Party discipline: why do moderates roll over?

The New Neo Posted on by

Jennifer Rubin describes a process we’ve all noticed recently, in which moderate Democrats who ought to know better risk their chances of re-election (or actually give them up) in order to fall in line when Party leaders crack the whip:

…[W]hen confronted with legislation their constituents hated and that defied the fiscal conservative line on which they had ridden into office, they readily complied with their liberal leadership, in no small part because they perceived the risk of crossing the president and their Democratic colleagues to be greater than the risk of angering moderate voters. This was especially true for those who would not face the voters this year. (Only Bayh and Lincoln will.)

That’s what happened, all right. Rubin explains their behavior, at least in part, by saying that their fiscal conservatism was probably just a cynical ploy to begin with, rather than a deeply held principle; she refers to them as “phony centrists.”

Although that may be quite true, it still doesn’t explain something I’ve long wondered about: even if a member of Congress isn’t compromising his/her own deeply held principles on the issues themselves—still, why capitulate to the leadership in situations when such an act would amount to political suicide? In other words, what are those terrible threats that Pelosi and Reid (or, if Republicans happen to control Congress, their Speaker and Majority leader) hold over members in the name of party discipline that could override the desire to get re-elected?

Rubin leaves the details of that part of the story out; we are left to speculate.

I suppose it’s possible that some of these members of Congress don’t want the job anymore. But it’s difficult to believe they’ve suddenly grown tired of the power and perks involved, especially for the long-termers among them.

Power and perks involved—now, therein may lie a hint as to what’s going on. The leaders’ threats to uncooperative members probably include loss of influence, and loss of chairmanships and other highly-anticipated and long-promised appointments. If these members of Congress have been safely ensconced in the favored inner circle, they will now be in the reviled outer one if they defy the party. Ostracism is even possible, effective although perhaps not total; after all, despised party traitor Joe Lieberman still caucuses with the Democrats.

But still, wouldn’t it be better for these members to stay in Congress, even as pariahs, rather than be tossed out by the voters? Apparently not. If a member of Congress falls on his/her sword for the Party and loses an election as a result, there are probably some might cushy jobs ahead. But those who defy the party powers that be may receive a warning that they are on their own when they leave—or, even worse, that influential people may try to stop them from landing the types of cushy and powerful jobs they’ve come to expect on their retirement (forced or otherwise) from Congress.

If a member does defy the party and votes against the legislation despite all of this, and then runs for re-election, there’s another hurdle: fund-raising. The party holds some fairly heavy purse strings, and can be extremely helpful in the fiscal sense. Even with name recognition, a great deal of money is generally needed to mount a successful campaign these days, and the party can be of immense help—or harm.

There are exceptions, of course. Joe Lieberman did it mainly without party help, as did newcomer Scott Brown. But those were highly visible elections with powerfully motivated voters and a great deal of publicity (Brown received contributions from all over the country because of strong interest in his becoming the 41st vote against health care reform). Others can’t count on similar interest and support.

So ordinarily there’s a huge risk in going it alone. In the absence of strong principles it must hardly seem worth it, and so they go along to get along and hope for the best.

But in the case of health care reform, those “phony centrists” appear to have greatly underestimated the strength of the rage their betrayal would engender in the voters. After all, Scott Brown had not yet been elected. Now they’re fearful that their gamble will not pay off—except, perhaps, in those golden parachutes the party will provide to cushion their landings when they fall.

Looking back at Obama: Tony Blankley

The New Neo Posted on by

Looking back, I am impressed by this column written by Tony Blankley right after Barack Obama was inaugurated as president, one very long/short year ago. It seems to have been keenly prescient.

Note particularly the final sentence of the final paragraph:

[Obama demonstrates] a conscious intent to deceive in order to diffuse opposition to his designs until it is too late to block them. Ronald Reagan never hid his policy intentions from public view. Neither, in fairness, did Lyndon Johnson or Walter Mondale or Barney Frank or Nancy Pelosi.

A politician who will not sail under his own flag sails, in effect, against all flags. Such a strategy may, in time, undercut his support from increasingly suspicious progressives, liberals, moderates and conservatives — once they recognize the deception.

[NOTE: Here’s a little known fact from Mr. Blankley’s bio:

Born in London and a naturalized American citizen, Mr. Blankley and his family moved to Los Angeles after World War II. Young Tony found work as a child actor in television and films, first encountering Mr. Reagan when both appeared at a 1950s-era USO performance. In years that followed, he volunteered to work on all of Mr. Reagan’s campaigns for governor and president.]

