The more this all drags out the more I think that there's no way that Rod Blagojevich gets impeached by the Illinois legislature. I also think there's a very good chance (lets say 66%) that Blagojevich avoids criminal conviction altogether.
Just a hunch obviously but I'm not getting the feeling that the Illinois legislature really has much to work with. Fitzgerald can't let them try his case before he gets an indictment. Can the Illinois legislature gather enough evidence for a conviction without Fitz? I sort of doubt it. Legislature's just aren't equipped to handle complicated trials the way Congress is. They don't have large full time staffs packed full of top flight lawyers. Given the state of the economy one expects that public pressure will force the legislature to move on to the more immediate issues facing the state sooner rather than later.
As for Fitzgerald's investigation it's no secret that the Feds arrested Blago much sooner than they would have liked. They still have not sought an indictment. I'm assuming after the high profile arrest there eventually will be an indictment but expecting a prosecutor to win a conviction with only half of his case is a tall order, even for Fitz.
Wednesday, January 7, 2009
Doesn't anyone here know how to play this game?
I forget who said it but I saw someone last week refer to Harry Reid last week as a "Stradivarius" because he gets played by everyone.
The Burris fiasco has been another self-created maelstrom for Reid. He spent weeks stoking public outrage at the appointment when it was clear to all that Burris' appointment was perfectly legal and the Senate didn't (and still doesn't) have a legal leg to stand on. I blasted Dianne Feinstein yesterday for her handling of the Panetta appointment but she's quite right in asserting that Burris should be sat. Rod Blagojevich is the governor of Illinois and he has the right to appoint Burris. Until and unless Rob Blagojevich resigns or is otherwise removed from office he is the governor and he retains all of the rights and privileges associated with that office.
As John Cole helpfully points out though Reid has singlehandedly painted himself into a corner,
The Burris fiasco has been another self-created maelstrom for Reid. He spent weeks stoking public outrage at the appointment when it was clear to all that Burris' appointment was perfectly legal and the Senate didn't (and still doesn't) have a legal leg to stand on. I blasted Dianne Feinstein yesterday for her handling of the Panetta appointment but she's quite right in asserting that Burris should be sat. Rod Blagojevich is the governor of Illinois and he has the right to appoint Burris. Until and unless Rob Blagojevich resigns or is otherwise removed from office he is the governor and he retains all of the rights and privileges associated with that office.
As John Cole helpfully points out though Reid has singlehandedly painted himself into a corner,
Harry Reid has now, according to this poll, through his obstinance and idiocy, helped create popular support for Burris to not be seated. Since Burris will be seated anyway, these people will be pissed, Reid will look like a clown for being rolled over and put in his place by Blagojevich, and Republicans, with an assist from the Democrats who ran around calling Burris tainted for several weeks, will now claim Democrats are just as corrupt as Republicans.
It really is impressive how Reid and company got themselves into this mess. Their ability to inflict maximum pain on themselves for no gain is really unparalleled. You couldn’t game out a worse scenario for the Democrats, short of Blagojevich appointing himself to the seat or Obama on tape trying to sell the seat with Blago for money to spend on hookers and blow. If you could be sued for political malpractice, I would be leading a class action suit against the Democratic leadership right now.
Quite right. The poll in question shows that the public believes by a 51% to 27% margin that Burris should not be seated. After weeks of stoking that reaction Reid will now go right ahead and seat Burris because he has no other option but why didn't Reid think 2 steps ahead weeks ago and realize this outcome was inevitable?
Ritter making progress on health care reform?
I've not hidden my frustration with the governor for seemingly punting on his pledge to reform health care in Colorado and find coverage for the 770,000 uninsured Coloradans. In the past 2 years Ritter has essentially adopted a wait and see attitude, banking on a new Democratic President to bail us out of this mess. The governor did expand some coverage for Colorado kids but given his campaign promises we expected much more than nibbling around the edges. It's been a point of great frustration for me personally and others as well. I was first drawn to Ritter as a candidate because I sincerely believed he understood the depths of our health care crisis and the effect that that crisis has on seemingly greater economic and social issues. I personally worked very hard to get the governor elected and was deeply involved in the campaign, transition and the first legislative session of the administration. His failure on health care has always been more than a simple policy failure, I've felt that the governor failed me and many of his supporters personally.
Well now it looks like we may finally be seeing the governor make some headway on this issue. Today's Rocky reports,
Well now it looks like we may finally be seeing the governor make some headway on this issue. Today's Rocky reports,
Roughly 200,000 Coloradans could be added to public insurance rolls under a new hospital fee proposal that could revive Gov. Bill Ritter's stalled health care reform effort.
