark Sanford's cri de coeur is a close second.) It's still unclear if she's out of politics for good and if she's not whether she has irreparably harmed her chances of running for higher office.
Jul 3 2009, 5:27PM
Three Theories of Palin's Resignation
Sarah Palin's stunning announcement that she'd not only decline to seek reelection as Alaska's Governor in 2010 but that she'd resign her term later this month caught everyone by surprise. After all, can you think of another presidential candidate who resigned their office to seek the presidency? Jimmy Carter and Mitt Romney had left their governorships when they sought the White House. Bill Clinton remained as Arkansas governor when he sought the presidency. George McClellan was fired by Lincoln before he ran for the presidency in 1864. The last person I can think of who left government service to run for the presidency was Dwight Eisenhower who gave up his NATO command in the Spring of 1952 and garnered the GOP presidendtial nomination a couple of months later. That's far different from cutting out of elective office 18 months before you're scheduled to leave.
Okay, so why would Palin do this on a Friday before a holday, traditionally a day for dumping bad news? A couple of theories:
1. She has more bad news to report. There's something going on with her family again. There's more to come with the state's finance. Whatever. There's no good reason for her to suddenly up and quit the governorship, her one claim on elective experience.
2. She wants the money. Palin is probably turning down tons of lucrative speaking offers, corporate boards and others ways of getting righ while she bides her time waiting for the presidency. Maybe she just cant say no to the money any longer?
3. She's totally impulsive. Assuming this wasn't a well calculated, move maybe she's just being utterly impulsive. She got sick of the job, sick of dealing with declining revenue, sick of having to stay close to Juneau and Wasilla when she really wants to be in Manchester and Des Moines.
I can't explain why Palin who abandon the people of Alaska before she finishes her first term as governor. But I suspect not that many Alaskans will be complaining.
Okay, so why would Palin do this on a Friday before a holday, traditionally a day for dumping bad news? A couple of theories:
1. She has more bad news to report. There's something going on with her family again. There's more to come with the state's finance. Whatever. There's no good reason for her to suddenly up and quit the governorship, her one claim on elective experience.
2. She wants the money. Palin is probably turning down tons of lucrative speaking offers, corporate boards and others ways of getting righ while she bides her time waiting for the presidency. Maybe she just cant say no to the money any longer?
3. She's totally impulsive. Assuming this wasn't a well calculated, move maybe she's just being utterly impulsive. She got sick of the job, sick of dealing with declining revenue, sick of having to stay close to Juneau and Wasilla when she really wants to be in Manchester and Des Moines.
I can't explain why Palin who abandon the people of Alaska before she finishes her first term as governor. But I suspect not that many Alaskans will be complaining.
Jul 1 2009, 5:21PM
Reagan, Palin And That Vanity Fair Palin Story
Lots of buzz today about my my friend Todd Purdum's story on Sarah Palin in the new issue of Vanity Fair. The story's a good reminder of the still enduring role of the monthly magazine in the age of blogs and Twitter. By going over ground that was not exactly unfamiliar--the contempt that McCain staffers felt toward their charge, the governor of Alaska--Purdum was able to find the new in the well-trod, the headline amidst what seemed to be an old story. The level of vitriol and consternation expressed toward Palin is remarkable and so is the extent to which the senior officials of the McCain campaign were continually amazed by her lack of knowledge and her audacity. She tried to make her own concession speech on election night, something that veep candidates never do, and after refusing to take no for an answer from top McCain aides, had to be told no by the Arizona Senator himself.
Jul 1 2009, 2:09PM
Your Thoughts On Truman, Obama And Gays In the Military
Yesterday, I noted that the Obama administration could learn a thing or two from Harry Truman's 1948 executive order integrating the military. Readers rightly noted that I left out some important variables. First, Truman didn't rush to integrate. He took office in 1945 and waited until 1948 to do the deed. Second, Obama needs congressional approval to overturn the don't-ask-don't-tell policy, and I implied that it was his prerogative alone. That's not quite right.
On the first point, I don't think it diminishes Truman's political courage or risk taking to note that he waited until 1948 to integrate the military, a far harder task than faces Obama given the virulence of Jim Crow. It's true that there were political benefits to the integration order that helped Truman win the votes of blacks who had migrated north to states where they weren't largely prevented from voting, such as Illinois. But overall it was a gamble of astonishing proportions in an election year and far riskier than anything Obama is thus far avoiding. Truman's position helped lead to the Strom Thurmond/segregationist walkout from the party. No Democrat in Congress is going to bolt over this.