Seduced by Lays

The New Neo Posted on by

I’m a sucker for diet foods that promise to taste just like the real thing.

Oh, I know better. I’ve been down that road before, and it never ends well. The pictures are lies, the descriptions likewise, all of it going to prove that there’s no free lunch—at least, no calorie-free one with any taste.

But the other day I weakened once again, even though I know better—oh, much better! I went to the supermarket hungry, something one should never do, and I passed by a package of these.

baked-lays.gif

I looked at the package. I looked at the photo, but not carefully enough. I looked at the label and it was full of promise, although I should have been very suspicious: too few calories, too little fat. And dehydrated potatoes? Dextrose?

When I ate the first one, it resembled sweetened, salty sawdust (at least, how I would imagine sweetened, salty sawdust would taste). The chips were “composed,” pulverized and then re-formed into a too-uniform simulacra of real, honest-to-goodness potato chips in all their variable splendor.

This product should not have been allowed to carry the proud potato chip name. The contents of the bag ended up, as do so many such purchases (especially that rubbery fat-free cheddar cheese, which looks for all the world like the real thing), in the disposal.

Never again will I be taken in in that way.

Until next time.

[NOTE: However, I would be remiss if I left out this product, which is actually excellent. It’s not exactly low-cal, but it’s somewhat low-fat, and does not suffer at all from that fact:

capecodchips.jpg

More on the administration, the Christmas bomber, and Khalid Sheikh Mohammed

The New Neo Posted on by

If you want to follow the twistings and turnings of each, there’s this and this.

The latter article seems to put all responsibility for the decision about KSM’s trial on Holder. I’ve always doubted such reports and continue to doubt them; I believe that Holder and Obama consulted and were on the same page about this. But whether Obama was part of the terrible decision or whether he merely abdicated responsibility for it to the incompetent Holder, the entire process reflects poorly on the President. As the article points out:

But several sources questioned why the administration — especially one replete with political veterans — has not done a better job of managing the complex politics of national security.

“How did this happen?” asked Rep. Peter T. King (R-N.Y.). “It was being blind to political realities, and I don’t mean partisan politics. I mean the real, legitimate grass-roots feelings. They misread it.”

This administration is misreading a great deal these days, isn’t it? And reading grass-roots feelings on this one wasn’t rocket science, either; most sentient beings could have predicted the unpopularity of the decision to try KSM in New York.

The article says that, “Obama gave little clue about how the administration will proceed when he was asked Sunday about the trial.” Well, maybe he “gave little clue” because he has little clue.

So much for attempts at bipartisanship

The New Neo Posted on by

One would think that—if bipartisanship were possible—one issue on which Congress might be able to unite would be jobs creation.

After all, everybody knows jobs are needed, and everyone wants credit for reducing unemployment and helping the economy. What’s more, for quite some time there has been a supposedly bipartisan effort to work on this task, known as the Baucus bill. It was unveiled yesterday and promptly killed by Harry Reid.

The scuttlebutt is that Reid was worried the bill would hurt Democrat incumbents (such as himself?). But it’s hard to see how they could be doing any worse than they already were, just as it’s hard to see how this new move could help them.

Reid’s decision is being reported as a shock to all involved, including the White House:

Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D-Mont.) and Sen. Charles Grassley (R-Iowa) worked for weeks with Reid’s blessing and frequent involvement to craft an $85 billion jobs bill, a measure that seemed destined to break the partisan logjam that has ground the Senate to a halt.

But as Baucus, Grassley and President Barack Obama were preparing to celebrate a rare moment of bipartisan Kumbaya on Thursday, Reid stunned a meeting of Senate Democrats by announcing he was scrapping Baucus-Grassley, replacing it with a much cheaper, more narrowly crafted, $15 billion version.

If this report is true—talk about sucker-punches! Here’s the supposed reasoning behind what Reid did:

“Grassley and three to four Republicans would have voted for it, but all the other Republicans would have beaten the living s””t out of us [during the 2010 midterms], claiming the bill was too bloated,” said a Democrat who supported Reid’s decision, explaining the leader’s logic.

However, this was one of the few bills that would have had some bona fide bipartisan support. So this makes no sense to me. Isn’t that what Reid and company wanted? Some support from the other side? Surely they didn’t expect unanimity.

