A Jane Harman Update.

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	M - Th 11p / 10c
Your Government Not at Work - Jane Harman Scandal
thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Economic Crisis First 100 Days

Last week The Daily show aired a hilarious summary (see the above video) of a scandal involving Rep. Jane Harman (D.- California) in the segment "Your Government Not at Work." The simplified version goes like this: Harman, a supporter of the recent semi-legal wiretapping, was caught by that very same wire-tapping program as she told Israeli lobbyists that she would pressure the Justice Department to lessen the espionage charges faced by a number of Israelis if the lobbyists would in turn pressure Nancy Pelosi to appoint Harman to better committees.

Though Harman denies that she actually lobbied for this result, it looks as if Harman's end of the bargain has been completed: charges have been dropped against the Israelis who may or may not have been acting a bit too liberally with state secrets. While it's clear that Harman does not have the pull to achieve this result (somehow I doubt any Representative could kill a Justice Department investigation single-handed), it is nonetheless a very entertaining addition to "Your Government Not at Work."

In life, there are no coincidences

OK, so that's a really stupid title. But it's pretty interesting that the same week that the Dems secure their filibuster proof majority (almost - damn you, Coleman!), we have the announcement that Justice Souter is going to retire. So, on to the biggest story that isn't a story, as six months from now the Court will be exactly the same, just younger and woman-ier.

Politically, this is bad news for the Democrats. As laughably horrible as the Republicans were politically in last year's presidential campaign, the Democrats have gotten to just sit back and laugh as they top themselves in the incompetence department this year. As trite as the saying is, the Republicans are a party divided.

But if there's one issue that can unite (some) people under any circumstances, it's nominating people to the Supreme Court - namely, whether or not they are baby-killers.

This is likely to cause some unity amongst Republicans and is good for them in the short term (by short term, I mean possibly long enough to give them a boost in the 2010 elections). Unfortunately for them - and I can't believe I'm saying this - reigniting the culture war is not a good long-term strategy for them, at least until the economy warms up. (Morality is an issue best left for times of peace and prosperity - are no Republicans getting this memo?) And even then - they've got to be careful - (wow, I went to 538 to find an archived article, but it turns out there's Breaking News!) people are starting to get behind gay marriage (please, no jokes). And that's going to be hard to leave out of a culture war, but including it will only move their party farther to the fringes.

OK, I've been meaning to do a separate post on this for a while, but I'll never get to it, so here we go. Long story short, Newt Gingrich is talking about the possibility of trying to create a moderately conservative third party that would move in the Republicans' space (from the left). I can't believe I'm saying this, but Newt Gingrich and Meghan McCain are the best two political strategists on the entire right of American politics right now (they have the best ideas, anyway).

And I have to say - it makes me sad. I would really like to see a stronger Republican party, because one-party rule is never good, no matter who the party is. But I'd like to see a sensible Republican party as well. I guess I'll have to keep waiting ...

WTF moment of the day: Specter switching parties

Update: Sorry about the size of the original picture.


The Huffington Post reports that Sen. Arlen Specter (R.- Pennsylvania) will switch parties and compete in the Deomcratic primary during the 2010 election cycle. Specter said,

I have been a Republican since 1966. I have been working extremely hard for the Party, for its candidates and for the ideals of a Republican Party whose tent is big enough to welcome diverse points of view. While I have been comfortable being a Republican, my Party has not defined who I am. I have taken each issue one at a time and have exercised independent judgment to do what I thought was best for Pennsylvania and the nation.

Since my election in 1980, as part of the Reagan Big Tent, the Republican Party has moved far to the right. Last year, more than 200,000 Republicans in Pennsylvania changed their registration to become Democrats. I now find my political philosophy more in line with Democrats than Republicans.

Prescience bites us in the ass yet again.

"There is nothing I dread so much as a division of the Republic into two great parties, each arranged under its leader and converting measures in opposition to each other."
-John Adams (1790)

In other news, I highly recommend the book John Adams by David McCullough.

Variations on the theme "Limbaugh Hurts the Nation"

I haven't been posting so much so here's one in the old vain.

To say that what Rush Limbaugh has been doing recently is hurting the country is a rather timeless statement. You could have said it in the early 90's (when Limbaugh was still on the junk and in his prime!), or yesterday, or any time in between.

But now it's a little different. As you probably know, Rush and RNC Chair Michael Steele have had a bit of a skirmish (I love that word) in the media recently, and as a result, Steele is just the latest on a long list of Republicans who have had to apologize to Rush (as Jon Stewart put it, the apology is for "determining that Rush's language is incindiary and ugly," also known as "being familiar with Rush's show").