On the first point, I don't think it diminishes Truman's political courage or risk taking to note that he waited until 1948 to integrate the military, a far harder task than faces Obama given the virulence of Jim Crow. It's true that there were political benefits to the integration order that helped Truman win the votes of blacks who had migrated north to states where they weren't largely prevented from voting, such as Illinois. But overall it was a gamble of astonishing proportions in an election year and far riskier than anything Obama is thus far avoiding. Truman's position helped lead to the Strom Thurmond/segregationist walkout from the party. No Democrat in Congress is going to bolt over this.
Jun 30 2009, 8:14PM
Senator Franken: Part Hillary, Part Teddy, Not Liddy
What can we expect from Sen. Al Franken? My colleague, Jay Newton-Small at Time, makes some predictions about his impact here. All true, I say. But I'd add a few other points. First, you can fully expect Franken to follow the Hillary model for how to be a celebrity Senator. (It's also the Obama model, to a lesser degree.) That is, keep your head down. Don't do a lot of TV, at first. Go genuflect to Robert Byrd and sit in his ornate Capitol office and let the giant of West Virginia ramble on about the Romans and talk about the minutiae of Senate rules. In other words, don't act like you're a celebrity senator deserving of more airtime than Mark Begich or Tom Udall. Franken will do his homework, study hard and pay attention to constituent services just like Clinton did when she came to the Senate in 2001. Anyone who expects Air America appearances, books, or showboating at hearings will probably be disappointed.
Jun 30 2009, 10:55AM
Clinton, Truman, Obama and Gays in the Military
President Obama tried to reassure gay leaders last night that he was still with them on eliminating the military's don't-ask-don't-tell policy. His press secretary, Robert Gibbs, said that it would be gone by the time that Obama sees reelection. At this point, I take them at their word, but what's interesting is that two Democratic presidents have now stumbled on this issue, showing the gap between campaign promises and what's at least perceived to be political reality. A third Democratic president offers a better way.
Jun 29 2009, 11:23AM
After New Haven, Affirmative Action Is Not Back
Affirmative action had been fading from American political life for the past two decades. Yes, there have been occasionally controversial Supreme Court decisions and a few legislative battles but for the most part it's not dominated the life of Washington or conversation nationally. California is an exception here where the Ward Connerly-led efforts to overturn affiramtive action in higher education prevailed. But if you think back to the landmark Bakke decision of the 70s, affirmative action has nowhere near the potency it once did. Early in the Reagan administration there was thought to repealing Executive Order 11246, the Kennedy-era dictum that became the basis of federal affirmative action programs. But it was never repealed and for the most part the basic structures of affirmative action have remained in place in Washington and thus the country. Affirmative action has become a part of daily life in thousands of corporate HR offices and in government ones, too. It's not as aggressive as many would like and it hasn't faded away as others would wish.
Jun 26 2009, 9:25AM
What Barack Obama Owes Michael Jackson
They were born three years and 24 days apart. And a more than an ocean separated the only child of a Kenyan father and a Kansan mother and the Gary, Indiana kid who was the seventh of nine children. It would be wrong to read too much political meaning into the career of Michael Jackson and that of Barack Obama. (No one is thinking tonite that Hillary Clinton owes a debt of gratitude to Farrah Fawcett.) But it would be myopic to say that Jackson had a huge cultural impact and no political impact, either.
Jun 25 2009, 1:26PM
Clarence Thomas, Outcast? Or President?
Today, the Supreme Court issued its second 8-1 decision with Clarence Thomas providing as the lone dissenting voice. Last week, it was the court's ruling in a case on the Voting Rights Act. Today, the court ruled that Arizona public school officials violated a 13-year-old girl's constitutional rights when they stripped searched her in a search for prescription strength drugs. The majority ruled that, had the search been for illicit drugs or something else that might have cause more imminent harm, then the search might have been justified, but not in a mad search for something like Tylenol. As it happens, no pills were found on the girl. Officials acted on a tip from another student.
Jun 25 2009, 9:41AM
The New Tom Joads
The Wall Street Journal has a great story this morning about people who have become semi-nomad because of the recession. (Subscription required.) Our own Christina Davidson is making her own recession roadtrip. I recently rented an apartment from a former Democratic press secretary, Jill Greenberg, who is riding out the recession in South America, as much for adventure as economic necessity. Makes you think of Tom Joad from The Grapes of Wrath and his famous speech and how it might be written today:
"Wherever there's a foreclosure on a condo, Ma, I'll be there....Wherever there's a banker turned barista, I'll be there...."
