US Elections

There are a number of forces at work here. The Federal Government has already bailed out banks and insurance companies on the basis that the damage to the rest of the "system" from their liquidation requires them to act. GM is another company that is so big, that the government believes the cost (to workers, retirees, their pensions and health benefits) and the impact on the broader economy of its failure is so potentially great, that it cannot let it happen. Second, the credit markets have not stepped up to provide GM with any new debt, so that job now falls to the government.

The Federal Government has said it has no intention of seizing General Motors or of getting involved in its day-to-day business. We should believe them. As Nobel Laureate Paul Krugman has accurately pointed out, the government owns 80% of AIG but they have not sought to exercise day-to-day control over the company and there is no reason they should seek to do so with GM. The Obama Administration also has a lot more ambitious items on their agenda (like healthcare) and a lot of other things to take care of (like a Supreme Court nominee). That said, while GM is a drain on their finances, they will certainly be interested in ensuring that the company succeeds and pays them back as soon as possible.

Critics have also suggested that the government will try to force social change (smaller cars, greater fuel efficiency etc) through their stake in GM and the pressure they can now wield over the auto industry. The reality is that that President Obama was already committed to taking bold steps to curb greenhouse emissions and reduce America's dependence on foreign oil before he was elected. The industry has known for some time that they would have to embrace change, it just took a global recession for them to face that fact.

Critics have further charged that the President is favoring the unions over the bondholders and shareholders, who have been forced to swallow a very painful and expensive pill in order for GM to restructure. Frankly, I am sure that there is nothing more that President Obama would have liked than for the market to have emerged with a better solution. Sadly, that has not happened.

President Obama faces yet another daunting public relations challenge when he faces the nation tomorrow. The government has already invested almost $20 billion to GM and will likely increase that total to over $50 billion. The President needs to convince taxpayers (and voters) that this is the right thing to do and that he will stay out of GM's business while doing everything in his power to ensure that these decisions do not cost them more money in the long run. It is arguably easier to explain this kind of bailout in terms of the impact of inaction on American workers' jobs, than it was to explain bailing out a bunch of "Wall Street fat cats". But this is yet another significant bill that the taxpayers are being asked to pay. This time the President is seizing the debate before it runs away and he has already made the successful case for saving Wall Street, so he can do it again. Let's hope this is the last time he has to.

Hide

At least Karl Rove decided not to attack her on the basis of her gender or her ethnicity but instead attacked her stellar intellect; "I know lots of stupid people who went to Ivy League schools", he told an audience at Radio City Music Hall. (Who could Mr. Rove - your former boss perhaps?) Republican Senator Ensign of Nevada also joined in, putting out a press release saying that he would "thoroughly review Judge Sotomayor's record to make sure she has the right intellect".

Not to be left out, fellow Republican Senator James Inhofe of Oklahoma weighed in on her capacity as a judge, suggesting in a press release that she might not be impartial or able to separate her background and life experience from her work. What makes this particular line of criticism all the more questionable is that it was not made of Supreme Court Justice nominee Samuel Alito when he openly admitted that his own life experience was influential in his judicial decision making.

Sharp, immediate and sustained criticism of Supreme Court nominees is par for the course in Washington. During my time with Senator Clinton, we went through three Supreme Court nominees who were questioned and criticized by the Democratic Party and other Progressives. One only has to look back at the nomination hearings of Robert Bork and Clarence Thomato know that the process is just as vicious and brutal as any political campaign because it is essentially the same kind of battle - for a coveted, crucial and high profile "political" position.

There are a few rays of light to come out of this process however. The first is the nomination of a smart and qualified candidate for the Supreme Court The second is the nomination of someone who represents many Americans that have never had representation on the Court. The third is that she will almost certainly be confirmed.

The Republican Party and Conservatives may think they are making gains by making such outrageous criticisms of Judge Sotomayor. In the process however, they are continuing to hammer nails into their own collective political coffin. By portraying themselves as the party that is taking cheap shots at a successful Hispanic woman, they risk permanently alienating Hispanics who make up a key portion of the U.S. voter base. Portraying themselves as sexist, they risk alienating women. And portraying themselves as extreme and right wing, they risk alienating moderates, who until recently were the lifeblood of the party. While these criticisms are a tawdry attempt to bury the nomination of a potential Supreme Court Justice, they will only end up burying Republicans and Conservatives in the end.

