Michael Tomasky's Blog, page 38

Thanksgiving week films in review | Michael Tomasky

We actually made it to a genuine movie theater last week, where, I am proud to report, young Margot made nary a peep. We noted, believe you me, the suspicious and disapproving looks on the faces of our fellow theatergoers as we proudly wheeled the stroller down the aisle. Two hours later, we stood even more proudly, receiving the astonished congratulations of the previously dubious.

We went to see Fair Game. That's the Valerie Plame-Joe Wilson pic. Obviously, conservatives won't have much taste for this one. I thought it was very well made. It was suspenseful and intelligent and short and didn't drag on forever. Though it was clearly told from the Wilsons' point of view, it acknowledged Joe's taste for the spotlight, which even many of his allies at the time of the scandal had some second thoughts about. But bottom line, he was right to do what he did, and seeing all those characters from the Bush White House again and reliving that horrid era even briefly was certainly enough to make me overlook Obama's warts.

If you're politically sympathetic or neutral, you'll find it a worthwhile experience. And if you were raised on 1970s sitcoms, you will greatly appreciate the appearance of the actress who plays Valerie's mother, a noted sitcom sidekick back in the day who hasn't been heard from since. Did any of you spot her? Hilarious, actually.

Pay-per-view found us landing on The Kids Are All Right for Thanksgiving night entertainment. It was cheerful, I suppose, and inoffensive, but a waste of time and money. Well, maybe not. I guess a movie that shows America that two children raised by lesbians can be nice, normal kids is serving some sort of function in society.

But it was a boring and silly film. It seemed like the writers, once they came up with the idea, said to themselves, hey, we've got a clever idea here, so our work is finished; no need for much of a plot per se. Besides, people get to see Annette Bening and Julianne Moore eat face. For $9, you want a plot, too?

The next night we tried Eat Pray Love. This was also a waste of time, but wholly offensive. Now I should stipulate that I haven't read the book, so maybe Elizabeth Gilbert is a deeper person than conveyed by this film version. But let me put it this way: a movie that succeeds in making you feel really sorry for the two men the protagonist has jilted in the film's first 15 minutes isn't really accomplishing what it set out to accomplish.

I can understand the book's, and the movie's, success. Who wouldn't like to check out of their humdrum lives and go to Italy? The problem is that most of us don't do that because we have, you know, responsibilities. Living up to those responsibilities is less romantic than drinking lots of Sangiovese, but it's kind of what life is about. And now I sound like a crotchety conservative! But so be it. It really rubbed me the wrong way.

As for December releases, I hold out tentative hope for The Tourist. Johnny Depp. And Timothy Dalton, whom I rate the great underappreciated Bond of our time, as regular readers know. And Angelina Jolie, back to playing an actual human being. What caught your eye, either last weekend or on the near horizon?

United StatesMichael Tomasky
guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2010 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds

Obama and the pay freeze and the big meeting | Michael Tomasky

So Obama meets today with Mitch McConnell, John Boehner and other Republicans, as well as Democratic leaders, in a 60- or 90-minute session, to talk about the tax cuts, the START treaty and other new business.

One does not see much coming out of this. START seems dead for now. And the R's aren't going to blink on the tax cuts. They seem completely prepared to let taxes on all income levels go up and try to pin it on the Democrats, comfortable in the knowledge that, if taxes go up, your average person will figure that it was the Democrats what did it. They are probably right about that, alas.

One also wonders what the White House thinks it's getting out of Obama's announcement yesterday about a pay freeze for federal workers. I can see the political rationale, provided they get something out of it in return. But what are they getting?

Starting tomorrow, unemployment benefits for 2 million more jobless Americans are going to begin to expire, meaning that these benefits will end during the holiday season. Republicans are opposed to extending them because, of course, doing so would increase the deficit. Yes, extending Bush tax cuts to higher-income brackets would do that, too, on a far grander scale, and it's up to Obama and the Democrats to drive that point home and make sure the voters know about it.