Are there political implications to this, the new Okies, the new migration of the economically displaced? Probably not. Most people aren't getting all peripatetic in order to earn a living and so it's not some constituency that needs catering to. On the other hand, it's not impossible that the recession will stir forces that will lead to or exacerbate large scale dislocations. Michigan was emptying out before the recession came. What's it going to be like by the time of the 2020 Census? Our former Atlantic colleague, Nicholas Lemann, has written extensively about the great black migration from South to North in the middle of the last century. In general, recessions haven't been enough to shake already prevalent trends, but they probably speed them up.
The political party that figures out migration patterns is going to have a huge advantage. Obviously, at the moment, the growing Hispanic population and its fanning out far beyond the West and Southwest had been a boon to the Democrats. The party that recognizes that we're all migrants now, or at risk of becoming them, would have a big advantage. Is it any wonder that the always cutting-edge HBO is moving ahead with "Americatown," a series set 25-40 years in the future with struggling American migrants huddled in the shadows of a foreign city. America's always been a mobile society, but the forces roiling the economy are maiming it more so, and it'll be interesting to watch which party gets it first.
"Wherever there's a foreclosure on a condo, Ma, I'll be there....Wherever there's a banker turned barista, I'll be there...."
Are there political implications to this, the new Okies, the new migration of the economically displaced? Probably not. Most people aren't getting all peripatetic in order to earn a living and so it's not some constituency that needs catering to. On the other hand, it's not impossible that the recession will stir forces that will lead to or exacerbate large scale dislocations. Michigan was emptying out before the recession came. What's it going to be like by the time of the 2020 Census? Our former Atlantic colleague, Nicholas Lemann, has written extensively about the great black migration from South to North in the middle of the last century. In general, recessions haven't been enough to shake already prevalent trends, but they probably speed them up.
The political party that figures out migration patterns is going to have a huge advantage. Obviously, at the moment, the growing Hispanic population and its fanning out far beyond the West and Southwest had been a boon to the Democrats. The party that recognizes that we're all migrants now, or at risk of becoming them, would have a big advantage. Is it any wonder that the always cutting-edge HBO is moving ahead with "Americatown," a series set 25-40 years in the future with struggling American migrants huddled in the shadows of a foreign city. America's always been a mobile society, but the forces roiling the economy are maiming it more so, and it'll be interesting to watch which party gets it first.
Jun 24 2009, 4:44PM
What Bill Clinton Can Teach Mark Sanford
I made the point earlier that Bill Clinton was famously saved by the perception that he was undistracted by his affair and the he was still focused on the country's business. The public tended to blame the GOP for the impeachment trial, the circus, the vast distraction that was the Monica Lewinsky affair. And so Clinton survived. My point is that the I'm-getting-back-to-work ethos could save Sanford if his painful press conference didn't already. Interestingly, Sanford didn't stress getting back to work. He mostly stressed the healing that lay ahead. Clinton did that, too but in politician's fashion almost seemed to throw it off to a commission. He announced that he was going to be seeking pastoral counseling--psychiatry or psychology would have been too unsettling for the body politic--and let it go at that. Sanford would probably benefit from the same but with a pronounced emphasis on getting back to work. He shouldn't go to the john without leaving a forwarding number.
(As a side note, it's worth pointing out that Sanford called on Clinton to resign.)
I mentioned GIuliani as another pol who benefitted from this. John Podhoretz wrote to remind me that Rudy went from moving out of Gracie Mansion to battling cancer to abandonning his bid for the U.S. Senate against Hillary Clinton. True. But the sense that he was still a man of action helped preserve his viability for 2008. That and 9/11 24/7.
(As a side note, it's worth pointing out that Sanford called on Clinton to resign.)
I mentioned GIuliani as another pol who benefitted from this. John Podhoretz wrote to remind me that Rudy went from moving out of Gracie Mansion to battling cancer to abandonning his bid for the U.S. Senate against Hillary Clinton. True. But the sense that he was still a man of action helped preserve his viability for 2008. That and 9/11 24/7.