The following scenario just looks bad from all angles for the Democrats:

Aides to Baucus and Grassley said their bosses didn’t know of Reid’s decision when they unveiled their bill early Thursday ”“ and expected it to have the leader’s support…The White House appeared to be caught off guard.

Oh, that’ll bring the voters round.

Unless Reid is playing some sort of fourth- or perhaps even fifth-dimensional chess, of a nuance and complexity that the rest of us are too stupid to fathom, his move seems designed to offend the largest possible number of people and give the Republicans even more ammunition to criticize him (not that there’s anything wrong with that). Here’s the sort of things Republicans are now free to say:

“Sen. Reid’s announcement sends a message that he wants to go partisan and blame Republicans,” Grassley spokesperson Jill Kozeny said in a statement.

Antonia Ferrier, a spokeswoman for Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), who supported the bipartisan effort, said her boss was “deeply disappointed that the majority leader has abandoned a genuine bipartisan compromise only hours after it was unveiled in favor of business-as-usual, partisan gamesmanship.”

In the meantime, the American people continue to suffer greatly from the lack of jobs, and the almost incomprehensible incompetence of these congressional “leaders,” who if nothing else have wasted an unconscionable amount of time. Meanwhile, the public’s approval ratings for Congress continue to tank. And Reid seems determined to see whether he can get them down to zero.

[NOTE: I just had another thought: perhaps Reid’s target is Obama? This would not have occurred to me had I not read this article about Pelosi’s growing anger towards Obama and “the seething resentment some Democrats feel over what they see as cavalier treatment from a wounded White House.” I guess they won’t be exchanging any valentines this Sunday.

If you read the whole article about Pelosi, you’ll see that she realizes she may lose her coveted Speaker seat come 2010. This would not endear the President to her, or vice versa. He clearly has no idea how to handle Congress, even one with strong majorities of his own party members. But why would he? He’s hardly ever managed anything, and his own stint in the Senate was very brief. Congress ain’t the Harvard Law Review, and it’s a mite more challenging than the Annenberg Challenge. As for his advisers—well, remember this.]

Judd Gregg for President!

The New Neo Posted on by

I’d like to start a movement: Judd Gregg for President in 2012.

Seriously.

The only problem is, I’m not at all sure Gregg wants the honor. He’s on record as intending to retire from the Senate in 2010, and hasn’t announced what he’s planning afterward. But he’s given absolutely no indication it’s got anything to do with a bid for the presidency. However, on thinking who I’d like to see run as the Republican nominee in 2012, I’ve decided we could do a lot worse than Gregg.

Still, although he’s one of New Hamphire’s senators, he’s hardly a household word, and lacks what you might call charisma. When he’s feeling intense, his voice sometimes goes into somewhat higher registers than that deep baritone resonance so many love to hear.

But maybe the public is ready for someone without a lot of flash, but with some substance instead. Take a look at this video, where Gregg challenges Peter Orszag:

To me, Gregg comes across as down-to-earth but at the same time sincerely outraged (rather than staging a show of fake outrage) at Orszag’s playing fast and loose with the American taxpayer’s money. The reason he is so incensed here is probably related to the fact that, in October of 2008, in the midst of the acute financial crisis, Gregg authored that protective language in the TARP bill that “required repaid funds be applied to reducing the debt,” the provision Orszag is suggesting be violated.

Gregg is a lifelong fiscal conservative and social moderate. He is intelligent and articulate. He’s neither academically above-it-all nor populist-folksy, but generally strikes a forthright tone somewhere in-between. There are no bells and whistles with Gregg, but no funny slick stuff either.

In fact, Holden Caulfield might say Gregg’s not a phony, unlike so many other politicians (or at least, he’s less of a phony then most).

Gregg’s got tons of experience, both legislative and executive—the latter especially important for the job of president. He served four terms in the House, three in the Senate, and two as New Hampshire’s governor in-between. What’s more, his academic chops are very similar to those of none other than—Barack Obama. Gregg is a graduate of Phillips Exeter Academy, Columbia undergrad, and then BU Law.

I was tremendously impressed when Gregg thought to sign on with the Obama administration as Secretary of Commerce but signed off just as quickly when he realized how far to the left Obama was. He appears to have integrity, something we don’t hear too much about any more (although he uses the word in his exchange with Orszag). And he’s also lucky; according to Wiki, Gregg won “more than $850,000 in 2005 after buying $20 worth of Powerball tickets at a Washington, D.C. convenience store.” We could use a little bit of luck.