But this isn't good for anyone. It's certainly not good for Republicans. Cliché as it may be, the Republicans as a party are suffering an identity crisis. They clearly need to move to the center, but most of their centrist Congressman were unseated in November. Add Rush to the mix, and you see the party is clearly on track to lose even more seats in 2010 (you might be able to argue that it's too late to turn this fate around) and is severly hurting their chances for a comeback in 2012, with the White House virtually guaranteed for Obama.**

(Update: I want to clarify: if they keep doing what they're doing, they virtually guarantee the White House for Obama. I am making no prediction about the 2012 presidential race.)

None of this should be particularly suprising, but I would like to argue that this is bad for the nation. The reason is that Democrats are already riding a pretty powerful wave of power that, as I said, will probably only strengthen through 2010. So with our foreign affairs in crisis mode and our economy an order of magnitude worse than that, we've already basically guaranteed that Democrats will retain the White House and both house of Congress through the 2012 elections, meaning Republicans won't have a chance until 2014.

And look: if you have any doubts about how much power the Democrats have right now, just imagine what you'd think and how you'd feel if a newly elected Republican Congress was passing legislation of John McCain's that was of the same magnitude - but a very different direction - than what Obama and the Democrats are doing. And then it becomes clear that, in times like these, weakening the standing of the opposition party is just bad for America.

But then again, Rush has been a specialist in "Bad for America" for quite some time.

Two Thoughts on the Economy

1. For reasons unknown, I have begun to read Rush Limbaugh's stimulus proposal. I haven't gotten far, but in the beginning he sets up a sharp contrast between the "Keynesian" (i.e., Democratic) solution of funding "shovel-ready" projects and the "supply-side" (Republican) solution of tax cuts.

My knowledge of economics puts me in a better place to discuss the Republicans' proposal than the Democrats'. Tax cuts will stimulate the economy to some degree - the more progressive the tax cut, the more short-term relief is brought about. This is because poor people spend the highest percentage of their income, while wealthier people tend to save/invest it. So tax cuts to middle- and upper- class folks will largely be saved, or used to pay down individuals' debts.

So my question is - assuming (and I think I can do so safely) that the average American currently has ballooning debt, is it possible that the tax cut route might actually be better, in that private debts (mortgages, credit cards) could represent a coming crisis that needs to be averted now? Just a thought.

(And I should add, it's entirely possibly that such a proposal wouldn't actually result in Americans making a net payment on their debt, or at least the right Americans paying down the right debts.)

************************************************************

2. This second thought it much more political than economic, but it's something to watch for: the Republicans need to carve out a voice ASAP if they want a shot at the 2010 elections. So they're going to have to find ways to oppose the Democrats. Thus far, they haven't had a lot of luck.

But with the economy being the number one issue, here's an argument you're going to hear more and more as election day comes ...

Let's say you're God. Let's say unemployment is currently 8%. Let's say without action, it will be 14%, with the Republicans' stimulus it will be 12%, and with Obama's stimulus it will be 10%.

So the Democrats say, "Wow, look at that, we saved a whole lot of jobs!"
So the Republicans say, "Wow, look at that, they didn't create any jobs. In fact, they lost jobs!"

I guess it would have been a whole lot easier for me to say "There's going to be an upcoming argument about jobs saved vs. jobs created." Oh well, you get the point.

Go Away Charlie Rangel

We already knew that he sucks (tax evasion as chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee is tough to explain) and now he's reintroducing legislation to reintroduce the draft. It'll never pass, but he still sucks.

Well, that didn't take long

As much as I hate to borrow from idiot Republican mouthpieces, we've got Bill Richardson, Chris Dodd, Charlie Rangel, Rod Blagojevich, Eliot Spitzer, Bill Jefferson, Eric Holder ... throw in less offensive but still hateable figures like Rahm Emanuel, Bill Clinton, Joe Biden (annointing his son), Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, and possibly Caroline Kennedy, and even I've got to ask if the Democrats will use their power any more nobly than the Republicans did. Because they haven't even taken office yet, and it ain't lookin' good.

(Let me just add, since I'm begging the question above and I've been knocking it around in my head for a while: the role of Chris Dodd's political contributions from Fannie and Freddie in this economic crisis has been horribly overlooked. And I think it's Barney Frank who's playing the same role in the House, but I'm not as sure about that.)