Jun 24 2009, 3:14PM
We've Got More Questions for Mark Sanford
Mark Sanford's extraordinary press conference leads to a number of questions about what happens next to a governor and former congressman who was once considered one of the brightest stars of the Republican party. It was a deeply embarrassing and painful moment and one that seemed to answer all of the questions that have been looming. But there are still others:
1. Will pressure grow on him to resign the governorship? Sanford said he'd quit as chair of the Republican Governors Association but will pressure gather from South Carolinians, the state's Republicans and editorial pages for him to quit his office? And if so what's the case against Sanford: Leaving town without telling anyone?
1. Will pressure grow on him to resign the governorship? Sanford said he'd quit as chair of the Republican Governors Association but will pressure gather from South Carolinians, the state's Republicans and editorial pages for him to quit his office? And if so what's the case against Sanford: Leaving town without telling anyone?
Jun 24 2009, 1:55PM
Don't Cry For Me, Mark Sanford
Will be Twittering the Mark Sanford press conference at 2 PM Eastern. In the mean time, interesting reading can be done here on the Politics Channel and by my colleagues at Talkingpointsmemo.com who are using theiir crowdsourcing to solicit interesting reader comments on why it's suspect you would want to drive the Argentine coast this time of year.
Kind of wondering when we'll get reaction from the likes of Jim DeMint, Lindsey Graham and Sanford's pal, John McCain. Sanford was a McCain 2000 supporter and the two have long been close. Plus Sanford is still chair of the Republican Governors Association. Is there going to be any rumbling there to dislodge him? And if so, why? Of course, will be wondering whether Mrs. Sanford is by his side at the press conference.
Kind of wondering when we'll get reaction from the likes of Jim DeMint, Lindsey Graham and Sanford's pal, John McCain. Sanford was a McCain 2000 supporter and the two have long been close. Plus Sanford is still chair of the Republican Governors Association. Is there going to be any rumbling there to dislodge him? And if so, why? Of course, will be wondering whether Mrs. Sanford is by his side at the press conference.
Jun 24 2009, 11:30AM
The Crucifixion of Nico Pitney
Okay, that's a bit of an exaggeration but the Huffington Post reporter is getting tweaked this morning for the question he posed to President Obama at yesterday's White House Press Conference. It was an odd moment because normally, of course, reporters raise their hands, the president calls on someone and they ask their question. In this case the president seemed to have Pitney in mind already.
Jun 23 2009, 5:45PM
Why Are Obama's Polls Slipping?
Today's presidential press conference was supposed to be held in the Rose Garden, but it got canceled because of the heat. I suspect this was less a tender concern about the press corps, which would have to be seated long in advance of the president, and not wanting the president to sweat and drip on camera.
Obama's poll numbers have been going down, although they remain high. Why are they going down? A lot of it seems to have to do with spending and government intervention in the economy, which has roused fears of independents. 70 percent of respondents in the NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll said that they were concerned "a great deal" or "quite a bit" about the GM takeover.
I have a slightly different spin on this, which is that it's the spending and the modest success it seems to have brought in stopping the total collapse of the banking and financial system. If the economy felt like it was in the same free fall that it was a few months ago, he'd be doing better because there'd be less questioning of government spending and more calls to pour everything on the fire. But with the respite in the fall comes the freedom to question spending. Or, to put it another way: The firemen saved your house but now you're pissed off about all the water damage in the den.
That applies to Ben Bernanke, who raised questions about the deficit in his last testimony before Congress, and its true of the public. It's a paradox: If things were worse, Obama would be doing better. At this point, more economic decline isn't going to help Obama. More green shoots will, or passing health care reform or a good foreign policy showdown.
Obama's poll numbers have been going down, although they remain high. Why are they going down? A lot of it seems to have to do with spending and government intervention in the economy, which has roused fears of independents. 70 percent of respondents in the NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll said that they were concerned "a great deal" or "quite a bit" about the GM takeover.
I have a slightly different spin on this, which is that it's the spending and the modest success it seems to have brought in stopping the total collapse of the banking and financial system. If the economy felt like it was in the same free fall that it was a few months ago, he'd be doing better because there'd be less questioning of government spending and more calls to pour everything on the fire. But with the respite in the fall comes the freedom to question spending. Or, to put it another way: The firemen saved your house but now you're pissed off about all the water damage in the den.
That applies to Ben Bernanke, who raised questions about the deficit in his last testimony before Congress, and its true of the public. It's a paradox: If things were worse, Obama would be doing better. At this point, more economic decline isn't going to help Obama. More green shoots will, or passing health care reform or a good foreign policy showdown.