Hide

The vote was a clear victory for Republicans and conservatives in their efforts to paint the President as soft on national security and terrorism. Republicans have long been desperate for a line of attack that will actually stick to the President in voters' minds. Despite their serious misses with the likes of Rush Limbaugh and Michael Steele, this one was a real hit The fact that members of his own party did not have faith in his idea meant that the Right had won and that everyone else had succumbed to the politics of fear. Conversely, it also gave liberal critics on the left another megaphone opportunity to suggest that the President has either wavered on or broken his core national security promises.

It also gave a real measure of credibility to the speech given the same day by former Vice President Cheney. While Republicans would clearly prefer to have someone else (someone with higher poll numbers perhaps?) communicating their message, they are probably happy to have ANYONE standing up to defend the Bush years. And defend Cheney will - especially when he seems to be almost the only member of the former Bush team willing to do it.

The problem for the Obama Administration is that the vote this week showed that former Vice President's message is resonating and the politics of fear are powerful indeed. In reality, consensus about national security and the "war on terror" probably falls somewhere between the views of President Obama and Vice President Cheney but fear is a powerful force when it comes to changing people's minds.

The President should have had a plan and presented it to Congress before the vote and he should also have given a powerful national security speech before the momentum and the argument got away from him. To be fair, he has a great number of other things to deal with but it was no secret that no one would want Guantanamo detainees in their backyard. This is obviously only a temporary stumbling block for the Administration. Most people predict that another facility will simply be built to house the detainees but by then it will have cost the taxpayers money and the Obama Administration political capital too.

In reality, President Obama has already disappointed his most left wing supporters by embraced the essentials of the Bush national security system - keeping the military commissions, withholding the torture photos and considering the possibility of indefinite detention for certain detainees. He can't risk losing all of his political capital by now being seen as weak on terrorism or security.

The President deserves to get credit from voters for the tough decisions he has already taken on national security. In the long term, it will also be critical for him, for his plan and for Democrats in Congress to be seen as pragmatic but assertive on national security rather than prevaricating over those issues that strike fear into the heart of every voter.

Hide

Unfortunately however, they have had significant reason so far to be upset with the Administration and Congress. In addition to allowing Congress to move forward on the bill to allow weapons in National Parks, the Obama Administration has already said that it won't be easy to reinstate the assault weapons ban and has done little so far to restrict or repeal the so-called Tiahrt Amendment another critical goal of gun control advocates. Even if they look ahead, there aren't that many signs to suggest that gun control advocates are going to have much to celebrate in the coming months.

The truth is, Democrats have realized that they cannot push the issue of gun control and hope to remain in power, let alone tackle some of the other significant issues on their agenda. Former Vice President Al Gore was a strong advocate of gun control; a position that many Democrats believe may have cost him the South and the Presidency. It is telling that today moderate Republicans are a dying breed and conservative Democrats are a force to be reckoned with. Democrats know that to retain their Congressional majority it is essential that in the short term they do not bring issues like gun control to the forefront and in the long term, perhaps ignore them altogether.

As evidence - a Pew Research Poll last month showed that the nation is essentially split on the topic of gun control. Only 49% said they thought it was more important to control guns than support gun ownership, compared to 58% a year ago. More interestingly, a recent NBC-Wall Street Journal Poll showed that 53% of people support the assault weapons ban, down from 75% in 1991.

It is also in the President Obama's political interests right now to steer clear of any major culture wars on issues like gun control. President Clinton was drawn into several issues like gays in the military and gun control that ignited significant culture wars at the time and arguably lost him control of Congress in 1994. Democrats and in particular, former Clinton and now Obama advisers like Rahm Emanuel seem very keen to stop that from happening again. The White House has said that it is not pushing forward on certain issues like gun control because that would distract from other issues like the economy and healthcare. They are right, but it would distract in more ways than simply taking away precious resources from the myriad of problems that the Obama Administration currently faces. A huge culture war on an issue like gun control right now would cost President Obama significant support in Congress and in the electorate. And with the average American facing so many challenges to their hip pockets, their spirit and their outlook on the future, no matter how meritorious gun control might be, it may be relegated to the backburner for some time.

