Michael Tomasky's Blog, page 31
January 3, 2011
The filibuster situation | Michael Tomasky
Historian Julian Zelizer raises a question, and answers it:
Within the span of a month, the media discussion shifted from the chronic complaints about partisan gridlock to, lo and behold, claims that this was the most productive Congress since the mid-1960s. Everything seems just fine on Capitol Hill.
The recent legislative success will create problems for Senate Democrats when they push for filibuster reform as soon as Congress reconvenes this week...
Some opponents of reform will certainly ask, given the recent coverage of the historic 111th Congress, whether procedural changes are really needed. Shouldn't senators just leave things alone?
The answer is no. The past three decades of congressional history have been marked by a filibuster frenzy. The most striking characteristic of the modern Senate is that members now assume that 60 votes are required to pass almost any legislation.
Despite all the criticism that has been made about the Senate in previous periods, simple majorities were sufficient to pass most legislation for much of the institution's history. Filibusters have taken place since 1841, but they had been used only rarely before the 1970s.
He's right, you know. Passing three or four pieces of high-profile legislation in a hurry before Christmas after a record number of threatened filibusters isn't the same as actually doing their jobs as legislators. Again let me say here something I've said many times but haven't said for a long time. I would vastly prefer bills on which Republicans participate in the drafting, in full knowledge that that would mean more moderate bills. But it would mean the Congress, especially the Senate, was working as designed. But that is not what we've had, except for the last two weeks of last month. That hardly makes up for the lamentable historical trend (to which both parties have contributed) Zelizer points out.
The other point to make is that one party having as many senators as the Democrats had these past two years is very rare indeed. It last happened 30 years ago for two years. Usually the majority party is around 53, 54, 55 (the Dems will be at 53 in this new Congress). In other words, passing the cloture threshold of 60 isn't historically just a matter of getting one or two people from the other side, but six or seven. In this partisan atmosphere, that seems impossible in all but extremely rare cases.
As for what might happen here, when the Senate convenes Wednesday, Brian Beutler has a useful, if somewhat technical and intricate, summation:
At some point on January 5, Sen. Tom Udall (D-NM) will take the Senate floor and begin a process that he hopes will end in the successful use of the "Constitutional option" -- the prerogative of a majority of the Senate's members to rewrite its rules on the first day of a new Congress.
He and his allies have been vocal about their plan. But the actual sequence of events that starts with him giving a speech, and ends with filibuster reform, is obscure, fragile, and extremely complicated. In fact, it's so involved that the "first day" of the 112th Senate could actually last for weeks...
...On day one, Udall -- or, perhaps, one of his allies -- will take the floor, armed with a reform package, and object to the continuation of the previous Senate's rules.
If Vice President Biden is sympathetic to Udall -- a big unknown -- he can chime in supportively (what's known as an advisory opinion). That's what Udall wants, and he's pressing Biden to oblige him.
"The group of reform senators is going to file a brief with the Vice President letting him know what we're going to do," Udall told me. "In the past, three vice presidents, have issued advisory rulings at the beginning of the process."
But the process doesn't hang on that question.
Unfortunately for Udall, his rules package will be subject to -- you guessed it -- filibuster. And Republicans will filibuster. In fact their filibuster will probably carry through the end of the first week, and perhaps even a two week recess. So when his patience runs out, he'll have to be prepared with a complicated procedural motion -- a request that the rules package live or die by majority-rule, and that no intervening business interrupt debate on the reforms.
Get the idea? It could be a donnybrook. The other possibility is that Harry Reid, not known as a great adherent of filibuster reform, works out some very modest arrangements with Mitch McConnell, and that's all they do. The bottom line is that any lowering of the 60 threshold is actually pretty unlikely.
So the bottom line is this: the odds probably support a big fight at the beginning of the session that increases ill will but doesn't actually change much! Feel better?
guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2011 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds
Merle Haggard, America-hating elitist | Michael Tomasky
Here's an unexpected pairing for you:
When he met President Obama at the White House earlier this month, legendary country singer Merle Haggard said he found him to be "very different" from the way he's portrayed in the media: "Not conceited."
"He's very humble about being the president of the United States, especially in comparison to some presidents we've had who come across like they don't need anybody's help," Haggard said in an interview with Rolling Stone.
"I think he knows he's in over his head. Anybody with any sense who takes that job and thinks they can handle it must be an idiot."