Jun 23 2009, 5:25PM
Voting Rights, Afterthoughts
My old colleague and friend, Abigail Thernstrom, makes the case against minority-majority districts in the National Review. The Nation reverts to paleoliberal stereotype in its piece on the Supreme Court's temperate 8-1 decision on an Austin, Texas utility district. The New York Times is also worried. Please. Does the Times believe that Steven Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, John Paul Stevens and David Souter have taken a crazy shift to the right? The decision seemed decidedly temperate, to me anyway. Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act is a serious infringement on local power and prerogatives but rightfully so given the country's history of racial discrimination. The question of whether it remains constitutional is a serious one. For the left and right, it seems like a no brainer but the Court seems to be taking a centrist position that this is a tough question without an easy answer. I found that pretty reassuring even if, I think, there's a coming showdown over this issue that won't be so temperate.
Jun 23 2009, 3:27PM
Obama's Weird "AA" Crack
It tells you something that neither Afghanistan nor Iraq came up at the president's press conference. The United States is simultaneously prosecuting two wars in the Muslim world and neither merited a question of the president. It's the surest sign of how quickly attention shifts and flits from one topic to another and how surefooted the White House needs to be in a fluid news environment. Iran might have gotten one question a few weeks ago. Now it dominates the news conference. The collapse of the American automotive industry didn't come up either, nor did rail safety after yesterday's accident or hate crimes, which so dominated the news cycle after the shooting at the Holocaust Memorial. Nothing lasts.
Jun 22 2009, 5:39PM
The Coming Voting Rights Explosion
Having read the opinion in the voting rights case, I got a little bit of the feeling I did after the Israel-Hezbollah war of 2006. It ended unsatisfactorily for both sides and they're going to be at it again sometime. With a lot more cluster bombs and hostage taking.
Despite the bonhomie of the 8-1 opinion and even Clarence Thomas's dissent--all sides genuflected toward the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and all that it had done for the country--you got the sense that the inevitable showdown is coming: Eventually some jurisdiction is going to have a really good case for getting out from under the act and the Supreme Court is going to have to rule on why an emergency provision that was supposed to last just five years has now been extended to 2031.
Despite the bonhomie of the 8-1 opinion and even Clarence Thomas's dissent--all sides genuflected toward the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and all that it had done for the country--you got the sense that the inevitable showdown is coming: Eventually some jurisdiction is going to have a really good case for getting out from under the act and the Supreme Court is going to have to rule on why an emergency provision that was supposed to last just five years has now been extended to 2031.
Jun 22 2009, 12:03PM
Voting Rights For Our Time
Will have more later on the Roberts Court opinion on the Voting Rights Act. I guess a few things struck me after seeing the initial ruling.
1. You had to be impressed that the Chief Justice got an 8-1 ruling on this issue. Of course, it was a narrow ruling that sidestepped the larger controversial constitutional questions surrounding Section 5 of the VRA, which requires certain jurisdictions, mostly in the South, to have any electoral changes "precleared" by the Justice Department. The idea of Section 5 was to thwart any Jim Crow attempts at electoral subterfuge--annexing more white voters to dilute black voting strength, moving polling places, whatever. No one doubted that such an extraordinary heavy federal hand made sense to undo the legacy of disfranchisement of African-American voters. But over the years, the provision has come under fire as antiquated and cumbersome although civil-rights groups reflexively support its continued enforcement. Only Clarence Thomas dissented. He wanted Section 5 tossed out entirely. Even Antonin Scalia wasn't prepared to go there yet.
1. You had to be impressed that the Chief Justice got an 8-1 ruling on this issue. Of course, it was a narrow ruling that sidestepped the larger controversial constitutional questions surrounding Section 5 of the VRA, which requires certain jurisdictions, mostly in the South, to have any electoral changes "precleared" by the Justice Department. The idea of Section 5 was to thwart any Jim Crow attempts at electoral subterfuge--annexing more white voters to dilute black voting strength, moving polling places, whatever. No one doubted that such an extraordinary heavy federal hand made sense to undo the legacy of disfranchisement of African-American voters. But over the years, the provision has come under fire as antiquated and cumbersome although civil-rights groups reflexively support its continued enforcement. Only Clarence Thomas dissented. He wanted Section 5 tossed out entirely. Even Antonin Scalia wasn't prepared to go there yet.