I thought I might be first with this rather strange idea of Gregg in 2012. But when I Googled “Judd Gregg for President” I discovered that others have passed this way before me—back in March of 2009, to be exact. And here’s a Facebook page dedicated to drafting him for the race.

Here’s the Gregg website.

So, what do you think of the idea?

Spambot of the day

The New Neo Posted on by

How thoughtful.

I don’t know if I agree with you here. While you do make an excellent point, I do not believe you have really given a large amount of thought to the other side of the argument. Maybe I could write a guest post or a follow-up, just make me aware.

Obama and his inner circle: the alter egos

The New Neo Posted on by

This piece about the influence of Obama’s inner circle of Chicago-based advisers is good. But like many articles on the subject, it somewhat misses the point. Axelrod, Gibbs, Jarrett, and Emanuel are not just random aides who have led Obama astray. They are not merely advisers; they are alter egos.

It is no accident that they are all fairly distasteful people, as well, as was mentor Rev. Wright. Although Obama is the attractive head man with the smooth style, do not forget that these four have not been randomly assigned to him: he has chosen them, and done so because they express exactly what he wants them to express.

These advisers are Obama’s true face. For the most part (the possible exception is Rahm Emanuel, who does not go back as far with Obama, although Rahm is a long-term friend of Axelrod’s) Obama cannot get rid himself of them because there is no one who can adequately replace them—no one he trusts and knows as well, and who knows him equally well (with the possible exception of his wife).

Here’s a longer and truly fascinating article on the subject from the Financial Times, loaded with insights into the inner workings of this inner circle:

In dozens of interviews with his closest allies and friends in Washington ”“ most of them given unattributably in order to protect their access to the Oval Office ”“ each observes that the president draws on the advice of a very tight circle. The inner core consists of just four people ”“ Rahm Emanuel, the pugnacious chief of staff; David Axelrod and Valerie Jarrett, his senior advisers; and Robert Gibbs, his communications chief.

Note the fear that access will be denied. It’s real; remember the war on Fox? Note this as well [emphasis mine]:

The president, who is the first to keep a BlackBerry, rarely holds a meeting, including on national security, without some or all of them present.

All of these people are Chicago connections. All were closely allied personally with Obama and/or with his campaign almost from the start (except for Emanuel, who ultimately defected from the Clintons to endorse Obama; he was an adviser to Bill during his presidency). As a former House member, Emanuel is the only one of them with any national-level non-campaign political experience of his own.

The others are strictly local and/or strictly concerned with the perpetual campaign (Gibbs was allied with Obama’s 2004 campaign as well, Jarrett goes back to 1991 in close association with both Obamas, and Axelrod, the director of Obama’s presidential campaign, began his relationship with him in 1992). I believe it is unprecedented for a president to have so many campaign advisers this closely involved in governing—or what passes for governing these days.

Larry Podesta (one of the few who are secure enough to go on record in the Financial Times piece) says, ““It is a very tight inner circle and that has its advantages. But I would like to see the president make more use of other people in his administration, particularly his cabinet.” So, Obama’s Cabinet is marginalized? One suspects they are there merely for window-dressing:

“Every event is treated like a twist in an election campaign and no one except the inner circle can be trusted to defend the president,” says an exasperated outside adviser.

It is either Gibbs or Axelrod who usually acts as the public spokesman—two of the most off-putting and least telegenic creatures ever. Is it any wonder then, that Obama the “great communicator” has failed to sell his program, with these two as his shills?

More:

Administration insiders say the famously irascible Mr Emanuel treats cabinet principals like minions. “I am not sure the president realises how much he is humiliating some of the big figures he spent so much trouble recruiting into his cabinet,” says the head of a presidential advisory board who visits the Oval Office frequently. “If you want people to trust you, you must first place trust in them.”

That’s a variant of the “if only Stalin knew” argument. But it’s difficult to believe that Obama is unaware of what’s going on; to subscribe to that theory, one would have to consider Obama tone deaf to human interactions. That’s possible, of course. But it’s more likely that Emanuel serves his purposes; power and intimidation, even of allies, is part of the deal.

