-
sponsorship
Walter Shapiro: "John Corzine by all estimation is going to be reelected Governor of New Jersey." Really? "By all estimation"? You giving odds with that? I'll take them. Depends on the Daggett vote, no? And the night is young. ... P.S.: Don't forget the Incumbent Rule. ... Update: Maybe Daggett's vote won't fade. Could he pull a Ventura and actually win? Mark Blumenthal clinically examines on this non-crazy possibility. Andy Pettitte's arm is in the algorithm! ... Backfill: Shapiro made the case for betting on Corzine here. .. I may be biased by memories of an incident recounted by Fred Siegel and Dan DiSalvo:
Supporters of public sector union power have developed a rationale for the government employees' gold-plated perks. The argument is that public employees are the vanguard of the working class. As such, the benefits they achieve will eventually have to be matched by private sector employers. As Carla Katz, the leader of New Jersey's Communications Workers of America, explained to Paul Mulshine of the Newark Star-Ledger, reformers embrace "the progressive theory that unless you create a substantial wage and benefits package that reflects good jobs and the ability to have a middle-class life style, there will be a perpetual race to the bottom."
Katz not only represents thousands of state employees, she is also the richly rewarded former girlfriend of New Jersey governor Jon Corzine. Katz's influence on Corzine became clear in 2006 when the impassioned governor spoke to a Trenton rally of roughly 10,000 public workers and shouted out: "We will fight for a fair contract." Corzine was of course management in that situation, not labor. [E.A.]
New Jersey taxpayers, who now have to pay for the resulting union pay and benefit packages, must be unusually forgiving. ... .4:15 P.M.
___________________________
How to Fill the Empty Hours After Health Care? Nate Silver writes:
It's becoming increasingly likely that regulation of the banking and financial sector is liable to be the issue that dominates the first half of 2010. Why? Well in the first place, it's badly needed ... [snip] In the second place, it's not clear what else the Obama administration will do on the domestic policy front, once the health care issue gets resolved. Although the unpopularity of the cap-and-trade program is greatly exaggerated -- most polls in fact show it receiving a plurality or narrow majority of support -- the swing districts in 2010 tend to be big carbon emitters. Immigration reform, likewise, is liable to be a less favorable issue for the Democrats in 2010 than it will be in 2012, when we'll have a younger, more diverse electorate in which Hispanics play a larger role as swing voters. EFCA -- the White House's support for which has always been questionable -- almost certainly isn't going anywhere. Movement on gay rights issues is a possibility, but is more dependent on the White House's willpower than its bandwidth. A second omnibus stimulus bill is probably out of the question, although certainly there will be piecemeal efforts -- extended unemployment benefits, greater investments in transportation infrastructure -- that the White House will pursue. Still, for a hard-working White House, that leaves plenty of time on the table for a big-ticket item, and that item will probably be banking reform. [E.A.]
Banking reform. Not "card check" (EFCA). Not "comprehensive" illegal immigrant legalization. Not even "cap and trade." Banking reform. ... And the more time it takes up, the better! ... I'm less worried about my vote for Obama every day. ...
P.S.: But will immigration really be a more "favorable" issue for the Dems in 2012, when they will probably have a smaller margin in the House? Maybe Silver is saying they'll have more incentive to bring it up--their swing district freshmen will already have lost--even if passage will still be difficult. ... Card check, on the other hand, will be both harder to pass and less advantageous to bring up, no? ...
P.P.S.: I still think the issue that "dominates the first half of 2010" is likely to be ... health care. At least the first half of the first half of 2010. We're talking about what happens after that. ... 4:15 P.M.
___________________________
National Review Not Guilty So Fox Not Guilty Too! National Review 's Stephen Spruiell defends Fox against the charge that it is an instrument, not of conservatism but of the Republican Party and (for much of the past decade) the Bushes.
I grow so tired of this smear. National Review gets this kind of thing all the time. Last year, Jonah compiled a nice summary of our dissents from the Bush White House. One could compile a similar dossier in defense of Fox News, but I'm afraid it wouldn't matter. [E.A.]
Oh, go ahead! ... It will be a mighty thin dossier, at least if it doesn't include issues (like Harriet Miers and immigration) where Roger Ailes' network initially, and disconcertingly, appeared to toe and try to hold the Bush line before eventually acceding to its viewers' opinions and allowing dissenting conservatives to express themselves. ... 4:15 P.M.
___________________________
"Howard Kurtz, Missing in Action:" The Left is now on the case of the Biggest Conflict of Interest in Journalism. Writes Michael Massing:
Young people have embraced [Jon Stewart's] show precisely because he’s willing to take on cable news in a way our top media reporters are not. And not just Fox. Last week, “The Daily Show” offered a brilliant expose of the superficiality and hollowness of the journalism practiced on CNN, showing how its anchors allow partisan spokesmen to make all kinds of ridiculous claims without challenge. “We’ll have to leave it there” was the stock response of CNN interviewers to the ludicrous talking points of their guests.
You’ll almost never see Howard Kurtz scrutinize CNN in that way. Of course, he’s employed by the network.
4:58 P.M.
___________________________
-
sponsorship
Peter Beinart thinks Obama's on track to success. Actually, Beinart understates the favorability of the circumstances. If, like me, you assume that the most desirable and popular part of Obama's agenda is health care reform, while the rest of it is studded with sweeping measures that are controversial at best (cap and trade, "card check" union organizing) and explosive at worst (illegal immigrant legalization)--well, then everything is falling into place like a well-choreographed water ballet!
The kf Plan for Presidential Success:
-- Obama gets health care reform, but not until well after New Year's Day. That leaves no time in 2010 to take up "card check" or "comprehensive immigration reform" before the election season hits. Darn! Even "cap and trade," which as Tom Edsall notes pleases affluent elites a lot more than Obama's low-income base, has to undergo further study. What can you do?
-- The economy picks up, but unemployment remains high enough--and doubts about health care reform among the elderly persistent enough--to get the Dems clobbered in the 2010 midterms. Republicans may even win back the House. All those controversial big Dem bills that got backed up in 2010--well, they certainly won't be enacted by the GOPs. So frustrating!
-- Without a new wave of low-wage immigrants drawn by legalization, meanwhile, the labor market eventually grows tight enough at the bottom to finally raise wages as the economy grows--just in time for Obama's 2012 campaign.
-- Returned to office in an incumbent-friendly year, Obama still faces a GOP-heavy Congress, sharply limiting what he can do. He's forced to shelve much of his ambitious second term agenda--sorry!--and focus on those areas where Republicans are favorably disposed--like reining in the cost of entitlements and expanding charter schools. (As Walter Shapiro once argued--and Bill Clinton proved--having a Democrat in the White House with a Republican Congress is the institutional recipe for controlling the budget. The Democratic President reins in defense spending while the Republican Congress reins in domestic spending.)