If the Democrats could somehow link the pay freeze to jobless benefits extension, then that would maybe be worth it politically. People care a lot more about jobs right now than the deficit. But the Republicans won't negotiate, even though Obama here has adopted one of their positions. From the Politico story linked to above:

And Obama's attempt to find common ground ahead of the meeting — his last-minute embrace of a two-year wage freeze for federal workers — was met with skepticism by some Republicans, who are irked by Obama's failure to credit them for the proposal during his brief remarks Monday.

"This was a pretty obvious missed opportunity," said a GOP leadership aide. "If you're going to embrace a proposal that Republicans have made in the past, why not say so? Why try to hog all the credit? Communication is like bacon — it makes everything better. But this was just ham-fisted."

I see. So the substantive point doesn't matter because he failed to give the poor babies credit. Boo hoo.

What a bunch of silly, unserious people. That America is confused enough to think these people deserved more seats in Congress is testament to just how weak the Democrats are.

Obama administrationRepublicansMichael Tomasky
guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2010 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds

Hello again; preliminary thoughts on World War III | Michael Tomasky

Hello again. Had a fine week of r-and-r. Will fill you in on certain details as appropriate. But let's start in on this Iran business.

Overall, I have a somewhat counter-intuitive take on the Wikileaks business, which is that I'm surprised that there's nothing more eye-poppingly newsworthy that's emerged from this tranche of leaks. The Saudis and Mubarak and others in the Arab world fear a nuclear Iran. The US spies on the UN sometimes. China is fed up with North Korea. These are certainly interesting things, but they don't shake up one's assessment of the world in a truly fundamental way.

The surprising thing is that the release of a quarter-million unvarnished and unedited cables that were designed for private consumption only don't offer more shocking revelations. Just imagine if a quarter-million private documents from the business world were suddenly made public, as Julian Assange now promises. I'll bet any of you dollars to donuts that those papers will prove to be more surprising than these have.

As to Iran, I suspect that the release of these documents increases the possibility of a US strike on that country for the following reason. As I said above, it's not surprising that Middle East governments privately want the US to take action. But they would never say that publicly. Publicly, they'd say the opposite, and denounce such a strike after it happened. But now they can't do that because they'd stand revealed as hypocrites. So the public knowledge now of their actual position probably increases the chance of an attack.

The same problems remain, though, from the Bush era. First, attack what? Those facilities are spread all over the ground, numerous reports have said, heavily fortified and buried deep in the ground. Second, and following from that, an attack that didn't really wipe out their capabilities would only harden Iran's resolve. Robert Gates understands this. From blogger Matt Duss, two weeks ago:

Speaking today, however, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates knocked back such calls for more aggressive rhetoric, saying that military action is not a long-term answer:

"A military solution, as far as I'm concerned … it will bring together a divided nation. It will make them absolutely committed to obtaining nuclear weapons. And they will just go deeper and more covert," Gates said.

"The only long-term solution in avoiding an Iranian nuclear weapons capability is for the Iranians to decide it's not in their interest. Everything else is a short-term solution."

In a recent article, the Brookings Institution's Ken Pollack concluded that, in addition to generating a number of other highly negative consequences, "attacking Iran is more likely to guarantee an Iranian nuclear arsenal than to preclude it." Numerous other defense analysts and officials have reached similar conclusions.

I'll try to keep my position on this basically the same as my view while George Bush was president, which was that the possibility of a nuclear-armed Iran is grave enough that a strike might be warranted, but it had damn well better work. Otherwise, the negative political and diplomatic consequences would be too great. And given that most experts have said such an attack could not eliminate their capability, it seemed and seems hardly like it was worth the risk.

Two things have changed. One, the US administration did not start an unprovoked war in the region, which provides a different context for potential US military action in Iran. And two, we know know that key players in the region would support such an attack. That's why an attack seems to me now somewhat more likely. But it would be a huge risk. However, so would letting Iran get nukes, which the leaders in the region know better than anyone.

US foreign policyIranWikiLeaksMichael Tomasky
guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2010 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds

Stuffing and gravy | Michael Tomasky

No, that's not a metaphor. This post is literally about stuffing and gravy.

Isn't Thanksgiving just the best holiday? Brits, you don't know what you're missing. I mean, whoever came up with putting it on a Thursday was one of history's great geniuses. You get the Friday too. A four-day weekend is like a...might one say a socialistic paradise? ;)

And of course: A grand traditional meal, lots of football, a shopping excursion, a movie, maybe a board game you used to play when you were kids...you see, I'm conservative in certain ways too!