Jun 18 2009, 10:58AM
The Centrist Fallacy
A few things to know about Washington. The press loves centrists. Any self-styled moderate who bucks their party is sure to get good play and generally centrists aren't shy about letting you know it. So it's worth noting the important story by Molly Hooper in the Hill on Wednesday night. All kinds of moderates are having all kinds of meetings over health care. Will it lead to anything? Sometimes they do and sometimes they don't. This time my guess is not.
Jun 17 2009, 12:04PM
More Neocon Buffoonery
You would think that the Neocons would be a tad temperate after having gotten so many things wrong for so long. But look at the way the amiable Weekly Standard writer and Dick Cheney biographer, Steven Hayes, takes a shot at President Obama for insufficiently supporting the protesters in Iran.
I won't claim to understand Iranian politics well enough to know just what the right thing to do here is, and it may be that the administration should be more outspoken in favor of the protesters. I don't know.
It's not enough, though, for Neocons to disagree with the Obama policy--they have to impugn his motives too. Thus Hayes writes of Obama, "Does he actually prefer Ahmadinejad?" and "His policy is regime preservation. And it's a disgrace." There's nothing in the administration record to suggest that they want to uphold the Ahmadinejad regime.
I won't claim to understand Iranian politics well enough to know just what the right thing to do here is, and it may be that the administration should be more outspoken in favor of the protesters. I don't know.
It's not enough, though, for Neocons to disagree with the Obama policy--they have to impugn his motives too. Thus Hayes writes of Obama, "Does he actually prefer Ahmadinejad?" and "His policy is regime preservation. And it's a disgrace." There's nothing in the administration record to suggest that they want to uphold the Ahmadinejad regime.
Jun 16 2009, 3:24PM
Who Will Be The Republican Al From?
Tonight there will be one of those lavish Washington tributes. Speeches, toasts, gentle ribbing and fulsome praise--they'll all be on display at the Mellon Auditorium when Al From, the founder of the Democratic Leadership Council, retires. David Paul Kuhn has a smart piece today about how the Netroots and From's DLC have more in common than either realize. I'd add a few points.
Jun 15 2009, 2:53PM
Will Health Care Crash?
There's been tons written about why this time is different than last time. The conventional wisdom has it that last time health care crashed because of the arrogance of the Clintons. A plan devised in secret, crazy in its scope, was presented to Congress with a take-it-or-leave-it disdain and the thing naturally failed leaving tens of millions of uninsured and incremental steps until now, when the Obama administration is supposedly doing the right things.
Jun 12 2009, 3:07PM
The Coming Republican Reality Check
The usually wise and always engaging Mike Murphy has a piece in Time on a familiar there: the Hispanic woes of the GOP. The story he tells is familiar, of course. The country is becoming more Hispanic not just in the obvious states like Arizona and California and Florida but everywhere else, too. With Obama carrying Hispanics by a 35% margin--so much for the black-brown divide--the Republicans are screwed and will get more screwed until they come up with a message that appeals to Hispanics. Murphy rightfully notes that being pro life isn't enough to bring them into the fold. The party needs some kind of approach to immigration that won't scare off Hispanics and anyone doesn't tune into Lou Dobbs. The GOP's rejection of the Bush-McCain-Kennedy approach to immigration reform--not amnesty but a path to citizenship for those here illegally makes the comeback almost impossible. Dissing Sonia Sotomayor as unqualified or not that bright doesn't help matters for the Republicans.
Jun 12 2009, 2:21PM
Tim Russert, Me And The CIA Leak Case
He was a lawyer and too smart, too cautious to say anything. So he would just roll his eyes when we passed at the NBC News building on Nebraska Avenue or run into each other at parties around town. Tim Russert landed in the messy CIA leak case even before I did. Russert tragically died a year ago--too young, much beloved. I was friendly with Tim, through journalism and Pat Moynihan, and friends in no way that was particularly special except for one weird bond: We shared a legal docket and were scheduled to be put in contempt of court together.
Jun 11 2009, 4:57PM
But, Hey, The Stimulus Is Good
An administration official took about eight minutes before whacking me (gently) about my post on the Biden stimulus celebration tour. So let me be clear. I think the stimulus was clearly needed and probably should have been even bigger and more focused on the kind of construction projects that are being touted. My only beef was with the aesthetics of doing a victory laps with such frequency. But that said, I love a bridge repair as much as the next guy...