I'm only partly joking. Or maybe I'm not joking at all. Losing control of Congress didn't cripple Bill Clinton, did it? It arguably saved Bill Clinton. Having Newt Gingrich in charge of the House allowed Clinton to push off against Republican excess, tame his own party's demands, and actually balance the budget. The difference with Obama is that unlike Clinton he will have accomplished his main goal--health care reform--first, before the drawbridge goes up.
It's all going according to plan. 1:51 A.M.
___________________________
Bailout II Watch: A member of GM's board of directors has admitted that the carmaker's recovery plan is based on it maintaining a market share of above 19%:
"The public plan is 19 percent and change. That is what everything is being based on," [Stephen] Girsky said during a panel discussion at a conference at Columbia Business School.
That's about what GM's share has been recently. But it's been heading in the wrong direction. And if it sinks to 18% ...?
Update: The Big Money's Matthew DeBord sneers at Truth About Cars for "heralding GM’s demise since gas was 30 cents a gallon and Sinatra was headlining the Sands. ... And yet ... GM lives!" Plucky of GM! How did they survive? And to think Truth About Cars was predicting they would go bankrupt! ...
P.S.: DeBord persists in publicizing an auspicious "trend" in GM's market share. Yes, GM's share is up for the last couple of months--but a) again, it doesn't do that much good to have a big share in the months when nobody is buying cars (September) if you have a much lower share during the big clunker sellathon (July and August). Here is a chart with the raw figures. See if you spot a significant pro-GM "trend." I don't. b) You can always boost market share by offering cash-back incentives at the expense of profits. GM's incentives have been large--at an average $3,796, almost three times Honda's; c) DeBord cites an Edmunds prediction of a rise in GM's share to more than 22 percent in October, which is apparently based on visits to GM models on the Edmunds web site. We'll see. GM is shooting off a lot of its advertising wad this month. d) While Buick and Cadillac have "profit potential," the success of Chevrolet is "a question mark," DeBord concedes. But Chevy is where GM's volume sales are. If Chevy tanks, can GM survive? ... P.P.S.: DeBord sees growth. TTAC sees decline. One of them is wrong. My money's not on The Big Money. ... 2:25 A.M.
___________________________
-
sponsorship
Roger Simon says John Edwards could rehabilitate himself by becomng the "poster boy for tort reform," He forgot about the sex tape. ... 6:47 P.M.
___________________________
Jimmy Carter cites racism as anti-Obama factor. Instant reaction: Kiss of Death. Gift to the GOPs. Remember the Carter era of smug moralizing? Anyone want to go back to that? ... P.S.: A good example of how, if the MSM wants to tilt against the Republicans, it's often too wedded to its own conventions--e.g., the desire to 'make news' with an ex-Pres.--to be effective. ... No sophisticated campaign propagandist would say, "OK, let's throw Jimmy Carter at them. They'll be reeling!" ....6:42 P.M.
___________________________
Obama Overexposure Tour continues. ... Next: Bloggingheads? Mediaite Office Hours? 6:40 P.M.
___________________________
Jeffrey Lord gives a good description of the MSM Gatekeeper's Greatst Hits. Then he goes on and on. Makes Rabbi Saperstein look like Marcel Marceau. ...P.S.: Lord lays it on as if only conservative bloggers, etc, have been rebelling against Big Media. As if he wants a piece of the Mark Levin business. Depressing. ... [via Lucianne] 6:40 P.M.
___________________________
Why did the GOP lead in "generic" ballot evaporate on Rassmussen, even as Obama health bounce also vanished? Is the Joe Wilson heckle hurting? ... Could this be an example of a successful kamikaze-style attack? Wilson's "You lie" badly damaged its target (Obama has apparently now caved on the central issue of verifying legal status) but it also damaged Wilson. ... Except that it's not clear it damaged Wilson himself, reelection wise. It's his party that's maybe been hurt. "Kamikaze" isn't the right analogy. ... What's the word for a kamikaze attack in which the pilot survives but the carrier he took off from gets sunk? ... 6:23 P.M.
___________________________
Twitter is not @marcambinder's friend! It broadcasts his initial take--which is often 180 degrees wrong. Example #1: Twittering as if Obama would be mad at the networks that his off the record "jackass" comment leaked. #2: Twittering as if town hall rebelliousness would help the Dems. ... 6:09 P.M.
___________________________
That False Consciousness Keeps On Coming: Workers at Boeing factory vote to un-unionize. By secret ballot. ... Because when it comes to decertifying unions, union lobbyists insist on the sanctity of the secret ballot. ... 6:08 P.M.
___________________________
Jack Palance Plays Elmer Gantry: Andrew Breitbart + Good Haircut = Slightly Scary Rabble-Rousing Potential. ... 6:05 P.M.
___________________________
-
sponsorship
Harry Reid or Casey Jones? According to Roll Call, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is "sketching a process for railroading the [card check] bill through the floor as quickly as possible." And maybe not even the vaunted "compromise" card check bill, says Jennifer Rubin--she suggests some union leaders are holding out for allowing labor organizers to avoid secret ballots. ... Obviously this isn't legislation that holds up in public view for long, so the rush approach is strategically sound. But Reid sems like a deeply cynical operator. He apparently likes to engineer train wrecks. (Remember what happened to "comprehensive immigration reform"?) Is he really trying to ram this explosive bill through, or is he trying to demonstrate to labor that it can't be rammed through? ... I note that even Rubin, a congenitally optimistic they-don't-have-the votes card check foe, seems rattled. ... 1:54 P.M.
___________________________
Old Comeback: "I'd rather waitress."
New Comeback: "I'd rather have a seat in the European Parliament."
12:55 A.M.
___________________________
I'm sure the NYT has already assigned a top reporter to find out what Steve Rattner's old colleagues at Quadrangle think of him. Aren't you? ... 12:45 A.M.
___________________________.
Postrel 1, Orszag 0: As originally presented, OMB Director Peter Orszag's vaunted "game-changers" were cost-saving changes to the entire health care system. The implication--in Obama's big February Congressional Address (and in Orszag's blog posts) was that you couldn't get the game-changing changes unless you had "comprehensive health care reform," including expansion of coverage to offer "quality affordable health care to every America," According to Obama
[I]t's a step we must take if we hope to bring down our deficit in the years to come.
Along came Virginia Postrel, who noted in a blog post that if Orszag's changes were so great, why didn't he apply them to Medicare and Medicaid first? Orszag was concerned and conscientious enough to phone Postrel to defend himself. But now, with Orszag and Obama having wholeheartedly embraced the IMAC plan to cut Medicare expenses in the long run, hasn't Postrel's suggestion won out? IMAC appears to be restricted to recommending changes in Medicare, not the entire health delivery system.
That, of course, is a tacit admission that controlling the federal budget deficit by cutting Medicare and expanding non-Medicare health coverage are two separate policy initiatives--and that Obama was dissembling when he said, in his address, that you had to do both parts at once "to bring our deficit down." It looks like you could have an IMAC panel to cut Medicare costs and shrink the deficit without any of the rest of Obama's "comprehensive" reform, including universal coverage. Or you could have the rest of Obama's reform without the IMAC panel.
