We told you this morning about a group of centrist Democratic senators who have begun closed-door meetings to discuss how to pool their influence during the coming debate over President Obama's budget -- and perhaps slow the roll of its more ground-breaking spending programs.
When I asked a key member of that centrist group, Sen. Mary Landrieu (LA), which particular elements of the budget are sparking her concerns, she told me that senators "did not get into specifics" at their first meeting.
"We are hearing legitimate concerns that there is not enough focus right now on the intermediate and long-term fiscal concerns for the country," Landrieu said. Although "the mess the Bush administration has left is going to take years" to clean up, she added, 5-7 years is a reasonable period of time to "be able to start seeing the end of the red ink."
As Obama observed earlier today, however, he inherited a $1.3 trillion deficit from his predecessor, making total erasure of the deficit an incredibly heavy lift. The administration has vowed to cut the deficit in half by the end of Obama's first term, but that outcome relies on a series of revenue-raising moves that may not pass muster with Congress.
What does this mean for Landrieu's group of centrists?
The story of centrist Democratic opposition to President Obama's budget, which began to trickle into view this morning, will unfold gradually over this month and next. Democrats won't be fully challenged to embrace Obama's vision for a remodeling of tax and health care policy until April, when the full details of the White House budget emerge.
Congress will then craft its own budget blueprint, taking some cues from Obama but potentially abandoning some of the White House's proposals. The 28% taxation limit on itemized deductions is already taking bipartisan fire and looks like a good bet to be jettisoned, despite uncertain evidence that it would have a negative effect on charitable giving.
So we know already that more than a dozen centrist Dems are meeting to weigh their concerns about the White House budget, while Republicans lick their chops in glee at the brewing rebellion.
But what about the three GOPers whose votes helped put the stimulus bill over the top? In their responses to the budget last week, Sens. Arlen Specter (PA), Olympia Snowe (ME), and Susan Collins (ME) offered one palpable clue about their opinion ...
The Treasury Department has released more details about that housing bailout plan. Still waiting for some of the Washington lobbies to weigh in on it. My colleague, Elana Schor, has interesting reporting on the fight over "cramdowns"--giving bankruptcy judges the power to rewrite mortgage terms. Would be curious to know if readers are hearing about other fights over the proposal. It feels like the Rick Santelli moment has not yet passed. This Wall Street Journal poll shows a lot of public doubt about the plan.
The Minnesota election trial has proceeded forward today, with the Franken team continuing to present voters (presumably Franken-supporters) who they think should have their votes counted -- and Team Coleman attempting to undermine confidence in the whole election system.
State elections director Gary Poser has been on the stand, and lead Coleman attorney Joe Friedberg has been going over the existence of clerical errors or out-of-date entries in the state's voter-registration database. Poser has said the system is reliable overall, but the Coleman camp is trying to leverage the existence of errors into demonstrating that the admission or rejection of absentee ballots was fundamentally broken.
At one point, Friedberg appeared to be on to something -- there are whole swaths of counties and precincts that still haven't entered in all the new registrations from Election Day, four months ago.
"Now why if you will, have the counties not finished inputting the data from Election Day?" Friedberg asked. "Just manpower problems?"
"Um, yes," Poser said, "and I believe they've also been answering other requests from the campaigns, data-practice requests that have also been interrupting their work."
You've got it: The Minnesota election system is broken, with a never-ending backlog of work preventing the input of voter data -- and it's this very disputed race that has done the job!
Richard Viguerie is one of the founders of the modern conservative movement. He's not the player he once was but he still carries clout and I think actually makes a reasonable point about the current crisis of leadership in the GOP. Congressional Republicans haven't really seized the leadership mantle so it's been left to the likes of Steele and Rush. He just released this statement:
Broadcasters and commentators such as Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Laura Ingraham, Mark Levin, Glenn Beck and Michael Savage are seen as the de facto leaders of the Republican Party for a simple reason, Richard A. Viguerie said today: "It's because no one else is acting like a Republican leader."
"The 'Rushification' of the GOP is the natural and inevitable result of the fact that those who are supposed to provide leadership - Republican elected officials and party officers - are doing little to bring the party back," said Viguerie, chairman of ConservativeHQ.com.
"Nature abhors a vacuum, and there is no vacuum in nature as empty as the leadership of the Republican Party today."
Said Viguerie: "The GOP absolutely refuses to replace the Congressional leaders who helped get the party and the country into this mess. There are many Republican governors campaigning for the Obama 'stimulus' plan that is wrecking the economy and will push America deeper into socialism. Governor Jindal's speech was technocratic, without passion and toothless, and Michael Steele's foolish attack on Rush Limbaugh will, I'm sure, cost the party many millions in contributions."
The anger of grassroots conservatives continues unabated at the weak-kneed, spineless, earmark -loving Republicans.
In contrast to GOP officials, "Limbaugh and Hannity and most all of their conservative colleagues have something to say. They actually believe in something. They have the confidence of their convictions. They don't cower in fear of the President's popularity. They know that his popularity is built on the sand of false promises and false premises. Like Ronald Reagan facing the Soviet Union, they know how this story ends."
