The Bosque Boys

From Chris Cillizza and the Washington Post:

"Winners.

"Sarah Palin: While Chambliss' winning margin suggests he would have won whether or not Palin stumped for him on Monday, the Alaska governor's high profile swing through the state is sure to be cited by her backers as evidence of her political potency as talk of 2012 heats up."

That reportage on the big win in GA is pretty mild compared to many other analyses.

Bottom Line: Sarah Palin rocks.

As for the advice from Democrats to drop Palin like a bad habit (for our own good), I think the GOP is likely to say "thanks--but no thanks."

Sarah is here to stay. The girl's a rainmaker.

Gates, Clinton, and Jones.

What about Eric Holder, Janet Napolitano, and Susan Rice?

If Holder is no great AG, it won't be the first time we have had an incompetent or a lightning rod or both at that position. Remember, JFK quipped that he was giving the position to his younger brother to get him some experience. Here is a list of AG's. My bet is that Holder will NOT be the worst ever.

Does it really matter who runs DHS? Homeland security strikes me as the ultimate boondoogle (to quote a friend); that is, the star-crossed agency is the epitome of a bloated and ineffective government solution to a vital problem, originally and primarily designed as a CYA.

Susan Rice? Is she related to Condi Rice? Seriously, folks, ambassador to the UN is not exactly where the rubber meets the road in American foreign policy.

But Gates, Clinton, and Jones. In that order:

1. Much more than we had a right to wish for in arguably the most vital department of the government.

2. Much better than the alternatives (Kerry, Richardson, and/or Biden).

3. Marine. Not every Marine is Chesty Puller--but it's a better place to start than Les Aspin.

Are there going to be some egregiously offensive (to us) cabinet picks? Of course. But, then again, we lost. That is one of the unhappy consequences of losing elections.

Today, potentially, marks the beginning of the return of Jeb Bush.

Perhaps this post I composed a few years ago (Sept. 2006) is worth revisiting (albeit hilariously un-prescient on several key points):

Is Jeb Bush finished as a Prospective President?

Right now, if the public opinion polls are accurate, the American electorate holds President Bush in such low esteem that anyone associated with his administration seems tainted. No one is mentioning Alberto Gonzales as a potential governor and future presidential candidate. The recent boomlet for Condi Rice for 2008 has fizzled, partly as a result of her non-interest, but more importantly because the affairs of state seem so dismal. And Jeb Bush, once "the next in line" in the Bush dynasty, seems suddenly and completely finished as a prospective president. Is he really?

Maybe not. Jeb Bush continues to be an extremely popular person (and eminently electable candidate) in a very important state. Also, the death of Jeb Bush's viability assumes the permanence of disdain for Bush-43.

The only thing certain about American politics is that nothing is certain.

George Herbert Walker Bush lost in 1992 with 39 percent of the popular vote. At that point, for most Americans, Bush-41 epitomized an inept, insensitive, and detached failed leader. Almost immediately, Americans felt guilty for their poor treatment of this good American.

An aside: I always get a chuckle when Democrats profess their great admiration for George Herbert Walker Bush. I suspect some of that is just talk, and some of it is a rhetorical foundation for criticizing the son, but I think to myself: we could've used some of that kind-spiritedness in '92. One possible lesson: you don't win elections extending your hand across the aisle and impressing the opposition as a decent and competent fellow.

How did guilt over handing George-41 his walking papers help the son? As more citizens came to believe that the elder Bush received a raw deal, the younger Bush grew in stature as a candidate for governor of Texas and then for president. Many Americans felt the Bushes deserved a second chance.

Assuming that the current President Bush has bottomed out in terms of public opinion (it is hard to imagine things getting worse; even in the current polls, he seems to be slightly on the upswing); assuming Iraq continues to be very bad for the foreseeable near term--but then settles finally into a lackluster stability, George Bush and his team will rebound a bit in the minds of Americans. After four (or eight) years of Clinton-44, there will be a natural reappraisal of the second Bush presidency. At that moment, Jeb may very well emerge as a familiar fresh face.