The connection between the two appears to be entirely political, and conjectural--the idea that either you need IMAC as a way to get Blue Dog votes for expanded coverage, and that only by offering an extension of coverage can you get the senior lobby (AARP) to go along with Medicare changes. Like so many "comprehensive" reforms, it's not an interlocking web of mutually dependent policy mechanisms so much as an interest-group sandwich.
If all you had to do is appease the Blue Dogs and AARP, the strategy might be sound. The problem is that the IMAC "game changer" scares the daylights out of lots of people, and adds to the ballast of the whole package with the general public. ... 12:41 A.M.
_____________________________
GM's best cars--the Chevy Malibu, the forthcoming Buick LaCrosse and possibly the next Buick Regal--are all basically Opel designs. Yet GM is selling Opel. I don't get it. ... 12:35 A.M.
_____________________________
-
sponsorship
Via Jennifer Rubin: "Card check"--allowing unions to avoid secret ballots--is now semi-officially out of the "card check" compromise bill. But the other sweeping structural change in the economy--allowing government "arbitrators" to set wages in the first union contract-is still in. The goal for unions is now to hide this "mandatory arbitration" provision and pretend that the fight was almost all about the defunct anti-secret ballot provision. The NYT's Steven Greenhouse, as usual, gives the unions what they want.
Opponents may need to come up with a new name for the bill (though "card check" is working pretty well for them). How about "federal pay determination"? Keep in mind that not only does the apparent "compromise" propose abandoning the hoary idea that wages should be set in the marketplace, it also abandons the New Deal's substitute idea that wages should be set in labor contest where unions threaten to use their strike power and management threatens to survive a strike. Unions seem to have given up strikes. Instead they want to authorize an official--maybe even an actual federal bureaucrat--to simply swoop down and impose what would undoubtedly be a wage increase. That's more akin to FDR's notorious, failed National Recovery Act--except the NRA at least let industries set their own rigid wage scales. ...
Note also that the arbitration provisions give now-unorganized workers a new, powerful incentive to unionize: Vote for the union, wait a few months, and an arbitrator will fly in and give you a raise. No strike. No fuss. No muss. ...
P.S.: Opponents also need to go on offense. ... 5:53 P.M.
___________________________
-
sponsorship
The Grander Bargain: Hmmm. The SEIU, a major proponent of "card check" labor law revision, has also been attacking moderate Dems on health care:
In recent weeks, liberal bloggers and grass-roots groups such as MoveOn.org, Democracy for America, Service Employees International Union and Progressive Change Campaign Committee have targeted Democratic Sens. Ben Nelson (Neb.), Mary Landrieu (La.), Arlen Specter (Pa.), Ron Wyden (Ore.) and Dianne Feinstein (Calif.). [E.A.]
Does this hurt the SEIU's "card check" push by annoying the very moderate Dem Senators they must convince in order to get a pro-labor compromise passed? Or does it help the union, which can now say "Sen. Landrieu--if you vote for card check we'll give you a pass on health care and stop attacking you"? It's a form of leverage, after all. And it's leverage that's unavailable to the SEIU on the "card check" issue itself: It's not as if the union could run an ad attacking moderate Dems for failing to embrace "card check," which is hard to defend in public. ....
Bonus question: Does the possibility of trading some health care provisions for card check in some sort of gruesome grand bargain help or hurt Obama, assuming he cares a lot more about health care than card check? ... I guess if you think left-wing pressure for a public plan is hurting his health care effort, then it arguably helps--the unions and "progressive" Senators can be bought off with card check, freeing up moderate senators to vote for, say, a health bill with a weak public option without fear of provoking serious (non-Kabuki) opposition. ....If you think the left wing union and grass roots pressure is helping Obama, because he really wants to push the "moderates" into a plan they might not otherwise like, then arguably it will hurt him, because if the SEIU gets mollified on card check the pressure on health care will let up. ... Of course there may be other, more important factors at work, like the extent to which unions are enabled to organize in the new, more heavily regulated health care sector. ... [Thanks to reader J.] 5:48 P.M.
___________________________
Whippersnappers Over the Hill: A new publication promises to be like "The Awl with a younger focus." Ha. Choire Sicha is already past it. ... Next, Ezra Klein takes WaPo early retirement. ... Update: Sicha emails: "Dude, I am 37! I am TOTALLY OLD." Who knew? Keep rockin' ... 5:46 P.M.
___________________________
-
sponsorship
South Carolina Lt. Gov. Andre Bauer, who would succeed Mark Sanford should Sanford resign, needs to update his web site! His blog still has Sanford "hiking along the Appalachian Trail" (though Bauer is waiting for "a more definitive idea of what part of the Trail he was on"). ... P.S.: With his campaign to allow "I Believe" license plates, Bauer seems ripe for liberal mockery. And even papers that have demanded Sanford's resignation don't seem to have much confidence in him. The Spartanburg Herald Journal, after calling for Sanford to step down, writes:
“South Carolinians cannot be sure that Lt. Gov. Andre Bauer has the capability to lead the state in this recession. They can only hope that he will be up to the task.“
They can pray! ... Update:
"He’s an attractive, conservative Republican, single, straight — and he has a lots of attractive women that want to be his friend on his public Facebook and MySpace page," said [Bauer strategist Chris] LaCivita. "What’s their complaint? I’ll tell you — they're jealous."
1:46 P.M.
___________________________
Wagner Act Unionism is bringing its benefits to the Bay Area, where the BART transit system may go on strike despite having negotiated what seem to be generous wages and benefits:
A top-scale station agent and top-scale train operator each make $30.01 per hour, $62,860 a year, in base pay. The transit system also pays 100 percent of the so-called employee contribution toward pensions — an amount equivalent to 7 percent of a salary — though many other California public agencies require workers to pick up some or all of that contribution toward their state pensions.
Overall, BART employees - including managers and hourly workers - get average total annual pay of $71,633, including overtime, and BART picks up an average of $48,000 a year for each worker's benefits, the transit system said.
Workers contribute $81.90 a month toward medical insurance.
But for all that the taxpayers get a finely-wrought mesh of work rules:
Antiquated work rules hurt BART finances by ramping up overtime, BART officials said.
They point to rules requiring that two workers remove seat covers and backing for cleaning. A utility worker unsnaps the cushion. A journeyman mechanic is called in to remove two screws for the seat backing.
Among cleaning crews, a worker in one job classification cleans inside stations and another worker in another classification cleans outside the roof line of stations.
This isn't an example from the 1950s. It's an example from this week. Why would anyone fail to support a "card check" reform designed to encourage the spread of these practices? They worked in Detroit, right?...
Update: Here is a searchable database of BART salaries. ... It's the #1 most-viewed page in the Contra Costa Times at the moment, so it might be slow to load. ... 2:02 P.M.
___________________________
First hit, best hit. ... 8:36 P.M.