Haggard, who met Obama when he came to Washington to be recognized as a Kennedy Center honoree earlier this month, said it's "really almost criminal" how Obama is portrayed in the media.
"There seems to be no shame or anything," he said. "They call him all kinds of names all day long, saying he's doing certain things that he's not."
The country singer said he was "very surprised" to find Obama "very humble."
"He had a nice handshake," he said. "His wife was very cordial to the guests and especially me. They made a special effort to make me feel welcome."
This sent me back to read up on Haggard a bit. Everyone (in the US anyway) knows that his most famous song is "Okie from Muskogee," which sort of rhymes (it's Mus-KOE-gee, Oklahoma). This was released in 1969 and was and is considered America's first major counterculture backlash anthem. Sample lyrics:
We don't smoke marijuana in Muskogee;
We don't take our trips on LSD
We don't burn our draft cards down on Main Street;
We like livin' right, and bein' free.I'm proud to be an Okie from Muskogee,
A place where even squares can have a ball
We still wave Old Glory down at the courthouse,
And white lightnin's still the biggest thrill of all.
Muskogeeans literal and metaphorical have for years taken up the song as the revenge of red-blooded Americans against the hippies and cosmopolites. But lo and behold, according to Haggard's Wikipedia entry:
"Okie From Muskogee", 1969's apparent political statement, was actually written as an abjectly humorous character portrait. Haggard called the song a "documentation of the uneducated that lived in America at the time."
It seems that he came to embrace the song's message less ironically as it gained in popularity. Whatever the case, here we are, 40 years later, and he likes the Kenyan. A note of comity on which to open the new year.
By the way, for those of you who care, the goose came out great. Great! Bookfan, please don't be offended as I used a recipe from Julia Child recommended by my brother-in-law J., who a) has made goose previously and b) is a really good cook generally. This method involved steaming it for hour before roasting for maybe two hours. But the meat was perfect. The bird wasn't greasy at all (the steaming, done on stove-top, leeches a lot of grease out of it), and the kitchen didn't reek of it, etc. And we now have about two cups of goose fat for future cooking. J. made the potatoes in some goose fat, and they were amazing.
So I recommend this highly next holiday season if you're looking for something different. A goose isn't cheap: $100 or so. But it's really yummy. Not quite like any other meat.
Finally, to make this a sort of kitchen-sink post: Big Ten, 0-5?? And am I the only one who thinks RichRod might end up at Pitt?
guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2011 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds
December 31, 2010
Predictions for 2011
Let's all make some predictions for 2011. Here are mine:
1. The economy will improve, slowly then roaringly by the end of the year, although unemployment will still be around 8%.
2. The big spending showdown anticipated for this spring will be a little disappointing to those fixin' for a big fight.
3. Obama will infuriate liberals.
4. Okay, that was a joke, but not really. Obama will be seen by liberals as selling out Social Security by agreeing at some point to raise the retirement age for most workers.
5. Hillary will manage a big breakthrough somewhere, maybe on North Korea.
6. No progress will be made on closing Gitmo; Republicans won't agree to bring detainees to prisons on the US mainland.
7. Congress' approval rating in a year will be 11%.
8. Obama's will be 49%.
9. Mike Lee, whom you've barely heard of now, will be the leader of the Objectivist Caucus* in the Senate, not Rand Paul.
*that's a metaphor, not an actual caucus.
10. Obama will not, in fact, sell Manhattan back to the Native Americans, nor will he and George Soros conspire to destroy the dollar.
11. Sarah Palin will announce her candidacy for president late in the year.
12. Shortly thereafter, those Palin emails will be released.
13. The Supreme Court will, by 5-4, declare the individual mandate constitutional. Kennedy will side with the liberals. Lookout!
14. The Bears will beat the Chiefs (?!!?) in the Super Bowl.
15. Oregon will beat Auburn in a game that will be close until the fourth quarter but will end something like 45-31.
16. Michael Scott and Holly Flax won't end up together. He'll eff it up at the last second.
17. For the most part, the world will hobble along on its weary and petulant path.
18. Margot will start talking.
19. I will buy a new screen door for the kitchen.
20. God willing all of us will be here a year from now having the same enjoyable exasperating arguments. Happy '11.
Yours?
guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2010 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds
December 30, 2010
Friday-oops-Thursday quiz: Special 2010 in review edition | Michael Tomasky
Okay, gang. It's the long-awaited year-in-review quiz. Befitting the occasion, it is expanded into double the usual length, with four questions each in the following six categories: politics and newsmakers; social indicators and trends; culture (high and low); science and technology; sports with an s; and ain't that America.