Turkey is not the world's most delectable meat, perhaps, but it's all in the stuffing and gravy. In past years I've concocted a sourdough stuffing that was excellent. Tear the bread into large-ish cubes and let them sit out overnight so they get a bit dry. Use a little chorizo along with the regular sausage.

At our gatherings, I'm usually the gravy master. You want to have a roasting rack on which to rest the bird, so that it doesn't sit in its juices. Then you want to make a mirepoix and spread it across the bottom of the pan. The onions and carrots and celery will all caramelize (ise) as the bird roasts. After five hours or whatever, they'll be black, but boy do they add zing.

The key device is the gravy separator. Honestly. If you think it's gimmicky...take it from Mikey. Get one. It serves a vital purpose.

Though I start more delicate sauces with a roux, I usually don't bother on Thanksgiving. Just use the roasting pan. Add a little stock, then a little flour, then whisk, then repeat and repeat. Add herbs. Add a liqueur or a brandy. B & B is good. Or plain old Benedictine, which is sweeter and works better in my view. Don't worry about your alcoholic uncle. It burns off. Maple syrup can be good too, but not too much of that.

Have a gravy boat sitting in the sink and position a strainer over it. Do this beforehand. Then, when you've got the flavors and the thickness just how you like it, strain et voila. I like LOADS of gravy at Thanksgiving. I put it over everything on my plate. Gravy over Brussel Sprouts. Heaven. Speaking of Brussel Sprouts: roast those, too. Cut them in half (across the equator) and pop 'em in the oven. Let them caramelize. And butter and salt and pepper and roasted and roughly chopped hazelnuts. It's like candy for adults.

And yes, this is all prelude to saying that I know some of you share recipes anyway (Bookfan, are you making a turkey next Thursday?), so share away. And have a nice week and holiday.

United StatesMichael Tomasky
guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2010 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds

Ailes, Murdoch and Nazis | Michael Tomasky

Roger Ailes has offered his apology to NPR...wait, scratch that. Ailes called NPR executives Nazis. But it wasn't they to whom he said he was sorry. He did that to Abe Foxman, head of the ADL. From Marc Tracy in The Tablet, and note his very droll and hilarious last line:

It doesn't matter that Fox News head Roger Ailes called NPR "Nazis." Why? Because he apologized to Abraham Foxman! Per a press release we got:

The Anti-Defamation League (ADL) has accepted an apology from Roger Ailes, Chairman and CEO of Fox News Channel, for his use of the expression "Nazi attitudes" in an interview to describe officials at National Public Radio.

In a letter to Abraham H. Foxman, ADL National Director, Mr. Ailes wrote that he was sorry for using the term "Nazi" in an interview with The Daily Beast. "I was of course ad-libbing and should not have chosen that word," he wrote, "but I was angry at the time because of NPR's willingness to censor Juan Williams for not being liberal enough."

(Actually, not to nit-pick, but Ailes did more than "use the expression 'Nazi attitudes'"—he actually said of NPR, "They are, of course, Nazis.")

My parents used to tell me that when you apologize but add a "but," you are basically negating the apology. Oh well: "I welcome Roger Ailes's apology, which is as sincere as it is heartfelt," Foxman said. (As it happens, I too believe that Ailes's apology was exactly as sincere as it was heartfelt.)

It once would have been thought kind of amazing that the president of a news organization would call anyone "Nazis." except, you know, for Nazis.

You can disagree with what NPR did and think their execs intolerant without getting into Nazis. But we're in a situation with today's right in which this kind of inflammatory rhetoric is not only winkingly tolerated; it is veritably demanded by the base.

And I'm sorry, but it's not the same on the left. There are plenty of examples, true, and I'm sure our conservative friends will dig them out. But it's not qualitatively the same.

Earlier this year Markos Moulitsas (Daily Kos) published his book American Taliban. It was more attacked than defended in the liberal blogosphere, to my reading, by people (like Yglesias here) who wrote that a literal comparison like that was way over the top. Even Moulitsas' defenders, like Digby, acknowledged that there was no literal comparison.