___________________________
-
sponsorship
All Going According to Plan? According to The Hill, Democrats are worried "that they will not be able to accomplish the entire agenda leaders set for 2009." And "comprehensive immigration reform"--i.e. legalization of illegals--is so far down the list it barely gets mentioned as one of the agenda items they are worried will fall off:
Sen. Charles Schumer (N.Y.), the vice chairman of the Senate Democratic Conference, has pushed hard for the Senate to take up immigration this year. But White House officials have suggested that the issue will wait for a while.
“We know the votes aren’t there right now,” White House press secretary Robert Gibbs told reporters on Friday.
The other far reaching and calamitous Dem initiative--pro-union labor law revision, including "card check" and mandatory arbitration--isn't mentioned by The Hill at all, which actually seems vaguely troubling for opponents. Publicity is not the friend of labor unions in this fight, after all. If 60 Senators agree on a "compromise" to placate labor, it will be a compromise they will probably want to keep hidden and then push through quickly. ... 9:15 P.M.
___________________________
-
sponsorship
Howard Gleckman of the Tax Policy Center reports that Sen. Baucus
is floating the following trial balloon: Congress would fund fund part of health reform with a cap on the tax exclusion of employer-sponsored health insurance but only at a level "significantly above" the cost of the standard plan offered to federal employees. The measure would also exclude policies bargained under current union contracts. ... [E.A.]
Why exclude policies negotiated by unions but not policies negotiated by individuals? Politics, I assume. Unions wouldn't stand for anything else. Fine. But here's the thing--the provision appears to be more than a simple "grandfather" clause that protects current union contracts. A kf source says that the new tax will not take effect until 2013. Does this mean that labor contracts agreed on between now and that date would also be protected? If so, Baucus has just given a big tax incentive for workers--perhaps encouraged by labor signature collectors under a "card check" bill--to form unions and bargain for lavish health benefits that will then be exempted from his tax on lavish benefits. Join a union, get a tax break! (A break the rest of us would have to pay for). ... If Dems start lavishing IRS advantages on union members, maybe organized labor won't even need the "card check" bill to reverse its declining membership numbers. ... 9:53 P.M.
___________________________
Mitosis in the Faster Electorate: Conor Friedersdorf notices that the fast twitter-driven news out of Iran has divided his fellow citizens and friends into two groups: 1) Those who keep up to the second with what is happening and how the U.S. should react; and 2) Those who take the weekend off and only know the vaguest details (i.e. " that Ahmadinejad won"). I'd say that Friedersdorf has stumbled upon Jerry Skurnik's "Theory of the Two Electorates"--except it's a peculiarly accelerated version of the Skurnik theory, because Friedersdorf's two groups are both made up of people who would normally be part of the better informed of Skurnik's two electorates:
And those out of the know? They aren't any longer just grandmothers, the apolitical, and the middle manager in Scranton who gets all his news at 11 o'clock after the game. Now people who watch The Daily Show, subscribe to The New Yorker, and read the CNN subtitles as they run on the 24 Hour Fitness treadmill possess radically less information than a self-selecting group of their fellow citizens, granting that they mostly catch up on any given piece of information in a matter of days.
Will this make a difference, Friedersdorf asks?
Are we approaching a point where political information is processed so fast that an event happens, information elites weigh in to shape the discourse surrounding it, the conventional wisdom is communicated to Congress, and elected leaders formulate reactions based on public opinion... all before most of even the formerly plugged in members of the public ever learn what on earth is going on, or have a chance to form an opinion?
I could see Congress, spooked by twitter, overreacting in this fashion--if, say, a draft of Senator Baucus' health care plan comes out that displeases the left, which reacts by shutting down various switchboards before the David Broders of the world can even get to their typewriters keyboards. ... It's hard to believe it will have an effect on official U.S. Iran policy.** (Friedersdorf agrees.)
Of course, to the extent it does empower Friedersdorf's first group, including the fastest bloggers, it would empower Andrew Sullivan-- which (as Obama has learned) is always a dangerous thing. ...
**--That doesn't mean it hasn't had a big effect on the events in Iran itself--the events that the U.S. government must react to--or on the unofficial reaction of American activists to those events. ... 8:53 P.M.
___________________________
Alert reader J: "Interesting that the WaPo could write an entire article on the decline of public housing in NYC without ever mentioning the words "ACLU," "liberalism," and "Lindsay." [Link added] ... True! The piece--on Sotomayor's childhood--makes it seem as if the projects were just suddenly swamped by waves of drugs ("Then heroin surged through the projects ... Then came crack ...") as opposed to, say, an increasingly concentrated culture of fatherless dependence in which drug users and dealers and gang members couldn't be evicted because of misguided due process concerns about deprivation of "new property"! ... (I remember an excellent piece by WaPo's Blaine Harden on the difficulty of evicting bad actors from housing projects, but haven't been able to find it.). ...
P.S.: The Post's Robin Shulman does mention that in 1981 Congress "changed eligibility rules to give preference in public housing to the poorest households," which had the perverse effect of intensifying the culture of poverty by excluding middle class and working class tenants. But Shulman doesn't make that point--instead quoting an expert who simply says the change made public housing the "housing of last resort." And that was a problem because ...? ... 8:21 P.M.
___________________________
Matt Cooper calls "the idea that that the Clintons were unwilling to take half-a-loaf" on health care "total revisionism." Hmm. It sure seemed that way at the time! ... P.S.: Unless Cooper's talking about a specific early-on period when the Clinton plan was first being produced--he uses the vague qualifier "back then" .... 7:32 P.M.
___________________________
Obama vs. Slate: Obama cites "medical errors that lead to 100,000 lives lost unnecessarily in our hospitals every year." [E.A.] Walter Olson smells BS, and cites a Slate article to back him up. ... 7:25 P.M.
___________________________
-
sponsorship
Micheline Maynard on GM: 1) Rattner: "We're not going to fail ." I would say that lets us say he failed if he fails! Specifically, it rules out the "We're giving them a shot but if they collapse in a couple of years at least we delayed it" defense.. .. 2) Rattner's problem has always been his high profiling in the press. Yesterday he was quoted boasting about not failing in the same newspaper in which his (possibly more powerful) auto task force colleague, Ron Bloom, was attempting to strike a lower key note in testimony to Congress.... 3) The government isn't going to run GM--it's a "passive shareholder"--but according to Rattner it is going to change GM's culture. OK!. ...4) So here's how the culture will change, if I read Maynard right: By empowering GM's holdover old guard managers who are steeped in the old culture to make decisions without consulting the holdover old guard CEO, Fritz Henderson. Sounds like a dramatic "wholesale restructuring" to me. . .. 5) This delegation of power to the existing bureaucrats will also be accompanied by "a deeper level of scrutiny" from the board of directors. But no second-guessing, of course. ..
Meanwhile at FIAT/Chrysler: Sergio Marchionne is speed dating ...