As the sixth category suggests, the Tomasky blog quiz will be about US events only (well, number 20 is sort of global but features the US prominently). I reckon there are other quizzes across the Guardian site that will take care of Britain and the rest of the world, and I don't want to step on anyone's toes. And anyway they pay me to write about America.
I actually worked kinda-pretty hard on this, so I'm expecting some effort out of you! Or you lot, as some of you would say. Or yunz ("you ones," plural) as they say in the Burgh. And I hope you will agree that the topics and questions and answers give us in toto a reasonably fair picture of the American year. So let's get going.
Politics and Newsmakers
1. As 2010 dawned we were in the grip of media frenzy over the "Christmas bomber," which started in December and continued into January, when someone quipped: "We had no domestic attacks under Bush; we've had one under Obama." Who said it?
a. Liz Cheney
b. Michele Bachmann
c. Rudy Giuliani
2. You'll recall that in the tense days leading up to the House of Representatives' healthcare reform vote in March, Michigan Congressman Bart Stupak led a bloc of seven Democrats who'd withheld their support until compromise language could be worked out limiting how the new law could be used to cover abortion services. They all voted yes. Stupak retired; the other six sought reelection. How many of the six will return to Congress for the next term?
a. Three
b. Two
c. Zero
3. Place these four news events in the correct chronological order:
a. Obama's firing of Gen. Stanley McChrystal
b. Arizona's enactment (i.e. the governor's signing) of the strict immigration law
c. BP CEO Tony Hayward's remarking to Gulf Coast residents that "I want my life back"
d. The Supreme Court's Citizens United decision
4. Match the 2010 US newsmaker(s) to the event.
Steven Slater
Dharun Ravi and Molly Wei
Shirley Sherrod
Terry Jones
Faced false accusations of racism
Scheduled then cancelled "rally" to burn the Koran
Played alleged role in suicide of gay Rutgers student
Threw tantrum on Jet Blue flight; resigned
Social Indicators and Trends
5. According to a nationwide survey whose results were released in September, what percentage of Americans say they're living paycheck to paycheck?
a. 62 percent
b. 69 percent
c. 77 percent
6. True or false: While many environmentalists expected otherwise, NASA records from earlier this month showed that 2010 was not even one of the 10 hottest years on record since 1880.
7. According to a Pew survey released in November, what percentage of Americans now agree that a single parent with one child constitutes a family?
a. 86 percent
b. 74 percent
c. 62 percent
8. Rank these five states from first to last in percentage population growth, according to the official census figures released in December:
Oregon
Michigan
Nevada
Minnesota
Kentucky
Culture
9. Who are Patti Smith and Jaimy Gordon?
a. Smith, who is not the rock star of the same name, won American Idol last year, and Gordon won America's Got Talent
b. They were the winners of the National Book Awards for nonfiction and fiction, respectively
c. They became the first stage actresses to share a Tony Award for best performance in a dramatic role for the same part (Gordon succeeded Smith in the role in question)
10. Rank these four American films according to their box-office performance as of December 30:
The Social Network
Shutter Island
Inception
Shrek Forever After
11. Which of these potential television-character pairings does not have a Facebook page created by fans who hope the two of them end up getting together (for at least a night or maybe forever):
a. Jack Donaghy and Liz Lemon (Alec Baldwin and Tina Fey), 30 Rock
b. Lily Aldrin and Barney Stinson (Alyson Hannigan and Neil Patrick Harris), How I Met Your Mother
c. Michael Scott and Holly Flax (Steve Carell and Amy Ryan), The Office
12. The Kennedy Center Honors are a traditional part of the American Christmas season. Honorees are announced in the fall. The event, always attended by the president and first lady, is held in early December. And it is always broadcast in the week between Christmas and New Year's (it ran on Tuesday night). Everyone probably knows that Paul McCartney was an honoree this year. But who was the first rock'and'roll-era performer to win a Kennedy Award, and in what year?
