Politics and Media Headlines 1/6/09

Quote of the Day (Political Wire)
"Obama's team are the best linguists I've ever seen. Republicans aren't in his league right now." -- Frank Luntz, author of Words that Work, in an interview with Politico.
Frank Luntz is the man who espouses the juxtaposition of phrases that don’t belong together, to make people believe that they belong together, without telling outright lies. He’s responsible, for example, for Republicans saying “Saddam Hussein” and “9/11” in the same sentence, to make Americans think Saddam Hussein was responsible for 9/11, when he clearly was not.—Caro

The Radical Fringe

Obama's Justice nominees signal end of Bush terror tactics (McClatchy)
WASHINGTON — In filling four senior Justice Department positions Monday, President-elect Barack Obama signaled that he intends to roll back Bush administration counterterrorism policies authorizing harsh interrogation techniques, warrantless spying and indefinite detentions of terrorism suspects.
At least we can hope.—Caro

Obama's impressive new OLC chief (by Glenn Greenwald at Unclaimed Territory, Salon)
Other than Attorney General-designate Eric Holder and Obama himself, there is probably no official who will have a more significant role [than head of the Office of Legal Counsel] in determining the extent to which the Obama administration really does reverse the lawlessness and legal radicalism of the Bush years. [Monday], … Barack Obama announced several new appointments to key DOJ posts, including Dawn Johnsen to head the OLC. Johnsen is a Professor of Law at Indiana University, a former OLC official in the Clinton administration (as well as a former ACLU counsel), and a graduate of Yale Law School. She's become a true expert on executive power and, specifically, the role and obligation of the OLC in restricting presidential decisions to their lawful scope. There are several striking pieces of evidence that suggest this appointment may be Obama's best yet, perhaps by far.
Click through for more information.—Caro

Obama's intel picks short on direct experience (AP)
President-elect Barack Obama's decision to fill the nation's top intelligence jobs with two men short on direct experience in intelligence gathering surprised the spy community and signaled the Democrat's intention for a clean break from Bush administration policies. Former Clinton White House Chief of Staff Leon Panetta, an eight-term congressional veteran and administrative expert, is being tapped to head the CIA. Retired Adm. Dennis Blair is Obama's choice to bedirector of national intelligence… Neither Panetta nor Blair are tainted by associations with Bush administration policies, in large part because they both come from outside the intelligence world. Blair was posted at the CIA for about a year.

Inspired Choices for DNI and CIA? (by Larry Johnson at No Quarter)
If you look back at the people that Bill Clinton and George Bush put in charge of the CIA, then the choice of Panetta seems particularly inspired. Why? The ideal candidate is someone who is smart, who is not looking to feather his or her nest to reap economic benefits, and who understands that the President needs an honest broker… Panetta appears to be a decent, honest, smart man who is not bent on feathering his own nest. Given his prior experience as an intelligence consumer at the highest level in the U.S. government he at least understands what the intelligence community needs to produce in order to ensure the President has the best information. I am pleasantly surprised by the Panetta choice.
Glenn Greenwald says, “Spencer Ackerman reports that Sen. Dianne Feinstein is upset with the selection of Panetta, petulantly complaining that she wasn't consulted in advance and that it would be best to have an "intelligence professional" in that position. CQ's Tim Starks reports that Sen. Jay Rockefeller is making very similar noises about this selection. Few things could reflect better on Panetta's selection than the fact that Feinstein and Rockefeller -- two of the most Bush-enabling Senators -- are unhappy with it.”

I know that Larry Johnson is persona non grata around here, but he IS an expert on intelligence and security. I believe it’s worthwhile for Correntians to know what his opinion is on the Obama intelligence picks.—Caro

Obama's Stumbles (by Steve Soto at The Left Coaster)
Simply put, I am appalled at the news that Obama has selected Leon Panetta to head the CIA. The Obama team selected Panetta without consulting any of the congressional Democrats leading the intelligence committees, perhaps wanting to avoid a leak. Yet the choice itself of a political manager who knows zip about the world of intelligence reeks of a White House that wants control of the apparatus through a master beancounter. This is far less desirable than redirecting the Agency's policies and improving its morale by appointing a capable veteran like Stephen Kappes.

Second, I am equally appalled to see the Obama team try and blame Bill Richardson for underestimating his exposure from a grand jury investigation first reported back in August, the details of which would have been unknown to him. Team Obama is now smoothly throwing Richardson under the bus for their own vetting process and willingness to nominate someone possibly tied to a public and active grand jury investigation. But then, they got what they wanted from Richardson: a Hillary supporter who turned against her, a national Latino political supporter who delivered a key state, who never got the job he really wanted (Secretary of State) and is now not getting any job at all.

Could Panetta Switch to Commerce? (Political Wire)
Political Wire has learned that early in the Obama transition former White House Chief of Staff Leon Panetta was actually angling to be secretary of commerce -- not CIA Director. However, now that the leaked news of Panetta's nomination has apparently ticked off Sen. Diane Feinstein (D-CA), the incoming chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee -- and with the commerce seat now open again -- might Panetta be tapped for that job instead?

Click here for more politics and media news headlines.