And I have buried the lede: Robert Farago has an amazing, Washington-Monthlyesque explanation for GM's "crap interiors." I don't quite believe it. But if true, it should be a segment on "60 Minutes" ... 2:39 A.M.
___________________________
Jennifer Rubin gives her trademark optimistic analysis (from an anti-Wagner Act union perspective) of the prospects for "card check" compromise. ... The CW is less optimistic, I think. ... 2:07 A.M.
___________________________
-
sponsorship
Arlen Specter tells union demonstrators they will be "satisfied" with his vote on card check. Peter Kirsanow thinks this is fairly ominious for card-check critics, as does John McCormack. I tend to agree. But is Specter really the only swing vote, or only the most rivetingly craven? ... 3:14 A.M.
___________________________
DDog Bites Man: Mark Blumenthal catches MyDD's Jerome Armstrong saying something foolish about the Virginia gubernatorial primary (the Mackerdammerung). ... Update: McAuliffe crushed. Cafe Milano sets prix fixe shiva. (Wine not included.) ... 3:10 A.M.
___________________________
SCOTUSblog on why we shouldn't get too excited about Justice Ginsburg's delay of the Chrysler deal. (One reason: "The wording of Ginsburg's order - 'stayed pending further order' - is the conventional way by which a Justice or the Court carries out an action that is expected to be short in duration, and not controlling - or even hinting at - the ultimate outcome.") ... Second Thoughts: FIAT's Sergio Marchionne removed a major obstacle to a Supreme Court intervention by declaring FIAT wouldn't walk away from the deal even if the June 15 deadline passes. (There had been informed speculation that the Court wouldn't want to get involved if it would then get blamed when FIAT bailed and the deal collapsed). ... Plus I talked with a veteran Court-watcher who made these points: 1) You know that Scalia and Thomas would like to intervene; 2) Roberts and Alito would probably want to intervene if they thought there's a chance of getting a fifth vote; 3) The issue isn't just bankruptcy law, it's the balance of executive and legislative power. The Obama administration, thanks to its expansive interpretation of TARP authority, now has tremendous power to make industrial policy without Congressional approval. On GM, for example, you'd think the crucial issue would be whether Congress will authorize subsidizing the "new" GM beyond the $50 billion already committed. But if the administration has authority to keep funneling TARP funds to automakers as well as banks (and if the banks start repaying billions that can then be redirected to Detroit) it may never have to go back to Congress to ask for more money, no? This would be the sort of issue the Court might want to confront even if it weren't, you know, embarrassingly results-oriented. ...
Update: Never mind. ....
P.S.: Doesn't Marchionne's pledge contradict the Obama administration's consistent position during the Chrysler bankruptcy, which was that everyone had to hurry up in part in order to prevent FIAT from walking away on June 15? ...
3:04 A.M.
___________________________
Do not follow me on twitter. ...The range of short posts that are good enough to twitter but not good enough to blog seems pretty narrow. Doubt I've hit it yet. ... 2:58 A.M.
___________________________
-
sponsorship
Wednesday, May 20, 2009
John Podhoretz's analysis of the New Newsweek's doomed daring market strategy seems near-definitive, but guilty of second-degree reification:
[P]artisanship is the hallmark of the opinion journal–not necessarily of the variety that would lead to support for one political voting faction over another, but in the sense that serious journals of opinion stake claim to a side of the ideological divide and then defend its base and attack outward at the other camp. This is what gives them their fire, their vim, their vigor, their reason for being.
Why couldn't you have an opinion journal in which the various sides vimmily and vigorously attacked each other? Come to think of it, The New Republic in its Kinsley/Hertzberg glory days was famously schizo, no? ... But I agree that in today's market such an opinion magazine may be even less likely than a partisan magazine (Rushweek) to sell a million copies. ... 1:18 P.M.
__________________________
" ... will study anything to get me out of this f---ing profession for a year." Am I crazy or are the Nieman study subjects even more BS-y than usual? ... 1:05 P.M.
__________________________
Tuesday, May 19, 2009
This is no time to start relying on the LAT: The Times' Tom Hamburger writes a virtual post-mortem on card check (" 'We were outspent, outhustled and outorganized,' said one chagrined union advisor ..."). The only problem is that card check isn't dead. In fact, you could argue that the LAT is all too characteristically out of synch here--printing this 'how business did it' piece just when an almost-as-bad-as-the-original compromise is being floated. ....
P.S.: One part of the currently-floating "compromise" would apparently allow workers to unionize if 50% of them mailed in ballots, as opposed to letting union organizers turn in signed cards. This is supposedly "takes away the harassment issue,"according to Sen. Harkin. But if union organizers can distribute the ballots, watch the ballots being signed and collect the ballots for mailing, I don't see where the potential for harrassment has been much reduced. [Why isn't this harrassment potential present in any mail-in balloting procedure, even in presidential elections?--ed Who said it isn't? Despite warnings. ... But people are much better able to resist pressure a) when it's a big, community-wide election that everyone knows is going on, with a tradition of respecting voter independence; and b) when, if they piss off some thuggish organizers (or businesses), it's not going to affect them where they earn their money. I'd be a whole lot more worried about annoying the Teamsters union if it tried to organize my workplace than about annoying ACORN if it tried to collect mail-in ballots on my block.] ...
P.P.S.: Note that Hamburger scrupulously observes the artificial MSM convention that venerates judgments about process in order to banish judgments about substance. The one thing the LAT will never write (if the time comes) is that "card check" failed because it sucks. It's an antidemocratic idea and unions were arrogant in their desperation to push it. In the LAT, if it fails, it will be because the "business groups" out-organized labor groups. ... 11:22 P.M.
__________________________
If we're entering an era of politicized media, where you can't count on the NYT to sabotage Obama any more than you can count on the Manchester Union Leader to trash Ronald Reagan, how is the public going to learn the truth (aside from reading more than one paper)? One way is by encouraging news organizations to require reporters to write regular columns like this, where they detail the controversies in which they think their side has its facts wrong. ... If Kos can do it, anyone can. ... [This is constructive and solution-oriented. You OK?-ed I need a think-tank job.] 11:20 P.M.
__________________________
One Way Streets Save Energy! Obama has "a healthy disdain for the overrated virtue of political loyalty," writes Jacob Weisberg. Well, I'm convinced he has a healthy disdain for the idea that he should be loyal to subordinates who are no longer "useful," as Weisberg's examples demonstrate. Where's the example of Obama's healthy disdain for the idea that subordinates should be loyal to him? .... 11:13 P.M.
__________________________
-
sponsorship
Sunday, May 17, 2009
Does Obama really want to ruthlessly eliminate all major threats to his reelection? You'd think that at some point, in a contentious negotiation with Congressional Democrats, it would be useful for Obama to be able to point out that if Democrats raise taxes too high, for example, he might lose the White House in 2012. That threat is becoming increasingly hollow. ... 11:56 P.M.