a. Aretha Franklin, 1994
b. Chuck Berry, 1995
c. Bob Dylan, 1997
Science and Technology
13. As of the second quarter of 2010, which of these smartphones was selling the best in the US?
a. BlackBerry
b. iPhone
c. Droid
14. Last March, researcher Mark Roth of the Hutchinson Cancer Research Center in Seattle garnered attention because his particular mixture of oxygen and hydrogen sulfide pointed the way toward:
a. Reversing the aging process in humans
b. Keeping mammals (including humans) in a state of suspended animation, i.e. a real-life version of bringing people back from the dead, at least for a short period of time
c. Enabling athletes to enhance muscle mass and improve performance without using steroids and other banned substances
15. What is the X-51A Waverider, and what did it do on May 26?
a. It's a US Air Force "scramjet" that briefly achieved Mach 6, making it the fastest jet in the world
b. It's a US Navy "swift boat" that covered 10 miles of the Columbia River in 2:47
c. It's a new kind of miraculously "noiseless" subway car that debuted on the Lexington Avenue lines in New York that day
16. Jeff Weber, who once assisted in the development of the Aeron chair, came up with another big comfort-related innovation in 2010, adding ergonomic features to something that basically hadn't been redesigned since around World War II. What did he develop a new iteration of?
a. The land-line telephone handset
b. The can opener
c. Crutches
Sports with an S
17. Why do some American sports fan smile at the mention of the name Robert Green?
a. He's the Aussie golfer who missed a three-foot putt on 18 that enabled American Phil Mickelson to win the Masters'
b. He's the captain of New Zealand's America's Cup team who directed his crew to make an ill-timed tack that lost the Kiwis speed and handed the US team the cup
c. He's the English goal-keeper who let Cliff Dempsey's feeble World Cup goal slip right through his hands, giving the US a 1-1 draw that felt like a win
18. One sports record that didn't fall this year was most consecutive wins by a thoroughbred horse; the filly trying to set that record lost by a nose in the Breeders' Cup to a horse called Blame. What was the filly's name, and how many wins did she have until this loss, her first?
a. Zambezi, 15
b. Zenyatta, 19
c. Zephyrus, 22
19. A perfect game, in which no batter from the opposing team reaches first base, is exceedingly rare in baseball. One was rightfully thrown in 2010 by Detroit Tiger Armando Galarraga, but he was denied the claim when a runner reached base how?
a. On a clearly blown call by first-base umpire Jim Joyce
b. On a third-strike pitch that was dropped by his catcher, permitting the batter (under rule) to reach first base safely
c. On a clearly blown call by home-page umpire Shag Crawford
20. Match the country to the number of professional golfers it has in the world Top 10 as this year comes to a close:
England
United States
Australia
Germany
Northern Ireland
Zero
One
Two
Three
Four
Ain't That America
21. It was announced in early December that a new theme park in Kentucky will feature an exact life-size replica of:
a. The Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil
b. Noah's Ark
c. God, using estimates made by Biblical scholars
22. After a bill was signed into law in July, gun owners in Louisiana who follow certain protocols can carry their sidearms in:
a. Churches
b. Bars
c. County courthouses
23. The year saw progress for the movement requiring the posting of calorie counts in restaurants. Match the meal from the family-dining chain restaurant to the calorie count:
Macaroni Grill: Insalata Blu, Chicken Rigatoni, Tiramisu
Bob Evans: Country Spinach Salad with Grilled Chicken, Country Fried Steak with Gravy with French Fries and Carrots on the side, Oreo Cookies-and-Cream Pie
PF Chang's: Srirachi Shrimp Salad, Cantonese Roasted Duck, The Great Wall of Chocolate
2,219
3,603
3,410
24. In zillow.com's fourth annual most and least desired celebrity neighbor survey, who topped the list of least desirable person(s) to have next door?
a. Mel Gibson
b. Sarah Palin
c. Charlie Sheen
d. The Obamas
e. The Jersey Shore cast
f. Lady Gaga
So, what sayest thou? Let's see how you did.
Answers:
1-c; 2-a; 3: correct order is d-b-c-a; 4- Slater=Jet Blue, Ravi-Wei=Rutgers student, Sherrod=false racism, Jones=Koran; 5-c; 6-false; 7-a; 8: correct order is Nevada, Oregon, Minnesota, Kentucky, Michigan; 9-b; 10: correct order is Inception, Shrek, Shutter Island, Social Network.
11-b; 12-a; 13-c; 14-b; 15-a; 16-c; 17-c; 18-b; 19-a; 20: England=3, US=4, Australia=0, Germany=1, Northern Ireland=2; 21-b; 22-a; 23: MacGrill=3,410; Bob Evans=2,219; PF Chang's=3,603; 24-e.