Cleaning out my queue of unfinished drafts. From some time during the primary season:

For much of the pre-season phase (pre-Iowa and New Hampshire) of Decision 2008, the Okie Gardener gently admonished me to abandon the "horse race" aspect of the campaign and join him in his quest for substance.

Later, after I began to write critically of Barack Obama, advocates for "CHANGE" called on me to refrain from dwelling on his rhetoric, middle name, race, faith, lack of experience, and other matters apart from substance.

All of these questions and exhortations presume that we will pick our next president based on his or her collective stance on the issues--which is altogether logical.

Why have I virtually ignored "the issues" thus far (save for Iraq and the "war on terror")?

Simply, I do not believe that some slate of agreed-upon major issues that confront us an a nation actually will play a telling role in the fall. Undoubtedly, one or two key issues of concern will emerge between now and then--mostly depending on what seemingly crucial event might be the most ever-present in our minds at that particular moment: the economy? Likely. Iraq? This is already much less prevalent than most of us thought it would be.

If the summer proves uncharacteristically hot, perhaps we will be tuned into global warming? Will the news media and the Democratic nominee succeed in creating a sense of urgency over healthcare? Maybe. Or will something wholly unforeseen enter our consciousness between now and then that completely overshadows all other concerns?

What can I safely say will not be a major issue in the fall campaign? The future of American education or our impending crisis of structural debt, which includes social security, medicare, and other entitlements, [which] is not titillating enough to keep the attention of the electorate. The ultimate contradiction of our time? The desire for a low-tax, small government society in which all our needs are met by wise leadership and sound public institutions that protect us from ourselves. There is no political advantage in telling us that this combination is not possible; therefore, I bet the farm that this subject will not emerge in any of the televised debates.

Changes in the United States happen incrementally. With the exception of Franklin Roosevelt and the "New Deal," revolutions in America have not happened at the ballot box. And in the case of FDR, the electorate was swept up in a national sense of crisis--panic, etc. For the record, few could have imagined the impending transformation based on Roosevelt's campaign rhetoric or the Democratic Party platform of 1932.

The United States of America is a big ship. Specific policy ideas and proposals from any one successful candidate during one election cycle generally does not have much impact on the course of American history. On the other hand, larger philosophical positions have a greater impact over time. Therefore, this raging debate within the Republican faithful over who we are and who best personifies that collective consciousness strikes me as much more meaningful. The problem, however, is that the current candidates seem disinclined to engage that internal maelstrom.

Today, the House Democratic Caucus voted 137-122 to oust John Dingell as chair of the Energy and Commerce committee and replace him with Henry Waxman.

What does this mean?

You can read this informative news/analysis piece from The Hill for starters.

This quote from Nancy Pelosi says it all:

“Under his leadership, the committee and the entire caucus will make progress toward making America energy-independent, making healthcare available to all Americans, and addressing the greatest challenge of our time, global warming.”

As the Hill reports, Waxman will be a "liberal, aggressive, and activist chairman." Read this as a sign that Speaker Pelosi does not intend to lay low and/or capitulate in the face of a potentially common-sense oriented Obama administration. It is also some payback for Dingell, who had the temerity to resist the Speaker's proposed war on climate change.

Bottom Line: Nancy Pelosi and Left Coast liberalism are alive and well in the 111th Congress. Thank you very much.

I heard a fairly cantankerous interview with Barney Frank this morning.

In response to a request for clarification from the interviewer, Frank testily responded: "Right, I'm trying to explain to you how it works." Congressman Frank went on to chastise the reporter on several more occasions, continued to interrupt and talk over him incessantly, and then began his concluding statement by declaring: "you seem determined to kind of distort this."

Another encounter with Bill O'Reilly? No. This was an NPR segment with Steve Inskeep.

Barney Frank is a man so combative that he cannot even seem civil with NPR.

What are we going to do with this fellow now that he is in charge of overseeing our financial system?

The cranky exchange this morning concerned Frank's insistence that we bail out our struggling domestic automobile companies.

Frank is not bashful about telling you what he thinks:

--the car companies should be rescued to save workers and remedy the "white collar/blue collar divide,” fight against the rampant and systemic "anti-union activity," and attempt to address "income inequality in this country."