___________________________
Every time I read about a favor Obama's done for organized labor, I instinctively think: "Good. That must mean he knows the 'card check' bill won't pass so he's doing everything else he can to make labor happy." One problem with this optimistic viewpoint is that something very much like the "card check" bill might pass. The other problem is that the list of these little favors, as compiled by Sean Higgins, is getting rather long. I didn't realize Obama has already nominated two new members of the National Labor Relations Board. And then there's this:
The administration has rolled back transparency rules that require unions to more extensively report their finances, executive compensation and potential conflicts of interest every year. The Labor Department said "it would not be a good use of resources" to require this.
The Obama administration's first proposed budget calls for cutting the budget of the Labor Department's Office of Labor-Management Standards, which investigates unions on behalf of workers, to $41 million, down from $45 million last year.
11:24 P.M.
___________________________
Isn't Rep. Luis Gutierrez being a little over-thuggish, even by pre-post-racial standards, in this quote:
Gutierrez said he and fellow Hispanic officials appreciate the wooing and White House invites, but want action on the issue of providing illegal immigrants a path to citizenship. And he doesn't mince words about what he sees as White House foot-dragging on the issue, which proved difficult to tackle even in better economic times.
"If Rahm [Emanuel] thinks he can get away with not doing anything on immigration and still have the support of Latino voters, it won't get done," said Gutierrez ...
Do you think Obama can get away with not doing anything on immigraton and still have the support of Latino voters? I think Obama can get away with not doing anything and still have the support of Latino voters. Latino voters are Democrats. And, you know, Americans. If they think a President is good for the country, are they really going to switch their allegiance to the GOPs over immigration reform? ... Gutierrez' threats have a tinge of desperation, no? ... 11:13 P.M.
___________________________
-
sponsorship
Wednesday, May 6, 2009
An eerily appropriate pro-card check scam. Using Twitter. ... 11:33 P.M.
________________________
Why might a red-blooded hedge fund manager be intimidated by a phone call from Obama car capo Steve Rattner threatening public criticism? A Wall Street type emailed to explain why, even if Rattner doesn't control the press-- even if the press would side against Rattner and Obama-- the prospect of any increased press coverage might be terrifying.
[T]he thing that Hedge Funds fear most is investor redemptions. If there is press about a hedge fund (again, in this environment) that suggests that that Hedge Fund is cross-wise with the Feds, redemptions would start
Note that threat sort of publicity would be real whether or not the fears of the skittish investors (that the Feds might hurt the hedge fund) are justified, and whether or not the hostility of the Feds is justified. ... 11:31 P.M.
________________________
"[I]t looks like reliability may be a challenge." Consumer Reports checks into FIAT's reliability rating in England. It's better than Chrysler's! Chrysler was 38th out of 38 brands compared. FIAT was ... 35th out of 38. Synergy! .. [via Autoblog via Insta] 11:30 P.M.
________________________
Secret weapon for "card check" Dems? They have leverage with Sen. Specter now--if he plays ball (on health care, but maybe also on "card check") the Dems might give him his seniority back. ... 11:27 P.M.
________________________
-
sponsorship
Thursday, April 30, 2009
Jennifer Rubin worries that we're headed for a "card check lite" compromise--i.e., dropping the most controversial provisions but still giving labor organizers a boost--and that the vaunted business lobby has no weapons on hand to combat it. She suggests some. ...P.S.: Certainly the post-Specter statement of "principles" from AFL-CIO legislative director Bill Samuel was compromise-ready:
The Employee Free Choice Act is built on three fundamental principles and we believe a bill that stays true to these will become law: Workers need to have a real choice to form a union and bargain for a better life, free from intimidation; We have to stop the endless delays (and) companies can't just stall to stop workers' choice, and; There have to be real penalties for violating the law," Samuel added.
...
Samuel doesn't mention either a) bypassing secret ballot elections or b) compulsory arbitration. ... P.P.S.: Part of the problem, of course, is that some anti-card-checkers (not me!) have pretended they don't oppose greater union power--they just object to eliminating the secret ballot, etc.. But now it's time for a debate on whether more (and more powerful) Wagner Act unions really are a good thing. If business can't yet make the case that they aren't--at a time when the unionized auto industry has collapsed under the weight of its own rules and the unionized urban public schools are flailing to reverse their contract-protected incompetence-- when can they make it? .... 5:14 P.M.
____________________________
You are my Journolist! Question of the Day: Is the UAW contract (aside from the already-approved concessions) protected in bankruptcy? Reading today's NYT, it looks like the answer is "no"--meaning Obama is maybe whistling past the graveyard in downplaying the significance of Chapter 11 and suggesting the bankruptcy will necessarily be “quick, official and controlled." From Micheline Maynard's trot:
Contracts covering members of the United Automobile Workers union and other unions will remain in force, until the company asks a judge to void them. U.A.W. members approved changes to their contract on Wednesday that presumably would mean the contract would stay in place.
But if the company asked for contracts to be terminated and replaced with terms it can more readily afford, the union would have a chance to respond in court. Negotiations would take place before any cuts were imposed. This process could take months. [E.A.]
An "administration official" says that "no judge is going to override" the contract, given all the concessions the UAW has made. Really? Concessions that don't involve a decrease in a very high base wage? ... But you tell me. ... Update: IBD suggests the administration's confidence masks at least some nervousness. ... Complication: Once the UAW owns 55% of the company, why would it let the company ask for the contracts to be voided? ... But UAW's president says he doesn't intend to hold that stake for very long. Once he sells ... More useful bankruptcy speculation here. ... In the end, if this whole thing is going to fly, doesn't somebody have to buy Chrysler's cars? Who is that going to be. ... 5:08 P.M.
___________________________
I can plug too: So how come Rush gets all the money? ... 5:06 P.M.
___________________________
kf hears: Bon Appetit and Gourmet are the next Conde Nast mags slated to die. ... Steve Rattner isn't nearly as key a player in the auto bailout as his media profile would suggest. Ron Bloom is doing the job lots of people think Rattner is doing. That might meant that Rattner--mired in a "pay to play" controversy--will be expendable when the dust settles. ... 5:05 P.M.
___________________________
Scariest thing I've heard about Obama: He reads Andrew Sullivan's blog. ... The Churchill/torture anecdote Obama told last night (from "an article I was reading") apparently came from Sullivan. Not surprisingly, the "facts had altered slightly" by the time they'd made their way through Andrew to Obama. ... Sometimes it's best to stay in the bubble!** ... Update: Relying on Sullivan, Obama left out the London Cage. ("Beatings, sleep deprivation and starvation used on SS and Gestapo men," reported The Guardian in 2005.) Michael Tomasky says "[T]he White House may have to walk that one back a bit ..." [Tks to reader M.] ...
**--Earlier version of this item said "cocoon," not "bubble." But Sullivan arguably is in Obama's cocoon on the issue of torture, no? Not sure about the issue of genital warts! ... Update: "Isn’t that kind of like Zac Efron reading Tiger Beat?" ... 5:04 P.M.