Notes:
1. Good for you if you remembered, as Rudy hasn't been very public lately.
2. The three who won are: Marcy Kaptur, Ohio; Nick Rahall, West Virginia; Joe Donnelly, Indiana. The three who are going home: Alan Mollohan, West Virginia; Steve Dreihaus, Ohio; Kathy Dahlkemper, Pennsylvania.
3. Not an easy one, as they were spaced pretty closely to one another, especially the last three. Citizens United decision was Jan. 21. Arizona law was signed April 23. Hayward made his infamous remark May 30. And McChrystal got the boot June 23.
4. This might have been easier than 3, I think. Ravi and Wei are awaiting trial. Sherrod is giving speeches mostly. Slater, who knows or cares. Jones is presumably carrying on in the expected fashion.
5. Surprised me. Article here.
6. NASA says 2010 was the hottest year on record since 1880, as you can see here.
7. Surprised me again. Article here.
8. Minnesota and Kentucky were the hard ones here, as they were separated by less than a point (7.8% to 7.4%). Nevada was far and away number one. Oregon should have been a gettable number two. And Michigan is the only state in the union to have lost population since 2000. See this clickable map.
9. Smith, who is the rocker of the same name, won for her memoir, Just Kids. Gordon's winner was the novel The Lord of Misrule.
10. This one surprised me all the way around, but the numbers are the numbers: Inception grossed $292.5 million (ranking: 5th), Shrek $238.4 (8th), Shutter Island $128 (16th), and Social Network $92 (29th). List here.
11. Michael and Holly are so going to end up together, aren't they? I guess that's nice, but it's kind of counter to the spirit of the show.
12. Aretha did win in 1994, and Dylan did win in '97. Chuck won one, but not til 2000. Interesting how long it took Official American Culture to accept rock'n'roll, no? Not til the Clinton era, 30 years after Beatlemania.
13. See article here. Not that surprising I guess, once you stop and think that the iPhone had some issues.
14. Still some kinks to be worked out apparently, but rather fascinating all the same.
15. I'd love to see c happen someday. Actually, in Washington, they are pretty darn quiet.
16. I was just intrigued here by the fact that no one had bothered to think about improving the crutch for six decades until this guy came along.
17. You had to throw that in, Tomasky, didn't you? Well...yes.
18. If she'd stuck her tongue out, she might have won. It was that close.
19. A well-known story in the US. Crawford was a famous umpire back when I was a little boy. Maybe some of you remembered the name and got a chuckle.
20. The Americans: Tiger Woods, Phil Mickelson, Steve Stricker and Jim Furyk; the Brits: Lee Westwood (took over number one from Tiger), Paul Casey, Luke Donald; Northern Irelanders, which for the uninitiated is the surprise here: Graeme McDowell and Rory McIlroy; German: Martin Kaymer. That's 10, so no Aussies, sorry.
21. Anyone guess c?
22. Strictly for security purposes, of course.
23. Loved this question. I'd bet most of you put the Bob Evans meal at the top, but lo and behold, a cut of beef dipped in batter and fried and adorned with gravy isn't comparatively all that bad. Now that's America! PF Chang's winning tally was largely made possible by The Great Wall of Chocolate, which checks in at 1,803 calories on its own. All numbers are taken from the rather amazing web site www.calorielab.com.
24. Everybody mentioned made the list, which you can see guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2010 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds
December 28, 2010
Post-Christmas check in
Hi all. Hope those of you who celebrate Christmas celebrated it in a style befitting you. Our holiday was quite nice, thanks. Margot seemed to understand that it wasn't a normal morning, but she mostly just sat in her little chair and did...nothing: sucked her thumb and looked around. This was precisely what was expected and desired of her.
I, however, managed to pry my thumb out of my mouth and smile a massive smile when I opened the beautiful shearling coat my wife bought me. I know 9mile is thinking, "Hmm, you don't seem the type..." Well, don't forget my Mountaineer roots, buster. And I think they're nice looking, what can I say. Especially this particular one!
We haven't cooked the goose yet. Due to some shifting travel schedules, the goose is now on tap for New Year's Day. So I'm making the proper mental preparations now. I'm thinking garlic, ginger and pomegranate as the chief flavoring agents of my sauce. Nigella, do you read this blog? If so, what think? And give my hearty best to Horatia, whom I knew in NY and who was delightful.