Hospitals would pay a per-patient fee to the state, which would be used to win federal matching funds. The new money - up to $600 million a year - would expand eligibility for publicly funded health insurance programs, allow some people to buy into Medicaid and increase reimbursements for doctors and hospitals that treat Medicaid patients.
The governor's office and the Colorado Hospital Association continue to negotiate a fee, but association leaders are on board with the concept, CHA President Steven Summer said.
"This is an initiative of monumental proportions," Summer said.
This is the kind of action that many of us expected in January of 2007. The governor should be applauded for finally taking a significant step towards his campaign promises on covering the uninsured. I'm not sure what has finally triggered this but hopefully it signals a new day in the governors office - one where we seed decisive leadership as opposed to simply competent stewardship.
Tuesday, January 6, 2009
Deep thought
Having one's Facebook account hacked and used to solicit fraduluent donations is a giant pain in the ass.
Not So Funny
Westword has laid off the only original writer on their staff who I regularly read, Adam Clayton-Holland. Clayton-Holland wrote a weekly humor column entitled, What's So Funny? as well as the occassional feature. His work will be missed.
The ideological crossroads for the young left
I'm not 30 yet so I can still call myself young and I followed much the same path to my current ideological state (socially liberal, left on economics) that publius describes,
For years, I’ve prided myself on being a good Clinton/Blair-style liberal. Like them, I’ve generally considered myself socially liberal, pro-market, and skeptical of the traditional “Left,” which had viewed the world through class-colored lenses. In recent years, though, I’ve been slowly but steadily drifting Leftward, and the pace has quickened of late.
To be clear, I don’t mean “Left” in the Limbaugh caricatured sense, but in the traditional economic sense. I’m finding myself much more comfortable with efforts to reduce inequality by, for instance, strengthening unions or taxing the top brackets at much higher rates. At the same time, I’ve become more convinced that, while markets are essential, they need a lot of public and political intervention to make them work well.
The point of all this navel gazing is that I think many liberals (particularly younger ones) may be at an ideological crossroads. For the past 20 years or so, the Clinton/Blair ideology has been a fairly consensus view among not just mainstream Beltway pundits (e.g., the late Russert), but among younger liberals who came of age in this era.
Go read the whole thing. It really matches up almost exactly with where I find myself today. I think it's fair to say that I was "radicalized" by the Bush administration and the legacy of the Reagan Era.
Oh, now she's a skeptic
I'm with Yglesias on this nonsense from Dianne Feinstein regarding Leon Panetta's nomination to head the CIA,
Feinstein's service on the Senate Intel Committee has been a disaster. I really don't care if she got her feelings hurt or if she has legitimate concerns about Panetta's fitness for office. Dianne Feinstein has proven herself to be incompetent in matters of intelligence. Fortunately though for Feinstein there's almost no accountability when it comes to Chairmanships. In a just world she wouldn't be the Chair of the Select Intelligence Committee.
Kudos to Obama for reaching outside the horribly tainted world of the intelligence community to tap Panetta. As Rachel Maddow has stated, elections have consequences and if you have intelligence service to the Bush administration on your resume you shouldn't be getting a promotion. In fact you should probably be getting a subpoena, but that's another blog post I suppose.
Not to be mean about this, but I wish Sens Feinstein and Rockefeller had shown such concern about pushing back against the executive branch on intelligence matters back when, as members of the Intelligence Committee, both decided to back the invasion of Iraq rather than doing their jobs and calling attention to the problems with the intelligence the administration was presenting. Somehow other members of the SSIC like Dick Durbin and Carl Levin managed to figure out what was going on.
Feinstein's service on the Senate Intel Committee has been a disaster. I really don't care if she got her feelings hurt or if she has legitimate concerns about Panetta's fitness for office. Dianne Feinstein has proven herself to be incompetent in matters of intelligence. Fortunately though for Feinstein there's almost no accountability when it comes to Chairmanships. In a just world she wouldn't be the Chair of the Select Intelligence Committee.
Kudos to Obama for reaching outside the horribly tainted world of the intelligence community to tap Panetta. As Rachel Maddow has stated, elections have consequences and if you have intelligence service to the Bush administration on your resume you shouldn't be getting a promotion. In fact you should probably be getting a subpoena, but that's another blog post I suppose.
Sunday, January 4, 2009
Exclusive footage!
This just in to SPO headquarters, exclusive footage of Governor Ritter taken in his office today as outrage over the Bennet selection grew online
Is Gaza the training ground for an attack on Iran?
Andrew Sullivan has two very worthwhile posts up about the conflict in Gaza. He (and others) wonder if what we're seeing in Gaza isn't just a warm up for an Israeli attack on Iranian nuclear sites? Here's the first post and the second.