Hide

On the one hand, the decisions may prove positive for the President. They are evidence to detractors on the right (former Vice-President Cheney chief among them) that this is a man who is serious about homeland security and the security of American troops overseas. The decisions were also in keeping with a core promise that the President made on the campaign trail - that, as President, he would listen to his military commanders. There is also nothing wrong with having a President who is agile and humble enough to change his mind, especially if the decision involves matters of national or international security.

On the other hand however, they look to many like the decisions of a politician who will either say anything to get elected or who underestimates the political realities of governing versus campaigning.

Whether average Americans really care about the President's decisions is debatable when they are faced with rising unemployment and mounting debt but the President will need his allies, both inside and outside the Beltway in the coming months as he moves forward to do battle on issues like healthcare and energy security. In deciding to keep the military commissions, the President chose the advice of his Defense advisers over that of his Justice Department. In deciding not to release the photos, he further enraged many on the left who were already upset with him over his decision not to prosecute over the so-called "torture memos".

The President was always going to upset someone, no matter what he decided. The difficulty for President Obama is that critics on both the left and right can now attack him for breaking promises and abandoning core values. And they can do so just when the President needs everyone to support him on the next, perhaps more critical, round of policy commitments that will further define his presidency.

Hide

While it has all been predicted before, what made everyone shudder was the extent to which the economy has impacted both programs. That, and the dawning political reality that Congress may finally have to make the difficult and potentially unpopular decisions needed to deal with these critical problems.

Arguably, the Trustee’s report provides a good opportunity for the Obama Administration. The sense of urgency created by the report may work in the President’s favor as he tries to tackle comprehensive healthcare reform. It may also serve as good talking points for Members of Congress who are wavering on the subject.

On the flip side, the report has already triggered a mess of suggestions on Capitol Hill about how to fix the situation. Often the greater the urgency, the more panicked everyone becomes, making it hard for a comprehensive proposal to pass in the face of such devastating predictions. In addition, although they are determined to develop a comprehensive plan for reform, it will be hard for the Obama Administration to ask anything more of taxpayers who are already in pain and increasingly skeptical. And while many Americans believe that the healthcare system is broken and may be prepared to support a plan to reform it, many are very wary of any attempt to change Social Security. 

One thing is for sure - with midterm elections looming in 2010, the President needs to act fast and he knows it. In addition to everything else, the midterms could have a huge impact on any plans that the Administration might have to tackle both problems.

Fixing the healthcare system alone will be one of the biggest challenges for the Obama Administration and this latest report is one of many indicators as to why it is a goal that needs to be accomplished.  With or without the trustees’ predictions, it would be a tragedy of generational proportions if action were not finally taken to address these enormous problems.

Hide

Some have argued that Senator Specter's vote will change with the passage of time and the helpful assistance of a leadership that needs his vote so will no doubt accommodate him to get it. That said, the Senator will definitely take some convincing - he describes his decision to switch parties as "painful" and Democrats should believe him. In addition, he has not always been a supporter of the President's agenda. While many Democrats (and Republicans, who sought to use it against him) celebrated the fact that he voted in favor of the President's stimulus package, he also voted for the Republicans' five year spending freeze and has voted against timetables for the war in Iraq. He also recently published an article in the New York Review of Books in which he expressed concerns about the increase in Presidential power and said he would work to ensure that President Obama did indulge in power grabs like his predecessor did.

Senator Specter is also not famous for his blind party allegiance, and his largely unaligned and sometimes unpredictable agenda proved to be a constant thorn in the Republicans' side throughout the years. The Senator proved that even today, as he stood with President Obama in the morning and received the President's full support for his re-election but finished his day by voting against the President's Budget. While Democrats should be happy to have such a senior legislator on their side, that independent streak may now prove to be a thorn in the Democrats' side.

Despite the fact that Senator Specter's switch does not guarantee a filibuster proof majority, Democrats also have to be careful because the even the impression that they have the power to get anything through Congress also has the potential to increase the amount of blame that voters place on them when things go wrong.