Anyway. I wanted to share with you this article I just managed to read yesterday from the new issue of The American Prospect, by Neal Gabler. Now, our American readers with memories are saying, "You mean Neal Gabler, the guy who used to be on Sneak Previews?" And the answer comes back, yes, indeed I do. And then you say, I wasn't aware he wrote for highbrow opinion journals. And I say, well, he's actually rather a learned and polymathic fellow, so there.
This not-too-long (but highly interesting) essay compares Barack Obama and Ronald Reagan and argues that what Reagan understood that Obama does not is that the presidency is not in fact about substantive accomplishments:
Obama still thinks that the way to achieve his goals is to come up with the right policy and to build political support for it with logical argument. He doesn't understand the extent to which one of the primary functions of the presidency is emotive: to provide a sense of psychological comfort to the nation that, once accomplished, might well lead to legislative achievements -- may, in fact, be the best route to those achievements -- but can also be an end in itself. People want a president who makes them feel good.
Every president, whether he says so explicitly or not, approaches the presidency with a metaphor in mind. Theodore Roosevelt thought of his as a "bully pulpit" from which to educate the public. Franklin D. Roosevelt seemed to think of his as a national living room from which he could bolster American spirits in dark times. John F. Kennedy seemed to think of his as a salon. George W. Bush acted as if his were a testosterone-drenched fraternity.
Each of these metaphors has its benefits -- -and its problems -- but it was left to Reagan to find a metaphor that reshaped the entire institution of the presidency to the point where his successors could ignore his conception at their peril. For him, the presidency was no bully pulpit, living room, salon, or fraternity. Nor was it the college lectern that Obama seems to think it is from which he can calmly and rationally explain his policies. It was a darkened theater in which Reagan could project a movie about the country's desires and dreams -- an American fantasy.
Of course this is not to say that presidents should eschew substance. They should not. But they, BHO in particular, need to understand that most people don't care about substance. It's the old head vs. gut thing again, with Democrats trying to appeal to people's brains and Republicans understanding that people are far more motivated by what they feel in their gut. But it's a new gloss on it that's insightful and fresh. Here's another passage:
President Obama has been especially disinclined to enter the darkened theater, play actor-in-chief, and replace policy with national therapy. One suspects that he thinks it is demeaning and demagogic -- -beneath him and the office. The presidency should be substantive. It should be about serious stuff. It should tackle problems, not pretend that they don't exist or that they will disappear if we just put ourselves in the proper frame of mind. All of which places him at a tremendous disadvantage in the contemporary politics of theatricality. One reason for Reagan's success as a communicator is that he actually believed in his own cheery message. He truly believed the cliches, the simplifications, the optimism. For Obama, as for many liberals, it is all hooey.
And that reluctance to embrace the presidency as a feel-good movie-dream may be the real answer to why the candidate who entered the nation's emotional life became a president who retreated from it. It may also be the answer to how Obama can re-energize his flagging presidency -- he has to accept the fact that the president must stroke the American people and raise their spirits. He has to change the national consciousness before he can hope to change national policy. It is a realization that Obama seems to have come to, however grudgingly, when he told 60 Minutes after the election debacle that "leadership isn't just legislation." It is "giving [people] confidence ... and setting a tone." Exactly.
This isn't easy, but neither is it impossible. We may forget that Reagan wasn't elected because his message resonated with the American people. He was elected because Carter's message didn't. Reagan had to insinuate his way into the national consciousness the way movies do. He had to get people to ignore the bad news. He had to buck up sagging morale.
I hope they read this over at the Casa Blanca, because it's true. And it's timely advice indeed. The coming year may be the year the economy rebounds, or starts to. Obama has a chance to tell the country that story and make himself the star. If he doesn't, the Republicans in Congress will.
So that's that; I thought it would spark some useful discussion. Now, we close with consideration of another leader who wasn't comfortable with the trappings, old King George VI. Yes, we saw The King's Speech. It was really good. I usually approach historical dramas with a degree of suspicion because of the general self-seriousness of the genre, but this was light and funny and not at all emotionally manipulative. I get the plaudits for Colin Firth but thought Geoffrey Rush was if anything better.
He seems (HRH, I mean) like a very admirable man. I'd known about his important wartime speeches, and about how the family stayed in London and lived on rations for a time, but I hadn't known this story at all. Is it common knowledge in Britain? What is his general reputation? At any rate it observes Gabler's rule. The lights go up and you feel good.