What about the process?
Wade Norris makes a good point about the Senate selection over at Pols,
The process that the governor used is itself a bit confounding. We essentially have NO idea what went on. Considering the governor's obsession with process (see the way the transition was conducted and the numerous blue ribbon commissions for examples of this) the way that this was handled is pretty surprising. It's a fair criticism.
I have to say though that the more I think about this pick the less it bothers me. Not that I was all that bothered in the first place.
I will state that while I do not fully agree with David Sirota's attack on Michael Bennett, I am well prepared to examine the Governor's pick, not based on Mr. Bennett's qualifications, but rather on the Governor's lack of explanation for passing over several other qualified candidates, each of whom have served office and 'earned their stripes' in Colorado politics... Perlmutter, Fitzgerald, DeGette, etc. not least of which is Former House Majority Leader, Andrew Romanoff.
Maybe it doesn't matter, maybe the Colorado GOP can't field a contender vs. any Dem in 2010, so it doesn't matter. But for guys like me, and people like me, who watch this process, it makes little sense.
The process that the governor used is itself a bit confounding. We essentially have NO idea what went on. Considering the governor's obsession with process (see the way the transition was conducted and the numerous blue ribbon commissions for examples of this) the way that this was handled is pretty surprising. It's a fair criticism.
I have to say though that the more I think about this pick the less it bothers me. Not that I was all that bothered in the first place.
The Drama Club Caucus
I've essentially been at a loss for words to accurately describe how absurd I find David Sirota's (and Kos') hissy fit over the selection of Michael Bennet for the open U.S. Senate seat. Sirota, in particular, has been in absolute hysterics over this selection. Here's an ummm highlight,
The breatlessness of Sirota's outrage is really quiet stunning. He's taken a man whom he knows nothing about (beyond 150 words in a bio) and turned him into closet Monarchist with Napoleonic designs on power.
The fact that a guy who went to Northwestern, spent 5 years in DC, was on a national radio program weekly and then helicoptered into Montana's political scene 6 years ago before moving to Denver could write this is beyond ironic. A commeter at Pols also noted that Sirota worked on the Ned Lamont for Senate campaign. You remember Ned - he was the extremely wealthy heir to a J.P. Morgan fortune, who was born in D.C., attended Phillips Exeter, Harvard and Yale School of Management. Who's only political or policy experience came from his two terms on the Greenich Connecticut City Council. He ran against incumbent Connecticut Senator Joe Lieberman in 2006 and Sirota worked on his campaign from September through the election.
Just to recap:
City Council Member for one of the wealthiest cities in the nation? Solid credentials.
Superintendent of a major urban school district? You may as well be named Louis and have Roman Numerals after your name.
Sirota follows that up with a Carnac The Magnificent routine today,
Do you think Sirota pictured Bill Ritter extorting these Grand Concessions for Capitalism whilst Ritter twisted his handle-bar mustache and wore a monacle?
Sirota has, as far as we know, never met Michael Bennet nor has he ever worked with Michael Bennet. He is not privy to any inside details of his appointment. He has merely his own assumptions and subsequent hyperbolic accusations. In his own mind he has cooked up some bizarre scenario whereby a man who actively sought to take on the monumetal and thankless task of reforming a broken urban school district is actually some sort of Capitalist Manchurian nominee. Either that or Bennet just doesn't have a clue about any issues. Take your pick!
With his hysterics this week Sirota has solidified his position as the lead Cantor in the liberal blogospheres Drame Club Caucus. Frankly, I think that after this he owes Michael Bennet and Governor Ritter an apology. His absolutely baseless accusations and childish hysterics have crossed the line from constructive to simply outlandish.
Cross-posted at Colorado Pols
So as I said to start, the only thing that rationally explains his appointment is the emboldened power of political aristocracy (and, by extension, money) that is sweeping the country. By aristocracy, I mean all of the factors of aristocracy implied in its dictionary definition's focus on priviledge. That means not just familial lineage - but also money, inside connections and academic/economic advantage...
Yes, politics is always a battle between meritocratic idealism (ie. good ideas, grassroots work, etc.) and aristocracy (ie. money, insiderism, aristocracy, privilege, etc.). Yes political aristocracy has always existed, even in meritocratic eras. And yes, there are desirable merits to various facets of aristocracy (for example, we should want well-educated people in government). But there have only been a few infamous historical moments where aristocracy has totally, completely and publicly supplanted the desirable non-aristocratic factors of meritocracy to the point where no one's even trying to hide it anymore. One of those infamous moments was the Gilded Age, when billionaires publicly tried to buy U.S. Senate seats. Sadly, the other infamous moment is right now.