Jun 11 2009, 4:00PM
Joe Biden's Excellent Tour
Joe Biden was on the road today. Along with Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood and others, he was touting the benefits of the stimulus bill, this time at a bridge repair in Carlisle, Pennsylvania. He's also off to Kansas this week as well as Michigan.
You can always make the case for presidential barnstorming to promote upcoming legislation. President Obama is in Wisconsin today promoting health care reform. There's something a little tacky, I think, about taking victory lap after victory lap for something that you've already passed. Yes, the getting-America-moving tour probably has some psychic benefit for the economy and I'm all for that. But at a certain point a tour like this seems a little silly.
That said, is there really much debate about the stimulus anymore?
You can always make the case for presidential barnstorming to promote upcoming legislation. President Obama is in Wisconsin today promoting health care reform. There's something a little tacky, I think, about taking victory lap after victory lap for something that you've already passed. Yes, the getting-America-moving tour probably has some psychic benefit for the economy and I'm all for that. But at a certain point a tour like this seems a little silly.
That said, is there really much debate about the stimulus anymore?
Jun 11 2009, 12:52PM
Louis Brandeis, Federalism And The Changing Politics Of Tobacco
For those of us who covered the tobacco wars of the 1990s, it's hard to believe how much has changed. Back then, tobacco companies, fearful of lawsuits, were eager to forge a national legal settlement, passed by Congress, that would give them immunity from lawsuits. Prominent trial lawyers, like Dickie Scruggs, who is now serving time for attempted bribery, were key players in pushing the companies to say Uncle.
The idea of the settlement was that in exchange for legal immunity, they'd limit their controversial marketing, fork over billions to anti-smoking campaigns and generally rein themselves in. The national settlement fell apart. The Left wanted more concessions than the tobacco companies were willing to hand out and many on the right opposed the deal, too. Eventually a deal with state Attorneys General accomplished much of the same goals as the efforts at a federal deal. But for years one element of tobacco control that the Left craved had been missing: Regulatory authority by the Food and Drug Administration.
The idea of the settlement was that in exchange for legal immunity, they'd limit their controversial marketing, fork over billions to anti-smoking campaigns and generally rein themselves in. The national settlement fell apart. The Left wanted more concessions than the tobacco companies were willing to hand out and many on the right opposed the deal, too. Eventually a deal with state Attorneys General accomplished much of the same goals as the efforts at a federal deal. But for years one element of tobacco control that the Left craved had been missing: Regulatory authority by the Food and Drug Administration.
Jun 10 2009, 4:04PM
The Gun Debate, Again
This afternoon's shootings at the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum are so awful as to defy credulity. A deranged white supremacist, it seems, started firing at the museum's entrance. When I came to the Atlantic's offices this afternoon, TV crews and a crowd stood outside of George Washington University Medical Center where one of the guards who stopped the gunman is being treated. Helicopters are circling the city. The overlapping police authorities are on display with law enforcement officials from the Park Police, FBI, District of Columbia and elsewhere. It's an insane moment and yet, I assume, we're just a few hours away from a very predictable debate over gun control.
Jun 9 2009, 3:35PM
The Return Of The Deficit Hawks
The Obama administration made a big deal today out of saying that it would adhere to so-called PAYGO rules, basically requiring that any new spending be accounted for. Having just thrown trillions of dollars at the banking crisis, mortgage crisis, auto crisis and this little thing we call the economic calamity, the sudden interest in fiscal rectitude may seem odd, but it's not crazy. Last week, Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke warned that we can't keep all these stimuli going forever and before too long Washington would have to cut spending, raise taxes or both.
Still, the impatience with spending is growing. The Center for a Responsible Federal Budget, one of the leading fiscal scolds out there, took a shot at Obama's plan this afternoon.
Still, the impatience with spending is growing. The Center for a Responsible Federal Budget, one of the leading fiscal scolds out there, took a shot at Obama's plan this afternoon.
"This is like quitting drinking, but making an exception for beer and hard liquor," said Maya MacGuineas, President of the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget. "Exempting these measures from PAYGO would increase the ten-year deficit by over $2.5 trillion dollars. That's not fiscal responsibility."
CRFB believes the President should strengthen his PAYGO proposal to cover all new non-discretionary legislation, and should accompany this with other reforms. The proposal should also be paired with discretionary spending caps, as it was when it effectively helped to rein in deficit spending in the past.
Copyright © 2009 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.