Some conservatives have argued that Senator Specter's defection is a boost for Democrats because it could have a real impact on the future of the Supreme Court. Democrats should however remember that Senator Specter has a serious and famous legal mind of his own and has been intimately involved in confirmation hearings for decades. Senator Specter, who (to date) is a senior member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, will make his own (not the President's) decision on any future nominees.

Finally, while many Democrats have pointed to the fact that Specter's defection will mean the Pennsylvania will remain a "blue" state, with both Senators representing the Democratic Party, others point to the fact that local Democrats have been voting for many years against Senator Specter and such a leap may be difficult for many of them to stomach. Add to that the fact that the Senator's decision was one based largely on the political calculation that he could not win re-election as a Republican, which may put off many Democrats.

Come what may, Specter's decision is definitely a boost for Democrats Even if the Senator's vote does not ensure a filibuster-proof majority, it certainly allows Democrats to wield the threat of such a majority in the face of Republican congressional antics. And let's face it, Senator Specter's defection is another blow to the struggling Republican Party. It has clearly upset many on the Right, angering some and filling others with dismay and disappointment. It also highlights the struggle that moderate Republicans are having against the conservative movement, again opening the festering wound that is the battle between conservative ideologues and moderates in the party, which can only be good for Democrats in both the short and long term.

Hide

So far, this has been a remarkable 100 days. First of all, you have a President who has come into office and pursued an ambitious agenda, not only to make good on his campaign promises but also to do so as quickly as possible. In only 100 days, the President has, amongst other things, passed a $787 billion stimulus plan, expanded children's healthcare, intervened in the housing and the credit crisis, announced the withdrawal of troops from Iraq, announced the closure of Guantanamo, signed the Ledbetter equal pay for women law and outlawed the use of torture. Add to that, he has announced his plans to reshape the American economy, from healthcare to the environment to taxation. All in the face of a financial system on the brink of collapse. He has faced seemingly innumerable crises, from AIG to Somali pirates. He has gone out and communicated a new diplomatic approach for the United States and tried to repair countless bridges with other nations.

Perhaps the most significant achievement of all however is that he has done all that and still retained the confidence of the nation and the American people. According to a new national poll, he has a 69% job approval rating, with 61% of Americans trusting him to manage the economy. More importantly, 50% of Americans believe that the country is headed in the right direction, up from only 19% when he took office.

To be fair, he has stumbled, over the question of whether to prosecute those who authored the torture memos, in the vetting of some of his high-profile Cabinet candidates like Tom Daschle and Bill Richardson and with some of his high-profile gift giving. He has also capitulated on several of issues, including his proposals to slash farm subsidies and to reinstate the assault weapons ban.

But there are a lot more than 100 days to come of this Presidency and while we clearly can't help ourselves, it would be wiser to remember that a Presidency is more often defined by much more than just its beginning. Historically too, most Presidential approval ratings have averaged around 60% for the first 100 days. Even George W. Bush had an approval rating of 58% at the end of his first 100 days. (Of course we were fat and happy in the those pre-9/11 days with skyrocketing stock markets and a budget surplus courtesy of President Clinton. So perhaps then to be 11 points ahead of George W. Bush is actually understating the current President's popularity..?)

In the coming weeks and months the President faces several tests that could significantly impact his Presidency. More immediately he faces the consequences of his bailout of the auto industry, the release of detainee interrogation photos, and the results of the bank stress tests. Further down the road, he faces the huge challenges of rising deficits, reforming the healthcare system and fixing the nation's energy security woes. Not to mention the challenges coming from the Middle East, Iran, Pakistan, North Korea, Afghanistan and even Mexico. On June 30 he also faces another deadline - withdrawing American combat troops from Iraqi cities.

In addition, he faces dissent from within his own base of supporters - moderate Democrats who have joined together to fight his fiscal priorities and liberal Democrats who are not happy about his decisions on the auto bailout, not to prosecute over the torture memos and to increase troops in Afghanistan. He also faces a bitter national partisan divide with polls showing that while 93% of Democrats approve of his overall performance, only 36% of Republicans feel the same way.