On the right, allegedly serious people say: no, it's quite literal. Liberalism is fascism. Liberals are Nazis. Not Zyklon B Nazis, they will pleasantly allow; but Nazis in the indoctrination and propaganda and reich-uber-Gott sense.

The core reality of today's right is that rhetoric drives substance. The first order of action on the right, learned from Limbaugh and Beck and so on, is rhetoric. The more extreme the better. The more it offends liberal sensibilities the better. The more it outrages the better.

And when you take rhetorical positions like that - liberalism is fascism, government is evil, Islam is a danger and a hoax, and so on - you define the substantive parameters that can permissibly follow that rhetoric. Because you can't compromise with fascism and evil and dangerous hoaxes. That is impossible. You can only crush them. So you oppose everything, and amp up the rhetoric even more, and the cycle continues.

Calling Obama a Nazi has already been made normal. I read a couple of days ago how many times Glenn Beck has used words like "Nazis" and "Hitler" and "communism" and "fascism" in the last two years. I can't find the link now, but it was a lot; enough that if you added them up and made a rough calculation of the number of shows he's done in that time, that it's an everyday thing for him. He's the highest profile, but he's not alone. All over the country on the AM radio dial, his imitators and wannabees are doing the same thing.

Does anyone care about this? Does the ADL care about this? A group allegedly dedicated to fighting hate and bigotry in all their forms? Oh, yes, the ADL cares. They gave Rupert Murdoch an award last month.

Ben Adler of Newsweek writes that the ADL should revoke the award. That would be a courageous thing. It's obviously not going to happen. I'd like to say here that someone, some prominent Republican, needs to stand up to this and call it out, but it wouldn't do any good. Whoever did that would simply be accused of being a quisling, and the cycle would start up again, reinforcing itself in its thrashing little eddies of acrimony.

Rupert MurdochMichael Tomasky
guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2010 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds

Video | Tomasky Talk: What's on the agenda as Washington gets back to business

Michael Tomasky discusses the Bush-era tax cuts, Start nuclear treaty, the battle to succeed Republican national committee chairman Michael Steele and more from DC

Michael Tomasky

Friday quiz: a different kind of culture | Michael Tomasky

When I first started reading history and following politics, I was always intimidated and confused by shorthand references like, "Druze militiamen in Lebanon today responded to the government..." Druze? Who were these people? Why didn't they bother to explain it more?

The Christian Science Monitor, which I read a bit in college and which was in those days an excellent foreign-affairs newspaper, bothered with slightly more thorough explaining, but even they didn't do much. Then every so often war would break out somewhere in the world between this group and that one, and the news would go into a little more detail, which usually boiled down to the idea that they'd hated each other for a thousand years.

I began thinking that I should know more about the world's ethnic groups. I looked around for something like an encyclopedia of the world's cultures. To my shock, none seemed to exist. This was before the internets. Then came Wikipedia and Brittanica online and such like, and my prayers, such as they were, were answered.

And so today I share with you this mini-enthusiasm of mine of world cultures and ethnic groups. I fear this may bore you or otherwise put you off. I've compensated, and maybe over-compensated, by throwing in more gimme questions than usual, on the theory that a good score can compensate for anything. This isn't a fun subject like Swinging London. It's a bit DBW as we say in the newspaper trade (that's the extra credit question: what does DBW stand for?). But by cracky, people, you should know these things. So let's get cracking.

1. These people reside in the eastern portion of India, going back some 4,000 years; three Nobel laureates are members of this ethnic group, along with Ravi Shankar:
a. Punjabi
b. Bengali
c. Hindi

2. There are more than 300 ethnic groups in this country, in which the dominant group is the Javanese:
a. Indonesia
b. Borneo
c. Thailand

3. This is the main ethnic group of Burma, a people who migrated from the present-day Yunnan in China about 1,200 years ago:
a. Bamar
b. Shan
c. Chin

4. The Altaic language family links what two improbable countries?
a. Greece and Egypt
b. Pakistan and China
c. Turkey and Korea