___________________________
-
sponsorship
Tuesday, April 28, 2009
They Have a Sense of Humor:
"Senator Specter Increases Number of Democrats Opposing 'Forced' Choice Act"-- from the anti-"card check" Workforce Fairness Institute.
Meanwhile, Jennifer Rubin, giving advice to her enemies, thinks Big Labor would be crazy not to primary Specter. Is she being Machiavellian--i.e. if they run someone against him, he'll be annoyed and won't flip to endorse some form of "card check" as Peter Kirsanow fears? ... P.S.: Her commenters think she doesn't know Pennsylvania politics. ... Ambinder is ambivalent. ... P.P.S.: My guess is that there still aren't enough votes for a bill that includes a) a way for unions to avoid secret elections and b) mandatory arbitration--Specter has already given cover for moderate Dems to voice their doubts about those provisions. But who knows about a rewritten "compromise" bill? And I have been wrong before. ... 6:26 P.M.
___________________________
Gays in the military, Dems, GOPs reach foreign policy consensus, Meghan McCain "limiting herself to tweeting about visiting Girl Scout troops," no mention of immigration: Walter Shapiro makes McCain's "First 100 days" seem much better than they actually would have been. ... 6:24 P.M.
___________________________
-
sponsorship
Monday, April 27, 2009
One of Robert Reich's answers to The Economist makes the strategy behind the proposed card check ("Employee Free Choice") bill clearer in a way I hadn't completely understood before (though I should have):
DIA: You have said that America needs unions "to restore prosperity to the middle class". But traditional union bastions like manufacturing are disappearing; the cost of pensions and health care are rising; more and more jobs are freelance, and more and more businesses are non-union. Have we seen the end of unions in America? If not, what form will they take in the future?
Mr Reich: We'll see more unionisation in the personal service sector of the economy -- especially in big-box retailers, restaurant chains, major hotels, and hospitals. Jobs in this sector don't compete with lower-cost imports. And because they require that people do them, they're not easily supplanted by computerised machines. Most of these jobs pay very low wages and offer minimal benefits. Unions would help give these workers the bargaining leverage they need. [E.A.]
OK, so the idea is to target unskilled workers who do work that can't be outsourced, and who work for large institutions. Questions:
a) Is this an admission that traditional power of unions--to go on strike--is no longer a very effective weapon? So unions have to rely on corporate campaigns--which work best against big, respectable institutions--and mandatory arbitration? A union card no longer becomes a way to engage in a (sometimes risky) "economic contest" with management through walkouts and picketing. It's a ticket that lets you summon a federal mediator who will raise your wage, whether or not your union has any strike power. Labor must think these chain retailers are sitting ducks. After all, why not sign the card and get the government to award you a raise?
b) Are there really enough workers in these service jobs to "rebuild the middle class," even if they all get 50% raises?
c) How is Obama going to "bend the curve" of health care costs downwards if all the hospitals get unionized?
d) If these non-outsourceable low skilled jobs are the key to raising incomes at the bottom, how does it make sense to allow a continued "insourcing" of unskilled illegal immigrants to bid down wages in these jobs (which happens even if the immigrants work for competing small-box service providers)? The retail jobs don't compete with cheaper foreign workers--until the cheaper foreign workers come here. Does Robert Reich really think the Democrats proposed legalization plan will stop the future flow of the undocumented unskilled (as opposed to establishing a precedent that will attract more of them)? Are American labor leaders that naive? Or is the idea that once the nontradable chain retail sector is organized, unions will reverse their current support for legalization and become restrictionists?
e) It sounds as if the "big box" middle-class-rebuilding strategy is based on a model of the economy in which the main activity is consuming (and providing services to people who are in the process of consuming) things that are produced elsewhere. But doesn't Obama talk about a future economy based less on private consumption--in which Best Buy, Cheesecake Factory and the Ritz Carlton have a much smaller role? I sense a contradiction.
f) Of course, if unions do for Best Buy what they did for Chrysler, they'll shrink the sector quite effectively. But they won't rebuild the middle class. ...
1:10 A.M.
___________________________
Another illustration of the 27th Law of Journalism, which says: When a reporter gives an example of something that is supposed to be funny it won't be funny. Even if the story is about someone who is usually funny. From The Week's discussion of Twitter:
The English comedian Stephen Fry keeps his nearly 200,000 followers amused with such wry tweets as this one, sent while stuck in an elevator: “Hell’s teeth. We could be here for hours. Arse, poo, and widdle.”
So wry! ...1:08 A.M.
____________________________
Memo to the visionary Jon Klein: Several people have told me they found the recent TV confrontations between Lawrence O'Donnell and Pat Buchanan to be compelling and illuminating viewing. Here's an idea: Why not make these confrontations a regular feature of CNN? You could have Buchanan "on the right," and someone like O'Donnell "on the left"! To spice it up, you could let them each invite maybe one guest a night to help them defend their side. Make a whole half-hour show of it. Appointment TV! Perfectly suited to the new ideological cable environment in which nonpartisan CNN is losing out. ... P.S.: I'm trying to come up with a name for this new show. Maybe "Cross Currents"? .. "Shootout"? ... "Ready, Aim, Fire"? ... "Fire When Ready"? ... I just know there's a good one along those lines! Help me out here. ... 12:58 A.M.
____________________________
The bipartisan "comprehensive immigration reform" plan that today's Democratic establishment would like you to ignore. .. 12:51 A.M.
___________________________
-
sponsorship
Friday, April 24, 2009
Plot Holes: In their New Republic cover story divining Obama's "new theory of the state"--which turns out to be "Nudge-o-cracy," or having the state "monkey around with the choices people face, seeking to influence decision-making rather than mandate decisions"--Franklin Foer and Noam Scheiber declare that:
Obama has set out to synthesize the New Democratic faith in the utility of markets with the Old Democratic emphasis on reducing inequality. [E.A.]
They go on to describe Obama policymakers' shift in attitude since the Clinton administration:
In recent months, several of the architects of Clintonomics--Larry Summers, Gene Sperling, Rahm Emanuel--have reassembled to take another crack at creating broad-based prosperity. What's striking is the change in their thinking about how to pull it off.
In fact, the center-left had revised its economic theories while the bubble was still inflating. Beginning in 2004, the data gradually began to undermine the Clintonites' central assumption: that the benefits of growth would accrue to the poor and middle class. Their policies, it turns out, had only temporarily tamped down the income inequality that had been rising since the 1970s. Workers' wages had once tracked productivity growth. Now workers were producing more, but only the wealthy were reaping the rewards; everyone else's income had basically flattened out.[E.A.]
But Foer and Scheiber's description of Obama's attempt, in the face of these realities, to restore "the old Democratic emphasis" on reducing income inequality never gets around to giving us Obama's nudge-o-cracy plan for reducing income inequality. Just thought I would point that out! I suspect it's because there is no Obama nudge-o-cracy plan for reducing income inequality--which, I suspect, is because there is no conceivable nudge-o-cracy plan that could reduce income inequality in the face of the global economic forces of trade and increasing returns to skilled labor.