--we seem to be willing to spend "hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of billions for a war that we never should have been in [Iraq], but we don't save an important industry and protect workers from having gains that they fought hard for taken away."

--we live in "a wealthy country. If we spend things well, we can spend them."

With the fundamental problems with labor and health care costs, is any of this even spending on the Big Three likely to help?

--the x factor seems to be health care. "if they have to stay with health care the way it is now, yeah, that's bleak. But what I am hoping is that we will get a change in the health care system that will reduce the burden that we put not just on the American auto industry, where it's more expensive to build a car in America than in Canada because of health care."

The Frank Plan:

1. Save the UAW at taxpayer expense.

2. Ditch Iraq and spend the peace dividend on reducing inequities.

3. Universal healthcare.

The Okie Gardener asserted earlier today that Barney Frank presents a real obstacle to Barack Obama's success as president. Finding a way to keep Barney in his cage will be an ongoing problem for the new administration. I wish them well.

I agree with the Gardener, the way the Auto Bail Out shakes out will tell us a lot.

The Democratic caucus in the United States Senate voted 42 to 13 to retain Joe Lieberman as chair of the Homeland Security Committee.

This is an immensely gracious act. It is the right thing to do--but it would have been deliciously satisfying for a whole slew of irate Democrats to publicly humiliate the maverick senator from Connecticut.

But they did not.

Why?

They may need him. If the two outstanding elections in Minnesota and Georgia are settled in the Democrats favor, Joe Lieberman might make the difference in terms of a filibuster-proof super majority.

However, I tend to believe that the filibuster magic number is much less (and by that I mean MUCH LESS) important than most pundits like to imagine. President Obama will write his own ticket for the 111th Congress and will likely prove virtually unstoppable on any issue he pleases. His only governor will be his own restraint.

More compelling, President-elect Obama evidently threw his weight behind this act of forgiveness and reconciliation. Why? Perhaps he really is a scrupulous follower of Christ, who lives his life based on the tenets expressed in the Sermon on the Mount. Or, perhaps he is an incredibly insightful politician who understands that an olive branch is often a wiser and more profitable weapon than the sledgehammer. Forgiving Lieberman and bringing him back into the fold affirms the image of Obama as a new Lincoln--and very likely obligates Joe to him for life. Either explanation (or, more likely, somewhere in between) pleases me.

Whether someone lives a good life because it is "the law," and/or the fear of Hell motivates them to follow the commands of God, or whether one embraces the spirit of Christ and does good in the world because his heart dictates such conduct, makes no great difference to me.

More pointedly, even if this is merely a political calculation, doing the right thing for the wrong reasons is much preferable than doing the wrong thing with a conflicted heart or guilty conscience.

BOTTOM LINE. My reason for optimism: on the whole, I like this pattern of conduct. Specifically, we love Joe, and we are happy that President-elect Obama saw fit to offer him a place of honor in America's future.

Knights of Columbus national headquarters has received mysterious white powder in the mail, probably because of the KofC support for Proposition 8 in California. Story here. The powder apparently is harmless, but was disruptive.

Here is the text of Proposition 8 from the State of California Voter Guide.

PROPOSITION 8
This initiative measure is submitted to the people in accordance with the
provisions of Article II, Section 8, of the California Constitution.
This initiative measure expressly amends the California Constitution by
adding a section thereto; therefore, new provisions proposed to be added are
printed in italic type to indicate that they are new.
SECTION 1. Title
This measure shall be known and may be cited as the “California Marriage
Protection Act.”
SECTION 2. Section 7.5 is added to Article I of the California Constitution,
to read:
SEC. 7.5. Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized
in California

Mormons also have been subjected to vandalism and white powder mailings. Story here.

Not only have several congregations been picketed, but an Assembly of God church in Michigan had its service disrupted. Story here.

Play by the rules guys. Campaigns. Advertising. Orderly marches. All fine. Vandalism. Fake anthrax attacks. Disrupting worship services. Not fine. In a democracy, sometimes you win, sometimes you lose. When you lose, continue to work within the system. Don't go Brownshirt.