The breatlessness of Sirota's outrage is really quiet stunning. He's taken a man whom he knows nothing about (beyond 150 words in a bio) and turned him into closet Monarchist with Napoleonic designs on power.
The fact that a guy who went to Northwestern, spent 5 years in DC, was on a national radio program weekly and then helicoptered into Montana's political scene 6 years ago before moving to Denver could write this is beyond ironic. A commeter at Pols also noted that Sirota worked on the Ned Lamont for Senate campaign. You remember Ned - he was the extremely wealthy heir to a J.P. Morgan fortune, who was born in D.C., attended Phillips Exeter, Harvard and Yale School of Management. Who's only political or policy experience came from his two terms on the Greenich Connecticut City Council. He ran against incumbent Connecticut Senator Joe Lieberman in 2006 and Sirota worked on his campaign from September through the election.
Just to recap:
City Council Member for one of the wealthiest cities in the nation? Solid credentials.
Superintendent of a major urban school district? You may as well be named Louis and have Roman Numerals after your name.
Sirota follows that up with a Carnac The Magnificent routine today,
One of two disconcerting realities is at work here: 1) Bennet's positions are known by the Establishment forces that got him the Senate job, and those positions aren't threatening to that Establishment (read: they are corporate conservative) or 2) Bennet himself doesn't yet have positions on the major issues.
Do you think Sirota pictured Bill Ritter extorting these Grand Concessions for Capitalism whilst Ritter twisted his handle-bar mustache and wore a monacle?
Sirota has, as far as we know, never met Michael Bennet nor has he ever worked with Michael Bennet. He is not privy to any inside details of his appointment. He has merely his own assumptions and subsequent hyperbolic accusations. In his own mind he has cooked up some bizarre scenario whereby a man who actively sought to take on the monumetal and thankless task of reforming a broken urban school district is actually some sort of Capitalist Manchurian nominee. Either that or Bennet just doesn't have a clue about any issues. Take your pick!
With his hysterics this week Sirota has solidified his position as the lead Cantor in the liberal blogospheres Drame Club Caucus. Frankly, I think that after this he owes Michael Bennet and Governor Ritter an apology. His absolutely baseless accusations and childish hysterics have crossed the line from constructive to simply outlandish.
Cross-posted at Colorado Pols
Observation
Watching television tonight I came upon Larry King and I was reminded that Alan Dershowitz is a raving lunatic. I had almost forgotten about him.
Friday, January 2, 2009
Bad read
I picked up Jon Meacham's "American Lion: Andrew Jackson in the White House" over Christmas and put it down about half-way through, something I very rarely do. It's just not a well-written book and frankly I think Jackson's presidency is actually the least interesting portion of his life. Much of the history of Jackson's time in the White House deals with trivial Washington society issues that plagued the early Jackson cabinet. I just can't seem to get interested in the story, even understanding that the trivial social issues led Jackson to replace much of his cabinet. Ditto for the battle over the Bank of the United States. I understand why its important but I've yet to read anyone who makes the issue even slightly interesting to read.
H.W. Brands book "Jackson: His Life and Times" is a significantly better historical work and I would suggest Sean Wilentz's "The Rise of American Democracy" as well, though it doesn't focus exclusively on Jackson and is plagued by the subpar subject matter.
H.W. Brands book "Jackson: His Life and Times" is a significantly better historical work and I would suggest Sean Wilentz's "The Rise of American Democracy" as well, though it doesn't focus exclusively on Jackson and is plagued by the subpar subject matter.
Bennett to Senate
I'm easing back into the real world after a relaxing Holiday break from the news, blogs and my RSS feed and the big news of the day is that Michael Bennett has been chosen to fill the U.S. Senate seat being vacated by Ken Salazar.
I've worked with Michael Bennett on a handful of occasions and have been thoroughly impressed by him. In fact my statement after my first meeting with him was that he would make a great Senator some day. I'm surprised Ritter picked him and I think there are some obvious political concerns - can he raise money? What is his constituency? Is his name ID statewide high enough? That said I have little doubt that Bennett will be a fine and capable Senator.
Congratulations to Mr. Bennett.
I've worked with Michael Bennett on a handful of occasions and have been thoroughly impressed by him. In fact my statement after my first meeting with him was that he would make a great Senator some day. I'm surprised Ritter picked him and I think there are some obvious political concerns - can he raise money? What is his constituency? Is his name ID statewide high enough? That said I have little doubt that Bennett will be a fine and capable Senator.
Congratulations to Mr. Bennett.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)