5. This ethnic group is spread today chiefly across Pakistan, Iran and Afghanistan; Amnesty International reports that discrimination against them is most rampant in Iran.
a. Turkmen
b. Kurds
c. Baluchis

6. Members of this ethnic group are spread across Greece, Serbia and Bulgaria; their existence is not accepted by the Greek government, which instead refers to them as Slavophone Greeks.
a. Armenians
b. Macedonians
c. Vlachs

7. The people we used to call Gypsys are more properly members of the Roma or Romani group; they trace their origins to what country:
a. India
b. Turkey
c. Iraq

8. Under apartheid, members of this group were considered third-class citizens:
a. Yoruba
b. Zulu
c. Bantu

9. Syria's ruling family, the Assads, are members of which ethnic minority group in that country, where they constitute just 1.35 million of the 22 million people:
a. Chaldeans
b. Druze
c. Alawis

10. This population in Central America refers to people of mixed European and Indoamerican descent; Guatemala and Honduras are the countries in which they are most plentifully found today.
a. Miskito
b. Mestizo
c. Miguelito

11. The name of this Native American tribe, which resided originally in Minnesota and the Dakotas, was first recorded to the white man by a French explorer in the mid-1600s:
a. Apache
b. Nez Perce
c. Sioux

12. This large Russian group fought on both sides in World War II, or the Great Patriotic War as it was known in the USSR; most joined the Red Army, but many signed up with the Wehrmacht on the promise that Germany would in victory grant them an independent nation:
a. Cossacks
b. Tatars
c. Kazakhs

I hope you found that interesting. I think it's all very interesting, anyway, and hey, it is my blog. Let's look at the answers.

Answers:
1-b; 2-a; 3-a; 4-c; 5-c; 6-b; 7-a; 8-b; 9-c; 10-b; 11-c; 12-a.

Notes:
1. Should've been pretty simple. The recent laureates are Amartya Sen and Mohammad Yunus, plus a poet going way back to the 1910s.
2. A gimme, I should think.
3. A tough one, although guessable just because of the B's.
4. Altaic languages include Korean, Japanese, Mongolian, and Turkic. I first read that a few years and found it pretty fascinating.
5. The Iran part of the question was a tip-off. Also answerable simply by doing the right kind of ethnic dining.
6. Should have been fairly easy.
7. Easy, but I couldn't do a quiz on ethnicities without including a Roma question.
8. Only the Zulu are in South Africa in large numbers.
9. How did they grab the throne, anyway?
10. Tough between a and b; c is a little joke thrown in by little Mike heh heh.
11. French, so had to be b or c, right?
12. One of the few groups of people you can't really blame so much for signing up with the Third Reich, given that old Joe wasn't so nice to them.

Well, I hope this encourages you to look into these questions a bit more. Or am I underestimating the level of interest in and knowledge of these things? I assume several of you are members of various ethnic minorities. Tell us more about what you know, and of course how you did. And remember: what's DBW?

And by the way: I am taking all of next week off. It's Thanksgiving week in America, and we're going to New York and then Columbus Ohio, a trip that will culminate in my attending the Ohio State-Michigan game (yep; wow! Thanks, Susan). So there'll be no blogging next week unless something monumental happens, and likely no quiz, although there's maybe a 30% chance that my sister and niece, Tomasky blog quiz aficionados that they are, will collaborate with me on one. Or maybe we'll just go to the movies, we'll see.

United StatesMichael Tomasky
guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2010 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds

Tax cuts and growth and the two parties | Michael Tomasky

David Leonhardt at the Times asks an excellent question: Why are we reflexively assuming in the current tax debate that extending the Bush tax cuts will be good for growth?

He then answers the question:

Those tax cuts passed in 2001 amid big promises about what they would do for the economy. What followed? The decade with the slowest average annual growth since World War II. Amazingly, that statement is true even if you forget about the Great Recession and simply look at 2001-7.

The competition for slowest growth is not even close, either. Growth from 2001 to 2007 averaged 2.39 percent a year (and growth from 2001 through the third quarter of 2010 averaged 1.66 percent). The decade with the second-worst showing for growth was 1971 to 1980 — the dreaded 1970s — but it still had 3.21 percent average growth.

The picture does not change if you instead look at five-year periods.