More about Rahm Emanuel’s delicate touch:

We are treated as though we are children,” says the head of a large organisation that raised millions of dollars for Mr Obama’s campaign. “Our advice is never sought. We are only told: ”˜This is the message, please get it out.’ I am not sure whether the president fully realises that when the chief of staff speaks, people assume he is speaking for the president.”

Note the continual statement of uncertainty about what the elusive Obama really thinks and really knows. As I stated earlier, I think Obama knows full well, although he may not appreciate the depth of people’s negative reactions. But it’s not as though prior to this particular gig, Rahm Emanuel was known for his kind and gentle way of treating people.

In truth, this is a pattern for Obama. Since the very beginning of Obama’s political career, he has always relied on thugs to carry out his dirty work (see this and this).

There’s more:

The same can be observed in foreign policy. On Mr Obama’s November trip to China, members of the cabinet such as the Nobel prizewinning Stephen Chu, energy secretary, were left cooling their heels while Mr Gibbs, Mr Axelrod and Ms Jarrett were constantly at the president’s side…none of Mr Obama’s inner circle had any background in China. “We were about 40 vans down in the motorcade and got barely any time with the president,” says a senior official with extensive knowledge of the region. “It was like the Obama campaign was visiting China.”

This explains a great deal. And it makes sense, too, in terms of Obama’s belief system: remember back during the campaign, when Obama talked about his trips as a young man to Pakistan and his time as a child in Indonesia, and asserted that these experiences gave him a leg up in foreign affairs over all those other supposed experts?. Now he is playing out that arrogance, to the detriment of us all.

An outside adviser adds: “I don’t understand how the president could launch healthcare reform and an Arab-Israeli peace process ”“ two goals that have eluded US presidents for generations ”“ without having done better scenario planning. Either would be historic. But to launch them at the same time?”

Can’t understand it? The answer lies in one word: hubris.

As for the possibility of Obama’s changing this disastrous course of action:

“There is an old joke,” says Mr Gergen. “How many psychiatrists does it take to change a lightbulb? Only one. But the lightbulb must want to change. I don’t think President Obama wants to make any changes.”

I’m with Gergen on that one.

Obama vs. Boehner: this is how a narcissist responds to disagreement

The New Neo Posted on by

Once more Obama poses as victim: it’s those mean old Republicans, out to get me!

Obama is determined to paint the Republicans as the obstructionist bad guys, and he says it’s personal rather than about any sort of principle. If those “bipartisan” hearings are televised, expect to see more of the same sort of accusations. I could be wrong (it depends on how much finesse Obama manages to muster as he does it), but I don’t think this strategy will play well with the majority of the American people, who are heartily tired of blame duck Obama’s antics in this regard.

As this commenter observed:

Boehner made a substantive policy argument to Obama, and Obama responded with a partisan attack.

Isn’t that the way? And meanwhile, in an alternate universe, Obama demands that Congress “transcend petty politics.”

You first, President Obama. We insist.

Policy on personal altercations in the comments section

The New Neo Posted on by

[NOTE: This is a slightly edited version of a post I’ve written before. Nothing I say in this post refers to bona fide political discussions and disagreements. But I’ve noticed an increase in personal attacks and infighting between/among commenters on this blog, and some of it has gone on for quite a while.]

I do not have time to police this blog for personal fighting. I find it takes away from the point of the blog, as well, when that sort of thing comes to dominate too much in the comments section.

I don’t mind a little of it; I realize it’s inevitable, and I understand that a blog comments section is not a genteel place, nor should it be. But I do mind when it goes on for a while. I don’t have time to determine who’s right and who’s wrong in any given altercation, nor do I believe it should be my job.

I am saying to everyone on the blog that I am going to adopt a less hang-loose policy about repetitive personal attacks between commenters. It’s not that it can never happen. But if I see it going on too long, I will delete the entire comment of the person involved (that is, if I see the comment; I don’t always catch everything). Defending oneself is fine, but if the defense includes an attack, that’s not okay and will be deleted. And then, if it goes on again, I will ban the person or people involved. I am very reluctant to do this, but I will if I need to do it.

We really should be focusing our energies on the truly important issues facing us. That doesn’t mean everything has to be serious—certainly not!—but I’m adopting a much less tolerant attitude for this sort of repetitive personal sniping.

Of course, trolls are fair game. But they tend to be banned here pretty quickly.

[NOTE: I have closed comments for this thread.]