That's it for today. Back to year-end quiz preparation. It will be posted Thursday morning. Cheers.
guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2010 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds
December 23, 2010
Why I'm jolly | Michael Tomasky
Well, there's our gal (thanks to Joe Foley Photography). Some of you have been asking for a second look, which I appreciate, and Christmas seemed like the right time. I think she's coming along rather nicely. You?
Now let's discuss the schedule over the coming days. There'll be no posting tomorrow, so no quiz this week, alas. But we will have a boffo and perhaps extra-long year-in-review quiz next week. Let's aim for next Thursday. Scribble that down on your Evernote or whatever it is you use.
As for news blogging, well, let's just say it'll depend on the news. If something big happens, rest assured, Brother Seaton and everyone, I'll be on the case, even if it's Christmas Day. If something of moderate news value happens, well, it'll be a judgment call. Do check it from time to time if you don't mind. I don't want to go completely dark, so I'll likely throw a few up there.
And finally, Merry Christmas or Happy Whatever You Prefer, and a prosperous 2011 to you all. I thank you, as ever, for your participation in this site, and I really mean that. Now go enjoy yourselves.
guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2010 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds
Unexpected backing for filibuster reform | Michael Tomasky
Here's another thing that improves my mood further still. Quite unexpectedly to me anyway, every returning Democratic senator, every one, has signed a letter to Harry Reid endorsing filibuster reform.
Are you kidding me? Ben Nelson? Mark Pryor? Wow. Now it's hard to say what exact form a change would take. Reid himself, who evidently did not sign the letter since it was written to him, is not a huge champion of reform and is estimated to be likely to try to work out some modest compromise with the Republicans. From the National Journal:
Filibuster reform backers say they have now won broad caucus support for a compromise proposal that avoids more contentious ideas.
"Hopefully that gives [Reid] the juice he needs to negotiate reasonable changes so we can stop the abuses next year," McCaskill said.
Merkley said on Tuesday it was too early to tell what proposal Democrats will ultimately push because talks, including conversations "between the Democrats and Republican leadership" continue.
"The next step is that when we come back in January, to actually be able to hold that type of conversation on the floor of the Senate," Merkley said.
The ideal change, to me, would be a simple reduction from the 60 threshhold for cloture down to 56. Why 56? A simple majority plus five. The 56 number would still allow for deliberation in the spirit the founders intended for the Senate, the saucer cooling the tea and all that. It would still, in most cases, require that the majority garner the support of at least a couple of members of the minority.
But I doubt they'll do anything that dramatic and straightforward. There are all kinds of things they can do that probably won't make that much difference. So my hopes aren't especially high.
But remember: at the beginning of a new session, i.e. next January 5, the Senate can change its rules via simple majority vote. And more Democrats than 51 have signed this letter. So change could well happen. Amazing.
guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2010 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds
John McCain and my mood | Michael Tomasky
LHB, ngavc and malrox all profess to detect a foulness of mood in me lately. Huh. Not consciously. In fact if you asked me, I'd say I'm in a terrific mood these days. Yesterday I was bouncing around downtown Silver Spring with Margot, singing to her, accepting the isn't-she-adorables with quiet satisfaction. The goose I ordered from Dartagnan arrived. Some presents from my sister and her family, who, as fate would have it, will be spending Christmas in dear old London. The in-laws, whose company I genuinely enjoy, will arrive today. Our tree looks great. The world couldn't be sunnier.
But there are always topics that befoul our tempers, and for me, the South and John McCain are two of them. The South...well, I've said enough about that. As for McCain, I can't buy into the argument that his heroism and courage, which were indeed jaw-dropping, insulate him from criticism.
Now, Erskine Caldwell, who usually just pops off, actually raised a semi-interesting question about McCain, to wit: so now he's acting like a conservative Republican, maybe that is in fact who he really is. Maybe. But I doubt it. I think he spent two decades being who he was, which is to say, a basically conservative person with a strong unpredictable streak. That he seemed to have more layers as a human being than most of these folks (he reads some serious fiction, for example) made him that much more interesting.
But from what I see I think now he's bitter. Did any of you watch his floor speech-rant on don't ask don't tell? He turned it into a culture-war issue, after of course saying that he didn't want to turn it into a culture war issue.