The slowest annual growth since WWII. Interesting. Leonhardt publishes a table showing GDP growth in five-year periods from 1956 to the present. As I perused this chart, I couldn't help but think who was president at which given time.

Let's call 3% GDP the cut-off between really strong growth and so-so or worse growth. It's a reasonable general figure to employ. And if we do we see the following:
1. 1960-1965, 5%; Democratic presidents
2. 1996-2000, 4.3%; Democratic president
3. 1976-1980, 3.7%; Democratic president
4. 1965-1970, 3.4%; mostly Democratic president
5. 1981-1985, 3.2%; Republican president
6. 1986-1990, 3.2%; Republican presidents

So those are the healthy periods. And now for the sickly ones:
7. 1971-1975, 2.8%; Republican presidents
8. 1956-1960, 2.6%; Republican president
9. 1991-1995, 2.6%; mostly Republican president (Clinton inheriting recession)
10. 2001-2005, 2.5%; Republican president
11. 2006-2010, .9%; mostly Republican president (Obama inheriting Great Recession)

See a pattern? Larry Bartels saw the same pattern with regard to wages and economic equality. Of course, these are just facts, and I'm well aware that facts don't mean much stacked up against really pretty rhetoric.

US economyDemocratsRepublicansMichael Tomasky
guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2010 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds

START treaty madness | Michael Tomasky

Of all the lows they've hit these last two years, the Republicans have never gone this low. No, seriously. Blocking a nuclear arms treaty that would have the US and Russia working more closely together to control loose nukes and that is supported by people across the spectrum to deny Obama a political win is as low as it gets.

And the potential consequences are hideous. Matt Duss, from the Wonk Room:

Dismantling the arguments against the START treaty on the NewsHour last night, Richard Burt, the Reagan administration's chief U.S. negotiator for the original START treaty, noted that "there are only two governments in the world that wouldn't like to see this treaty ratified, the government in Tehran and the government in North Korea."

Burt also warned that, if the treaty fails, not only would "we miss the opportunity to improve relations with the Russians, who have supported us on Iran and U.N. sanctions and increasingly in Afghanistan," but the U.S. would also "lose all credibility on the problem of stopping nuclear proliferation."..

...But as Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) has already — repeatedly — admitted, the GOP's main goal is making sure that President Obama is "a one term president." Severely handicapping the President's ability to credibly conduct American foreign policy — regardless of the actual consequences — is just one tactic in that larger effort.

Jon Kyl objects because the modernization issues aren't resolved to his satisfaction? Really? Please. He's been moving the goalposts on these issues all year, as the administration has thrown more money into modernization to address his concerns. NYT:

The administration has committed to spending $80 billion program to do that over the next 10 years, but Mr. Kyl has sought more money and greater assurance that the money would come through in future years.

In recent days, the administration dangled an additional $4 billion in hopes of winning his support, but Mr. Kyl held out. The administration has also promised to spend more than $100 billion over 10 years upgrading the triad of nuclear weapons: submarines, bombers and missiles.

Ask yourself if you honestly think that Kyl would still be saying no to a Republican administration that put a five-fold increase in spending on the table ($800 million to $4 billion).

James Baker was there with the president today. And Henry Kissinger. And Brent Scowcroft. Also current Senator Dick Lugar. Republicans all. Does it matter? Does anything matter? Defeat Obama. That's all that matters. It's bad enough when it's about benefits for jobless Americans. This is about nuclear nonproliferation. It's about Iran.

Obama and all Democrats better step up their game on this. In the old days of politics, for a Democratic president to have Kissinger at his side was enough. The Republicans would assent. That's not the case now, obviously.

This provides us a good real-life case study in political strategy. There will be some issues on which Obama will have to compromise with the GOP. But there will be some things on which he has to come out swinging. This is one of the latter. And not just Obama. Every Democrat who remotely matters on foreign policy. Can they coordinate like this? Can they demonize Kyl? Do they have the nerve?

Democrats, you face a truly demented opposition that knows only political warfare. Do something about it.