Carolyn Kay
MakeThemAccountable.com

Comments

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Becerra & Sebelius don't want Commerce --

CBC & Rangel are pissed about Burris --

it's not right -- they should have sat him. And Reid should be ashamed of himself -- he should step down.

Burris is turned away from chamber

Rangel not "comfortable" with Burris confrontation

Was watching Tweety and company

at the gym today, and someone made a good point (amazing, I know): the dems had to drop the idea of seating Franken because they couldn't very well do that with his election being challenged and not seat Burris.

Blago needs to get the boot, and then his successor can pick the replacement. It certainly was a three-ring circus though. I wonder what people think of the whole thing, especially the Illinois voters. Someone said that if an election were to be held for Obama's seat, the republican could very well win.

I'm an Illinois voter ...

... and I think they should seat Burris. I don't think much of the guy, but he is certainly qualified. And the governor still has the power to appoint. The legislature could have quickly taken that power out of his hands, but is instead fixated on impeachment. That has to be a fairly long process.

I'm not sure what all the machinations behind the scenes are, but Illinois Democrats could have kept this confrontation from happening, and Obama could have insisted on it. They didn't and he didn't.

what's weird is that Rahm's seat will be elected, no?

they should have just made it a special election for both seats, i think.

Yes, the rules seem to be different ...

... for the House vs. the Senate. Cost may be a factor. A senatorial election has to be statewide.

I may end up working on one of the campaigns.

Not cost but seat safety

It's that given the drama, a Republican very realistically end up taking Obama's Senate seat. The same can't be said for Emanuel's House seat. One's not so safe and the other is.

That, and yeah, the rules are different, but you definitely can hold a special election for a Senate seat, too. Costs is a smokescreen. It's politics, and always is politics when it comes to empty Senate seats. It's why there probably needs to be serious reform on the issue of empty Senate seats. Not that I advocate this, but in France's Assembly, each member is elected with a kind of vice-member so that in case the elected member becomes part of the government, the vice-member takes his/her place until that seat is up for re-election.

But, we've always been at war with Eastasia...

if Coleman is officially contesting in court,

they can't legally seat Franken, i don't think, even if they wanted to.

doesn't the Court have to rule first or dismiss the case, and then the election result gets officially certified or whatever?

Dreyfus/Nation on Panetta --

Panetta? Ummmmm... Well..... -- he lays it all out and demolishes the "he's against torture" and "he's a consumer of intelligence" bs too --

... Fourth, Panetta is a relentless centrist and a conciliator. He's one more cog in the center-right national security apparatus that Obama is patiently assembling. Which raises another very important issue: Is Panetta the one to stand up and fight for civilian control of the intelligence community? Of course not. ...

In the meantime, by appointing Blair, a man deeply entangled in the military-industrial complex, Obama is guaranteeing that the CIA and the other fifteen or so agencies that comprise the "community" will be ever beholden to the Pentagon, which already absorbs something like 80 percent of the intelligence budget.

The Panetta appointment is doomed. ...

"Reid: Dems must be ‘very careful’ about overreaching"

sick and sad -- just pathetic --

Reid: Dems must be ‘very careful’ about overreaching --

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) said Tuesday that Democrats have to be “very, very careful” about overreaching.

In an interview with The Hill, Reid argued that it is essential for President-elect Obama and congressional Democrats to work closely with Republicans in the new Congress. He added that 2009 is very different than 1993, the last time Democrats controlled both Congress and the White House.

Back then, Reid said, Democrats had controlled the House for decades, while this time around, a recent stint in the minority will result in their being more committed to bipartisanship. ...

Dick Armey said

today that there were going to be divisions because the two parties approach issues differently, but he felt that there would now be more intelligent (or a comparable word) discussions about those issues.

Yes, Dick Armey actually said that. Interesting. I was surprised, yet suspicious, as usual. Whenever a republican talks rationally, everyone had better watch out for the next shoe t drop.

OTOH, I'd love to think that some of them have been sickened by Bush/Cheney disease. It's already happened.

discussions-- not votes --

and they don't worry about "bipartisanship" or compromise ever -- or even about being evil or heartless -- it's only always one-way -- their way.

And -- doesn't that remind you of Obama anyway? A weaselly statement that doesn't commit to anything concrete, and fetishes "talking", etc?

Except, of course, that Armey is exactly right on this-- "the two parties approach issues differently" -- at least they used to. Dems in Congress --and the WH-- now seem to approach everything the way the GOP does, tragically.

"posing as the champions of careful Congressional deliberation"

Krugman -- Fighting Off Depression

...News reports say that Democrats hope to pass an economic plan with broad bipartisan support. Good luck with that.

In reality, the political posturing has already started, with Republican leaders setting up roadblocks to stimulus legislation while posing as the champions of careful Congressional deliberation — which is pretty rich considering their party’s behavior over the past eight years. ...

Luntz must mean these too --

"Obama's team are the best linguists I've ever seen."

You know, that's not exactly a compliment. lol It's like me calling Obama the best politician I've ever seen.

But, we've always been at war with Eastasia...

How quickly the sycophants

change their tunes when the bread gets buttered on the other side.

Carville and Matalin are set for life.

Yeah, "get the butter"!

'Cause it's like butter, know what I mean?

"First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win." -- Mahatma Gandhi