I can even handle peaceful protests outside churches. Though ACT UP is known for its non-peaceful protests of Roman Catholic churches. Story here. Those actions described in this article did not approach the levels of the infamous 1989 ACT UP demonstrations.

Acting like fascists will not win friends and influence people.

Rahm Emanuel and Hillary Clinton.

Rahm Emanuel as Chief of Staff.

I love it. Why?

Off the top of my head:

--Emanuel will be pro-Israel--something many of us have worried about in re an Obama administration.

--Emanuel is a can-do kind of guy--the sort every successful president needs. Tough as nails and hard-charging, he will complement the laid-back style of the President-elect.

--Compared to some of the other Clinton vets (thinking about Harold Ickes and John Podesta, for example), Emanuel is much less ideologically driven. He is a compromiser and a fixer.

An Aside: if it seems like I am talking about my own team, I am. Until Barack Obama demonstrates to me that he does not have the best interests of America at heart, I am going to assume he does.

--Emanuel is a strong counterweight to Nancy Pelosi (whom I do perceive as a serious threat to the best interests of America). She is also the person most likely to sink an Obama presidency--if not handled with care. Rahm Emanuel strikes me as the operator best equipped to tame the termagant Madame Speaker.

--Emanuel has a track record for political intelligence and vision. That is, he sees the big picture, which, in a nutshell, reveals that we are a center-right nation frustrated with Republicans in general and mad at George Bush in particular. The President-elect has a chance to begin an Era of Obama--but only if he appeals to the center-right good sense of Middle America. If he lurches to the left, he is finished. Emanuel understands this tightrope.

Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State?

I love it. Why?

--Hillary is tough as nails. She is the closest thing to a hawk that this search is likely to produce.

--Hillary demonstrates that all that campaign claptrap about "change" and the other idealist imagery was not the whole story. Our president-elect seems less naive with each passing day.

--Hillary pushes out Joe Biden as the experienced foreign policy star. I continue to believe that Joe Biden for veep was the only egregious error from Team Obama in an otherwise almost flawless campaign. This is evidence that Obama understands that Biden lacks the capacity to play a major foreign policy role in any administration.

--Hillary pushes out John Kerry. See above (this is evidence that Obama understands that Kerry lacks the capacity to play a major foreign policy role in any administration).

--Hillary fits into the "Team of Rivals" template, which is a constructive concept (especially if the trope includes retaining Robert Gates and David Petraeus). And, in terms of obsessions, this president-elect could do a lot worse in terms of historical idols. Emulating Honest Abe is a high standard. Godspeed to him.

Today, the Okie Gardener continues his series voicing his misgivings concerning the presidency and character of Barack Obama.

The Gardener considers the revelation that Bill Ayres and President-elect Obama were evidently much closer than maintained during the campaign.

My thoughts.

True, Obama's denials were disingenuous. Were they egregiously so in terms of a politician running for president? Hard to say. Reasonable people will disagree.

Of course, the Gardener touches on our real crisis: a mainstream media no longer providing an honest check to power.

An Aside: I fear that the Gardener overlooks another critical problem we face: an alternative (conservative) media that is not very serious in the aggregate.

However, the outlandish and disturbing fact in the Ayres revelation is not that Obama dissembled. Politicians lie. Dogs bite. Credit Card Companies charge interest. Caveat emptor.

Of course, as the Gardener suggests, the real worry here is that the prObama press corps seems willing to run interference for this man regardless of the high toll on their own integrity and credibility—and our modern tradition of the Fourth Estate as a balancing agent.

Barack Obama is president, which I continue to believe is not necessarily a disastrous thing. While I will criticize him vociferously when he errs and/or pursues ill-conceived or deleterious policies, I reaffirm my pledge to lay off him when possible out of respect for the office and consistent with my belief that we need him to succeed more than we need him to fail.

However, the element that frightens me most is this fact of life: the only governor on a President Obama in this current atmosphere seems to be his own decency. And while he strikes me as a decent person, my sense of human nature (to echo Lord Acton) is that powerful leaders lose perspective fairly quickly--and, of course, leaders with absolutely no checks to their own power veer off into the bar ditch with alarming regularity.