Whatever happens down the road however, the facts still remain - so far this President has faced significant challenges, far more than have tested many of those who have come before him. Whether you agree with his approach or not, he has acted in good faith to rescue an entire economy and present a new face to the rest of the world - all in under six months. No matter what the next 100 days bring, for better or for worse, he has faced and achieved a great deal so far.

Hide

While the election of a Minnesota Senator might seem like a local problem, it is in fact a dispute that has national ramifications, because Al Franken would be the 59th Democrat in a Senate that has already approved billions of dollars in spending and is about to face additional historic challenges on issues like healthcare, the environment and taxation reform. With 59 seats in the Senate, the Democrats would then only be one vote short of a filibuster-proof majority, which is why the Republicans are so keen to keep the dispute going and to prevent Franken from taking his seat in the Senate.

Governor Tim Pawlenty, a Republican who has Presidential ambition in abundance is in a tight spot over the race. He is feeling pressure on one side from the many Minnesotans anxious to see it come to a speedy conclusion and on the other from his Republican colleagues who are desperate to re-seat former Senator Norm Coleman and thereby remain a Congressional thorn in the Democrats' side. Governor Pawlenty and Secretary of State Mark Ritchie, a Democrat, must certify the election before the new Senator is sworn in and the Governor has said he will not certify the results of the election at least until the state litigation process was completed.

So far, the results have favored Al Franken, who was 312 votes ahead of Coleman following the initial vote count and recount and has been the beneficiary of a recent positive rulings from a special Minnesota panel of three judges from three separate courts. Still, Coleman has already announced that he would appeal to the State Supreme Court.

The problem is, so long as the dispute continues, Minnesota is left with only one Senator to deal with the problems of over 5 million people in a region that shares its border with another country. The dispute has now cost $12 million that arguably could have been spent on something else. The other problem is that for a Republican party that is already in turmoil and about to face the brutal political reality that their former President condoned torture, the Franken v Coleman dispute is just another embarrassment that they really don't need.

Hide

However noble his intentions, this was also a political decision. Clearly the President and his Administration wanted to make good on their commitment to transparency and their opposition to torture, but they also hoped that the release of the memos would meet the government's obligations in a Freedom of Information lawsuit while at the same time contrasting the policies of the current President against those of his predecessor The problem however lies in the decision not to prosecute those involved in the memos.

The President faces a double-edged sword with regard to prosecution. He cannot prosecute because he needs to retain the confidence and the loyalty of the intelligence community in the ongoing struggle against terrorism and in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. He cannot prosecute because he cannot risk exposing members of Congress who, it is well documented, knew about the questionable interrogation tactics as far back as 2002.

He also cannot prosecute because presumably he knows that there is a very real danger in changing the rules of the game retroactively, rules that were established when the nation was under threat. He cannot prosecute because he then runs the risk of not obtaining a conviction.

Fundamentally, prosecuting those who were responsible for the memos is the right thing to do. Politically however, it might not be the easy thing to do Unfortunately though, not doing it may also carry a heavy political burden If some in the intelligence community are to be believed, the President may have potentially exposed the nation to greater risk and undermined intelligence gathering without getting any real credit for being fundamentally opposed to torture and helping to right the wrongs of the past. In addition, he now risks being the subject of the anger that should in fact be direct at former President G.W. Bush and his Administration for authorizing such inhumane treatment. Further, while the President has taken significant steps to outlaw the use of torture in the United States, if he doesn't prosecute those who authorized its use, his failure to do so risks becoming the focus of his legacy on this issue, rather than the good work he has done. It will also be harder for the American people to have faith in his message of change if he doesn't go all the way towards righting the wrongs of the past. In addition, over the past few weeks, the President has been travelling all over the world, trying to repair international relationships and improve the image of the U.S. in the eyes of the world. If he doesn't prosecute, these efforts may also be jeopardized.

To his credit, in announcing the release of the memos this week, the President did not explicitly close the door on prosecuting those who authored the memos, nor did he close the door on an investigation. However, given all of the other issues on his plate, it does not seem likely. Perhaps the Administration is hoping that role will be taken up by Congress and realistically, with an economy still struggling, the American people will probably be much more concerned in the coming months with taxes and layoffs than with torture. But sadly, unless further action is taken, the President's own legacy on this issue risks being mired in the continuing debate over the actions of his predecessor.

Hide