Obama at least claims to have a non-nudgeocratic plan, based on restoring the power of labor unions through the Employee Free Choice Act ("card check"). But a) the Employee Free Choice Act is dead in the water, for now, b) Obama doesn't seem to be pushing it very hard; c) the idea that signing up more workers in labor unions will reverse growing inequality (at least while maintaining prosperity) is wishful thinking untested. The backup EFCA mechanism for propping up middle class incomes--mandatory arbitration--is pretty much the opposite of mere "nudging." It's the direct mandating of wages by federal mediators. ... 4:08 P.M.
___________________________
-
sponsorship
39,000 New Pentagon Civil Servants are to be hired in the next five years, according to Defense Sec. Gates' plan. Many would replace private contractors overseeing military acquisitions--allegedly on the theory that this will help prevent over-budget, under-performing weapons systems. But not all the new full-time civil servants will be in acquisitions. Reports WaPo:
Of the 13,000 private contractors to be replaced in the coming year, 2,500 of them would be in the acquisition workforce.
What about the other 10,500? ... Contractors can be fired, remember. Full-time civil servants are forever. Yet replacing the former with the latter seems to be a consistent theme of the new administration. Is this really Gates talking? Or is it Obama talking through Gates? Or is it AFSCME** talking through Obama through Gates? ... P.S.: The Post's ed board says "Democrats who say they support the president's expensive health-care and education programs" should support cuts in weapons systems that would free up money to pay for those programs. But, on the same grounds, shouldn't they also oppose permanent Pentagon bloat? ...
**--Or, when it comes to Pentagon workers, AFGE. ...12:42 A.M.
___________________________
The rehabilitation of Andrew Cuomo has been a heavy price to pay for the return of a few AIG bonuses. HuffPo's Thomas Edsall and Robert Dowling do their best to cut him back down, suggesting Cuomo may have tacitly approved, or at least enabled, the bonuses he later dramatically got returned. ... 12:24 A.M.
___________________________
'Employee Free Choice' Still on the Move! Yet another Democratic Senator, Michael Bennet of Colorado, declares "card check" unpassable. He also calls it an impediment to enacting health care reform--a potentially convenient "frame" for other wobbly Dems, Greg Sargent notes. ... P.S.: At some point doesn't the near-stampede of moderate Democrats to renounce the unions' top agenda item cut into labor's leverage when it comes to negotiating a compromise? Just asking! These Dems are defying labor. Are they paying a big price for it, or do they know labor needs them as much as they need labor? Lesson learned? ... P.P.S.: Didn't Robert Reich try to warn Andy Stern that this would happen? ... P.P.P.S.: Or is labor angling for a pity vote--they're about to be so humiliated, Dems will have to do something to help them? ... Update: Udall and Warner (!) seem to say they will vote for cloture. Of course, that's a bit of a 'free' vote now since cloture on the full-strength bill seems unlikely to get the necessary 60 votes (or even come up). Still, it makes it less of a stampede. ... Campaign Diaries' headcount seems a bit Ambinderesque--that is, optimistic, from labor's point of view. If they can get Feinstein and Bennet on cloture, then they only need two out of five other senators who "oppose the current version but haven't closed the door to compromise." Why would a senator 'close the door to compromise'? The question's still "which compromise?" ... 12:03 A.M.
___________________________
Tuesday, April 7, 2009
60 in two? Really? Jennifer Rubin (citing Jay Newton-Small): Are we sure 2010 is a year for Dem Senate pickups? ... 11:40 P.M.
___________________________
Variety Was His Blog: Amy Wallace, whose 2001 profile of Peter Bart in Los Angeles Magazine became the sort of "industry" sensation the L.A. Times seems to never achieve, jumps in on Bart's upstairs-kicking with a juicy lunch anecdote (see end of page 1) that demonstrates why Bart had no business running Variety.. ... P.S.: It's another question whether a man who's a bag of conflicts and biases--and who gives them free range in his writing--should be covering anything anywhere. The answer is of course he should. But those ethics aren't the ethics of a man running a large conventional reporting staff. They're the ethics of a blogger. In the coming days it will probably become a cliche to suggest that Bart's Variety was been done in by lone Web operators like Nikki Finke. But Bart actually had more in common with Finke (who also doesn't seem to keep her ad hominem impulses from shaping her reporting) than you might think. ... [Via L.A. Observed] 11:38 P.M.
___________________________
-
sponsorship
Monday, April 6, 2009
Are Cuba's Communist leaders eager to see the U.S. embargo end (as Marc Thiessen suggests) or terrified at the prospect (because it would unleash forces they can't control)? In 2003, Ann Louise Bardach noted that every time relations with Cuba seemed to be easing, Fidel Castro did something calculated to ratchet the tension back up:
Consider what happened in 1996, after the Clinton administration and Cuba had settled on migration and drug interdiction accords.
Castro (after months of warnings) shot down two planes operated by the exile group Brothers to the Rescue, killing four people.
The upshot was the signing of the Helms-Burton Act, which significantly tightened the embargo and codified it into U.S. law.
Did Castro know this would be the result? Of course he did.
In 1980, president Jimmy Carter re-opened the U.S. Interests Sections in Havana as a de facto embassy. Castro responded by sending 125,000 refugees to Florida in the Mariel boatlift.
In the mid-1970s, in a remarkable and audacious act of diplomacy, then-state secretary Henry Kissinger and his assistant, William Rogers, conducted secret negotiations with the Cuban government on ending the embargo. Just as they believed they were closing in on a deal, Castro sent troops into Angola - scuttling the talks.
And gee, now that President Obama is preparing to lift family travel and remittance restrictions--and there's talk of lifting the entire travel ban--we hear about plans for Cuba to host Russian bombers, while Raul Castro conducts a dramatic, power-centralizing purge. But those surprises don't seem to have derailed the anti-embargo plans. If Bardach's theory holds, then, shouldn't we expect something even worse from Raul, and soon, no? .... 8:33 P.M.
___________________________
Huh? Ruben Navarette, explaining why "comprehensive immigration reform" failed, goes for the symmetrical condemnation prized by editorialists:
We learned that immigrant advocacy groups wanted an unconditional path to legalization for the undocumented, but that law and order conservatives would object to what they call amnesty. Although we need a new round of tougher and easier-to-enforce employer sanctions, it seems only right that they be accompanied by a tamper-proof identification card so employers know who is legally eligible to work. Conservatives fought the sanctions while liberals fought the ID card. In the end, we were back at square one.
Conservatives fought the sanctions? Not the conservatives I'm aware of. Certainly not the "law and order" conservatives who opposed "what they call amnesty." ... 7:43 P.M.
___________________________
"Employee Free Choice On the Move" Part XVIII! Democratic Sen. Blanche Lincoln comes out against cloture for card check "in its current form." ... Again, it's not clear that "card check" has even 50 Senate votes at this point, let alone 60. ... 7:41 P.M.
___________________________