First thoughts: A bumpier 2009?
Posted: Tuesday, January 06, 2009 9:26 AM by Domenico Montanaro
Filed Under:
First Thoughts
From Chuck Todd, Mark Murray, Domenico Montanaro, and Carrie Dann
*** A bumpier 2009? You could chalk up the Richardson flap to a simple vetting mistake about the New Mexico governor’s ties to an alleged pay-to-play scheme, or a lack of communication between the Obama and Richardson folks. Yet any big controversy ended as soon as Richardson withdrew his nomination over the weekend; it prevented a rough confirmation hearing. But now Obama's pick of Leon Panetta to head the CIA has drawn new criticism because of (1) Panetta’s lack of intelligence experience and (2) the fact that Obama's team apparently didn't even consult the selection with incoming Senate Intelligence Chairwoman Dianne Feinstein, who prefers a career intelligence official in charge of the CIA. The timing of this criticism isn't good for the Obama team, especially since it comes immediately after Richardson withdrawal. The 2008 transition was very smooth. The 2009 transition so far? Well, welcome to the big leagues. But as Ron Fournier writes, “While these are hiccups in what has otherwise been a smooth transition, Obama's response suggests that he is a patient and pragmatic politician, willing to trade time for consensus on legislation and to jettison allies who jeopardize his carefully built reformist image."
*** Competence and ideology: One reason why intelligence has become such a tough nut for Obama to crack: There’s a lot of Democratic rhetoric on intel from the presidential campaign, and it's something that Obama is allowing the intellectual left to have veto power over. Obama finds himself caught in this first intra-party vise between his instinct to pick competence over ideology. His first rumored choices for CIA were competent picks -- but both would have been eviscerated by the intellectual left because of their anger at Bush over interrogation practices. He's allowing ideology to trump competence for the first time in one of his major appointments. Now, the pick of Dennis Blair to be DNI is a tip toward competence, while the Obama folks hoped Panetta was a compromise between competence and ideology. (Panetta was praised as a smart manager during the Clinton White House years.) But it looks like it ain’t being received that way...
*** Welcome back, Congress: When the 111th Congress officially begins today, it appears that the two men who may (or may not) be senator -- Roland Burris and Al Franken -- won’t be seated, at least for today. Per NBC’s Ken Strickland, Burris will show up to Capitol Hill at 10:30 am ET (and will hold a press conference at the Senate’s appointment desk entrance), but he won’t be allowed onto the Senate floor. No one expects there to be confrontation over the matter. Strickland adds that both Burris and Franken lack election certificates (Illinois’ secretary of state won’t sign Burris’, while the Coleman campaign plans to challenge yesterday’s declaration that Franken won the recount for the Minnesota Senate seat). One other thing: Vice President-elect Joe Biden also gets sworn in today. Per a Biden spokeswoman, he won’t become the first VP-elect to do this: LBJ also was sworn in before officially resigning his Texas Senate seat to become vice president. So why is VP-elect Biden being sworn in today as senator? Well, one reason is to go on one final CODEL…
*** Rules "change"? Democrats released a new "rules package," intended as "Common-sense Reforms to Keep Congress Working for America, Continue to Restore Integrity to Institution," the press releases subhead reads. But one of those changes rescinds term limits from committee chairs. Is this really a reform? Is this a healthy thing for the Democratic Party? There are just six chairs who were elected with or after Clinton, while the other 16 came to Congress before Bill Clinton was even a twinkle in James Carville's eye, and six came to Congress before Jimmy Carter was elected! Is this change Democrats can believe in? Shouldn't the House Democrats want new blood running Congress not just serving in it?
*** 2009 vs. 1993: It was 16 years ago -- the last time (1993) that we saw a Democratically controlled Congress getting sworn in with a Democratic president on the way (Bill Clinton). But it’s worth pointing out that Democrats today find themselves in a MUCH STRONGER position than they were in 1993. While Democrats back then held about the same number of House and Senate seats that they hold now, they were a party that was on the decline or stagnant. According to the Vital Statistics on Congress, they held 258 House seats on the first day of the 103rd Congress (1993-95), down from the 267 they had in the prior Congress. And in the Senate, they held 57 Senate seats, up one from the previous Congress. Of course, they lost their hold on both chambers after the 1994 election. But after this past November, Democrats have significantly increased their majorities in both the House and Senate, and Obama won his presidential contest with 53% of the vote (compared with Clinton’s 43%).
*** The latest in New York: According to NBC’s Andrea Mitchell, Democratic political sources say Gov. Paterson has asked the hopefuls to replace Hillary Clinton for their financial records, and Caroline Kennedy is expected to turn over her records -- as will Congress members Steve Israel and Carolyn Maloney, and potentially others. Until now, Kennedy has kept her finances private; she didn’t disclose them when she took her NYC education post in the Bloomberg administration. The simple act of cooperating on this front should be a sign that she's probably still safe to call the front-runner for the appointment.
*** The party of Reagan: Perhaps our biggest takeaway after watching yesterday’s RNC chair forum in DC was all the emphasis on Ronald Reagan. The six candidates vying for chairman -- Saul Anuzis, Ken Blackwell, Katon Dawson, Mike Duncan, Chip Saltsman, and Michael Steele -- mentioned Reagan frequently, much like the Republican presidential candidates did at all the GOP debates during the primary season. And when asked who their favorite Republican president was, all the RNC chair candidates said Reagan. But here’s a little cold water to throw on that Reagan legacy: Your First Read authors, respectively, were 8 years old, 6 years old, 1 year old, and not even born when Reagan first won the White House in 1980. Think about that as the GOP tries to perform better among 18-29 year olds, a group Obama won 66%-32%. What’s more, while conservatives remember Reagan’s legacy as a tax-cutter and anti-communist hawk, he also had a much more pragmatic side. He raised taxes (!!!) and his administration worked through back channels with the Soviets to bring an end to the Cold War.
*** Stimulus odds and ends: One news nugget that didn't get much play yesterday -- the TARP money. Part of the message that was bandied about during the larger meeting between Obama and bipartisan congressional leaders, according to one source privy to the meeting, was to move quickly to get the rest of the TARP money appropriated ($350 billion) before Bush leaves office. No doubt Obama would love to have the entire $700 billion appropriated on 43's watch…
Countdown to Electoral Vote Count In Congress: 2 days
Countdown to Inauguration Day 2009: 14 days
Countdown to RNC winter meeting: 22 days
Countdown to VA Dem primary: 154 days
Countdown to NJ GOP primary: 147 days
Countdown to Election Day 2009: 301 days
Countdown to Election Day 2010: 665 days
Click here to sign up for First Read emails.
Text FIRST to 622639, to sign up for First Read alerts to your mobile phone.