Even Jim Cramer of CNBC, who isn't a conservative, is providing more honest and outspoken leadership than the 'loyal opposition' about how Obama's policies are destroying the life savings of Americans.
"Americans are already beginning to realize that the new president is every bit as reckless and extreme as conservatives said he was," Viguerie said. "But the Republican Party can't get any traction, because the party leadership is as confused and clueless as the Obama administration."
Had Jindal not blown his speech or in Palin had been more out there during the last week--she chose to skip the National Governors Association meeting and the Conservative Political Action Conference--then she might have more of the mantle now. As it is, nature does abhor a vacuum.
We at TPMDC and the TPM mother ship are pretty perplexed about the Treasury Department's continued insistence on maintaining anonymity for the mysterious "counterparties" whose swaps and contracts with AIG are getting bolstered by the taxpayers.
And we're not alone: Sens. Ron Wyden (D-OR) and Mark Warner (D-VA) urged the disclosure of AIG's counterparties yesterday. Today, Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-WA) added her voice to the chorus during an exchange with Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner in the Finance Committee:
CANTWELL: Why hasn't Treasury come forward and said who are the affected counterparties, the people that are most affected by the collapse, so that we know why we are doing this?
And Geithner's response was less than illuminating:
Read More →
I have a certain affection for all fellow comedians, having done some stand-up comedy myself. So I had sympathy for Evan Sayet, a conservative comedian, who spoke at the Heritage Foundation earlier today. His shtick is not what we might call nuanced. Sayet's talk was entitled, "Hating What's Right: How the Modern Liberal 'Thinks' " (He has a book by the same title, he tells me, coming out later this year.) Sayet seems like a nice enough fellow--we have some friends in common-- and it's hard enough to do comedy even with a two-drink minimum let alone at the Lehrman Auditorium of the nation's preeminent conservative think tank.
A one time writer for the Arsenio Hall Show, Sayet describes himself as a "brain-dead liberal" before 9/11. The attacks led to an epiphany, he says. And now he's a full-throated conservative who charges that "modern liberalism" believes in "evil over good, wrong over right." His comedy conflates Jeremiah Wright, the dyspeptic professor Ward Churchill, who characterized 9/11 victims as "little Eichmans" along with mainstream liberals like the Illinois Senator Dick Durbin who gets ribbed, deservedly so I think, for comparing American detention facilities at Guantanamo Bay with the Nazis. Durbin, himself, apologized for the remarks--a point which Sayet didn't note. At other times, he took shots at Brian Williams, Katie Couric, Paul Krugman and Maureen Dowd while I was there but only to sneer at them.
Humor is most funny when it's deeply truthful so bastardizing liberalism into a grotesque parody of itself is neither truthful or funny, to me anyway, although the conservative crowd at Heritage loved it. To be fair, Sayet allowed a few asides about liberals "who don't hate America" and are merely misguided about social programs. But in general his comedy lumps everyone on the left together into an absurdist portrait.
Here's Sayet on liberalism and anti-semitism:
Here he is on being a conservative comedian in Hollywood.
Michael Steele had an amazing interview with Matt Lauer this morning. Steele turned out to be totally unable to say he disagreed with Rush Limbaugh on wanting President Obama to fail:
Steele said his job is to balance the various opinions on whether people want the president o fail -- and conceded he hasn't been doing a good job so far as chairman:
Lauer: Rush Limbaugh says it very bluntly: "I want him to fail," referring to Barack Obama. Do you agree with that?
Steele: I -- look, my job is to build my party after-- after a tough two election cycles. My job is to try to craft a message for our party. There are a lot of opinions out there. Some come from people who are notable, some from people who are not so notable. And my job is try to balance that. I wasn't that effective at it this week, but you know I've been 30 days in the job, and we'll -- you know, we'll move forward.
Lauer kept asking the question -- and Steele persisted to not answer it, saying his own opinion doesn't matter:
Lauer: Do you agree with Rush Limbaugh when he says it's common sense that as a conservative, he wants the policies of Barack Obama to fail?
Steele: Well, my personal opinion doesn't matter in this. My personal -- my job as the RNC chairman is to take into account all the various views out there within our party, and try to put together a strategy and a team that's gonna help us win elections.
So Steele appears to acknowledge that the opinion exists within his party that conservatives should want President Obama's policies to fail -- and it's his job to take views like these into account, among others, in forming the party's strategy.
There seems something just a little fishy about the new Rasmussen poll deflating the idea that Rush Limbaugh is the leader of the Republican Party, with only 11% of Republicans agreeing to the premise and 81% disagreeing.
On the other hand, the phrasing of this question seems like it's designed to elicit a No response, especially from Republicans: "Agree or Disagree: 'Rush Limbaugh is the leader of the Republican Party -- he says jump and they say how high.'"
Not surprisingly, GOP respondents don't want to admit they are the yes-man patsies of a radio loudmouth.