Anyway, if you care, I'm a most happy fella.
guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2010 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds
December 22, 2010
The continuing disgrace of John McCain | Michael Tomasky
The vote tally on the Start treaty is now posted. Twelve count 'em 12 Republicans voted for it, and in the spirit of the season, let's give them propers: Lamar Alexander, Tennessee; Robert Bennett, Utah; Scott Brown, Massachusetts; Thad Cochran, Mississippi; Susan Collins, Maine; Bob Corker, Tennessee; Johnny Isakson, Georgia; Mike Johanns, Nebraska (interesting, the only one surprising to me; helps give Ben Nelson cover in 2012, no?); Dick Lugar, Indiana; Lisa Murkowski, Alaska; Olympia Snowe, Maine; George Voinovich, Ohio. Kind of amazing. All Democrats voted for. Even Ron Wyden made it back from prostate surgery.
Missing from the list? A certain McCain fellow. He really has now just degenerated completely into being a hack. Who can possibly take the man seriously anymore? You just know he's lying through his teeth when he ladles that praise on Sarah Palin. And as for Start, it's exactly the kind of thing he used to be in the Senate to help put his stamp on.
In truth, McCain has always had a reputation for standing on the sidelines, throwing stink bombs, then sweeping in at the end to gobble up credit. Except on campaign finance and a couple other things on which he genuinely did do the work. But now he's just a complete joke. I can understand if you're a conservative you'd have preferred him as president. But for the rest of us...God forbid.
Meanwhile, this session of Congress...geez. Obama could lose an election tomorrow and still be one of the most active and successful presidents of the modern era. Things are going to get pretty tough again next March, when he and the Republicans start fighting over the budget, but for now, enough complaining, liberals!
guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2010 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds
And next, DOMA? | Michael Tomasky
This, I think, is gutsy:
President Obama, although he still supports civil unions over same-sex marriage, said yesterday that he believes the Defense of Marriage Act should be repealed.
"Repealing DOMA, getting ENDA [a bill to protect LGBT people from discrimination] done, those are things that should be done," Obama told The Advocate the night before signing Don't Ask, Don't Tell repeal into law. "I think those are natural next steps legislatively. I'll be frank with you, I think that's not going to get done in two years. We're on a three- or four-year time frame unless there's a real transformation of attitudes within the Republican caucus."
Whoa. The Defense (sic, or not) of Marriage Act was passed in the 90s and signed by Bill Clinton. Much hand-wringing among liberals at the time. It's funny now how that seems the stone-age on gay rights questions. Attitudes were so different. The standard criticism of Bill Clinton was that he was being cowardly and hypocritical, but one always sort of wondered: well, is it so clear that Clinton is personally for gay marriage? Lots of people, even liberal people, weren't quite there yet. One wondered it even more about Hillary, a somewhat stern Methodist. My guess was that they were personally for it in the sense that they knew they were supposed to be for it, but maybe still had some stuff to work through. Which is not a knock on them; many people did. And do.
Obama, on the other hand...I'd be very surprised if he's not personally and emotionally pretty comfortable with gay marriage. Michele too. No matter what Rev. Wright thinks! (Actually, I'm pretty certain he's quite forward looking on such matters.) And yet he told The Advocate, the gay magazine, re gay marriage:
...like a lot of people, I'm wrestling with this. My attitudes are evolving on this. I have always firmly believed in having a robust civil union that provides the rights and benefits under the law that marriage does. I've wrestled with the fact that marriage traditionally has had a different connotation. But I also have a lot of very close friends who are married gay or lesbian couples.And squaring that circle is something that I have not done yet, but I'm continually asking myself this question, and I do think that — I will make this observation, that I notice there is a big generational difference. When you talk to people who are in their 20s, they don't understand what the holdup is on this, regardless of their own sexual orientation. And obviously when you talk to older folks, then there's greater resistance.
And so this is an issue that I'm still wrestling with, others are still wrestling with. What I know is that at minimum, a baseline is that there has to be a strong, robust civil union available to all gay and lesbian couples.
But now here is he talking about repealing DOMA in a second term? Well, that's one way to get lots of activists (and gay donors) to care rather deeply about your reelection, eh? Not to say that it's totally cynical. I mean, most people weren't thinking about DOMA. The journalist interviewing him was asking about it, but like most politicians, he could have just not answered. But he answered and suggested that administration lawyers are studying the matter.
If Obama serves two terms, I have little doubt he's going to go on record at some point as the first president to support gay marriage. Make sure to check Embarracuda's Facebook feed that day, eh?
guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2010 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds
Michael Tomasky's Blog
- Michael Tomasky's profile
- 11 followers