Obama administrationUS foreign policyRussiaMichael Tomasky
guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2010 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds

The Pelosi vote | Michael Tomasky

The vote among Democrats in the House of Representatives to retain Nancy Pelosi as their leader was closer than expected, at least. The NYT:

Representative Nancy Pelosi was returned as the House Democratic leader on Wednesday on a vote that exposed clear unease among some colleagues about her remaining as the party's most visible figure in the House after deep losses in the November elections.

Ms. Pelosi, who will hand over the speaker's gavel at the beginning of the new Congress in January when Republicans assume control, defeated Representative Heath Shuler, a conservative from North Carolina, by a vote of 150 to 43. On an earlier vote that some Democrats framed as a proxy on Ms. Pelosi, her supporters beat back an effort to delay the leadership showdown to allow more review of the election by 129 to 68.

The meeting took six hours. Sure, there are some procedural matters to attend t that take time. But six hours is a lot of hours for one meeting, and I doubt they were in there watching Mr. Smith Goes to Washington. Obviously, there was tension aplenty.

Of more interest than the Pelosi-Shuler vote, because Shuler is just a two-termer after all who hasn't built up chits with colleagues, is the 129-68 vote on refusing to delay the vote. It's interesting because Peter DeFazio, a liberal from Oregon, was the person behind it. Maybe there's some ill will between him and Pelosi with which I'm unfamiliar, and if so, that would explain that.

But it's this vote that I think can be read in some ways as the equivalent of the vote of confidence in Pelosi. She wasn't put up against anyone else; this was just, vote for her or don't. And 35% of the caucus effectively voted no on her. That's a lot.

Pelosi's own reaction, via The Hill newspaper:

After her victory, Pelosi forcefully shot down the notion that, by remaining leader, she was ignoring a message for change from the voters.

"The message we received from the American people was that they want a job — they want jobs," the Speaker said. "Nine-and-a-half percent unemployment is a very tough screen to get through with any other message."

She also rejected the argument that her low approval ratings brought down Democrats in 2010.

"Well, let me put that in perspective," Pelosi said. "How would your ratings be if $75 million were spent against you?" she asked, referring to the Republican campaign to vilify her in television ads.

In fairness, let's remember that quotes are plucked out, and only the best ones used. She may have said more than this. But blaming the economy isn't good enough.

It's objectively true, what she said. But it's not what she should be saying. When you lose like that, you are supposed to be more self-analytical than that. It's like the quarterback of a football (US) team, after a 42-10 loss, blaming it on the refs for a series of bad calls.

And in her second statement, does she not implicitly acknowledge that she is a liability? At the least she acknowledges that she has lousy ratings.

It is curious to me, I must admit, that the anti-Pelosi forces couldn't find anyone better than Shuler to run. He's mouthy and kind of a show-off. I guess he's just the only one with the cojones to do it knowing he was going to lose and potentially made top Democrat on the Select Committee for Capitol Hill Custodial Services or whatever.

I repeat what I said last week: I don't think this is a crisis, necessarily, but it is certainly a missed opportunity. What I would like to have seen is Obama lead a brain-storming session to decide on new House leadership. There are a number of Democrats who have a foot in the liberal camp and a foot in the moderate camp who could have taken on this job and signaled to the country that the Democrats were changing direction.

Before you start banging on Obama for failing to do this, I should say that that would have been well nigh unprecedented, at least in modern times. For a president to have directed the removal of a sitting House leader? The houses of Congress usually attend to their own business. I remember it was a huge stink when Rove meddled in GOP Senate business back in 2002, after Trent Lott had to step down as leader. So I'm talking about something abstract here. But I think this situation needed some new thinking and a new approach.

And to liberals who defend her great track record of accomplishment, I say, yes, to a point. But those accomplishments were controversial and in some cases very unpopular. Is that her fault? In fact, yes, sort of: she and all Democrats needed to make much better cases than they made for the big bills they passed.

People can read into her win whatever they wish. But the bottom line is the usual bottom line: she was reelected chiefly because she raised a lot of money for these people and directed donations their way. If someone thinks that's a good way for a party that just lost 60-plus seats to do business, then by all means, defend it.

This won't be good. It may not be awful. But it won't be good.

US CongressNancy PelosiDemocratsMichael Tomasky
guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2010 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds