Things to do this week: House edition.

By Jonathan Bradley in Seattle, WA
15 March 2010

One of my rituals as an intern in the Whip's office—apart from those mundane tasks like delivering the mail, keeping the photocopier filled with paper and ensuring every staffer has a copy of that day's Politico—was checking the publications put out by the office of the Majority Leader Steny Hoyer each day the House was in session. That way I would know which legislation was to be coming up, and which votes we would likely be whipping on. 

Hoyer creates the Daily Leader, which promises for the 15th of March a thrilling day of the House naming post offices, but more worthy of our attention is the Weekly Leader, which lists the House's expected activities for the next five days. This edition, at the end of a run-down of proposed recognitions and expressions of support, contains seven rather exciting, if disappointingly vague words:

Further Action on Health Insurance Reform Legislation

These words are exciting because they haven't appeared in previous editions of the Leader; the Leader discusses business to be conducted on the actual House floor. They're disappointing because "Further Action" isn't the most concrete thing in the world. But it is an indication the House leadership is increasingly confident they can hold a vote on this legislation. And considering that, as Ezra Klein explains, the House Budget Committee has released The Bill That Will Become The Reconciliation Bill, health care reform might just be closer than some of us think.

Print This Post 0 Comments

Mr. District Attorney, I'm not sure if they told you: I'm on TV every day...

By Jonathan Bradley in Seattle, WA
15 March 2010

Let's be positive about this and say that NBC has an admirable respect for the principle of innocent-until-proven-guilty. Because that's the only reason I can think they may have for their casting on the current season of The Apprentice, which debuted this evening. I'll save you from speculating as to whether the above video is a fake: it's not. The line-up for this season's apprentice includes a pre-trial Rod Blagojevich. You know, the former Governor of Illinois who was caught on tape trying to sell a Senate seat, and whose lawyers are currently trying to convince Federal Court to put off his court date until November because they don't have his brand of shampoo in prison Democrats don't want to be testifying against one of their own while campaigning simply have so much paperwork.

But even if NBC is fine with helping Blago rehabilitate his image, the rest of us don't even need to fall back on a distaste for Donald Trump's bloviating to spend our Sunday evenings watching something else. (I tried The Lizzie McGuire Movie, then realised that no stand against government corruption could justify watching The Lizzie McGuire Movie.)

After the jump, the only brand of Blagojevich-related entertainment I feel comfortable endorsing: Spencer Ackerman's remix of Shawty Lo's "Dey Know," titled "Dey Know (Blago)":

Read More

 

Hide

Print This Post 0 Comments

State of the Blogosphere: 12/03/10

By Jonathan Bradley in Seattle, WA
13 March 2010

Whether you're in Australia, the States, or somewhere else on the Internets, it's the weekend. Catch up on some reading:

Print This Post 0 Comments

(Not) Bound for Botany Bay: Obama stays home

By Jonathan Bradley in Seattle, WA
13 March 2010

Well, the USSC's Lesley Russell called it, and now we have confirmation: Barack Obama will be delaying his trip to Australia. Russell's prophecy, from this past Wednesday:

For Australians anxious to see Obama and his family Down Under including surely the Prime Minister and his government the chances of that happening look increasingly iffy. It would be quite difficult for the President to cancel his trip to Indonesia, the political ramifications of that are significant.

But telling an understanding ally like Australia that issues with health-care reforms back in Washington require that a planned visit is rescheduled is an easier matter. Such news should be received with considerable understanding by a Prime Minister just beginning his slog to sell health care reforms prior to an election campaign.

Fortunately for Australia, the visit was not rescheduled, but merely delayed. The New York Times' Caucus blog is reporting that the President will leave three days later than planned; on the 21st rather than the 18th of March, and will leave the wife and kids back in D.C.:

The president’s international trip had grown into a source of frustration among many House Democrats, who complained privately to the White House that they were being forced to take a quick vote on health care so Mr. Obama and his family could leave on the overseas trip next week.

 In fact, the president is no longer taking the first lady, Michelle Obama, and their two daughters on the trip, an administration official said. The president agreed to delay his departure from March 18 to March 21, an administration official said, shortening the trip for official business only in an effort to show flexibility in the final push on health care legislation and to give Mr. Obama more time to win over skeptical House members. The three-day delay effectively sets a new timetable for the House vote on the measure.

Good.

Read More

That new timetable could see the House pass the Senate's version of health care reform as early as next week, according to the Times. The vote would be held on Thursday or Friday if the Congressional Budget Office issues its report on the legislation, and if the legislative text of the package of changes the Senate is to adopt under the reconciliation process can be written in time. 

While I must extend my utmost sympathy to Michelle, Malia, and Sasha Obama for having to miss out on this trip, and I commiserate with my fellow Australians, who I´m sure are eager to have the President over for tea and biscuits, I am glad Obama is to stay in the States. While Russell is right to say his visit to Indonesia is too important to America's foreign policy interests to cancel, Obama does not need to be visiting Australia without delay. I have little doubt that seeing health care reform through these final votes, providing 30 million Americans with insurance, and helping to control costs of a dangerously metastasising sector of the U.S. economy is a better use of Obama's time over those three days than anything he may do in Australia. And that includes crumpets with Kev.

I'm sure many Australians will be disappointed by the delay. But if it will help bring America even this small amount closer to the kind of affordable and accessable health care we enjoy Down Under, then we should gladly accept Obama's apologies. 

Hide

Print This Post 0 Comments

Colbert on health care

By Erin Riley in Sydney, Australia
11 March 2010

Sometimes, the internet just gets it right.  Stephen Colbert and Ezra Klein explain and make comment on the health care bill process, making it both incredibly clear and understandable.  Plus, they're just SO RIGHT.

The Colbert Report Mon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c
Action Center - Health Care Bill - Ezra Klein
www.colbertnation.com
Colbert Report Full Episodes Political Humor Skate Expectations

Print This Post 0 Comments

The problem with governing

By Erin Riley in Sydney
11 March 2010

The barrage of articles on Rahm Emanuel today has crystallized something in my mind that I've been considering for a while since beginning my internship in Washington DC - specifically, the difficulty of governing.

Read More

There's been a number of pieces this week about Emanuel, and whether he's good or bad for the Obama administration, whether he is an effective enforcer or a sell-out who has achieves nothing legislatively.  But what I learnt during my internship, more than anything, was the difference between advocacy and governing, and about the time for each, and when it's appropriate for someone who holds an elected office to do either. Emanuel's job is to get stuff done, not push for the most liberal option regardless of outcome. And the Democrats would do well to remember, at this point, that there is a time and place for both advocacy and pragmatic governing.

I think one of the big problems in the way the US Congress works is the conflation of the two. Certainly, in the Republicans' case, it makes political sense to be obstructionist. If the Democrats pass health care reform, in the long run it will be a good thing for the Dems, and it may even stop the 2010 election from being TOTAL bloodshed.  

But left wing Dems, who are voting against health care because it's not progressive enough, make no sense. There is a time for advocating a certain policy position. That is not now. Because the votes aren't there for a public option, and killing a good bill because it's not a great bill achieves nothing. And doing it to make a point achieves nothing.

And that's the thing. Government needs people in different roles in order to function. It needs advocates and lobbyists to push certain points of view. It needs people to brief and to inform and to pressure. But it also needs people to govern. It needs people to make a decision that is both in the interest of their constituents and politically feasible. Sure, what is politically feasible changes with the briefing and the informing and the pressure. But at a certain point, it becomes necessary to face reality.

So liberals need to give up on the Public Option. It's not going to happen right now. It might happen in the future, but it's not going to happen right now. And they need to remember that August, during the break, was when the educating and the convincing needed to happen. It's too late now. Effective government is about knowing when is the time to try to convince, and when is the time to examine the situation and act according to the reality of the electorate.

Governing can only be partially ideological. Pragmatism must have a place. The Democrats need every vote they can get on Health Care reform, and ideologues like Dennis Kucinich are showing a remarkable lack of responsibility by acting as though voting no is a way to change minds. The time for advocacy is over - it's now time to govern.

Hide

Print This Post 0 Comments

Barbie girls in a Mad Men world

By Jonathan Bradley in Seattle, WA
11 March 2010

[Photo: NYT]

I know it's a little naive to complain that Barbie dolls reinforce traditonal stereotypes and etc., but I was a little disturbed by the announcement that the AMC show "Mad Men" is to have four of its characters immortalised in plastic toy form. And, sure, since these dolls are retailing at US$74.95 each, I'm imagining they're going to end up on collecters' shelves rather than in little girls' bedrooms, but nonetheless, it seems part of the continued cultural conversion of Mad Men from an outlet for pointed commentary to one of chic nostalgia.

Like I said a few months back:

[T]he cutting social commentary of "Mad Men" the TV series ... has no qualms about highlighting the deeply ingrained power lines of early '60s society - whites over blacks, men over women, [unlike] the stylish nostalgia of "Mad Men" the cultural phenomenon. If you get invited to a Mad Men party, you're not going to expect sexual harassment and pregnant women smoking; you're going to find stylish clothes, classy cocktails, and hot retro tunes. "Mad Men" in the public consciousness has come to represent exactly the kind of rose-coloured fantasy world the television series was intent on dismantling.

The response to news of the new toy seems to have been quite positive; New York Magazine's Vulture blog, for instance, enthused, "Okay, the New Mad Men Barbies Look Kind of Cool," while noting that, "if you want them to drink or smoke you'll have to supply your own tiny vice objects, because these Barbies are clean living." I'd add that if you wanted a critique of gender relations in the American workplace, you'll have to supply your own discrimination.

Print This Post 0 Comments

It was supposed to be so easy

By Jonathan Bradley in Seattle, WA
10 March 2010

Well it was, wasn't it? Passing health care, I mean.

I'll admit, I was fooled too. She'll correct me if I'm putting words into her mouth, but one of the things Erin Riley and I were most excited about seeing during our time in D.C. was Congress as it passed its historic health care legislation. And we're now a week into March, Erin is back in Sydney, and the eagle-eyed among you will have noticed my location listed as Seattle, WA. And health care? Well, on strict technicalities, the reform is stalled exactly where it was on Christmas Day: one House bill, one Senate bill, and nothing on the President's desk.

But forgive my irrational exuberance. A coterie of commentators have exhibited far higher expectations than I ever did, if their dire reports of the state of the Obama administration are any indication.

Read More

We've had the Washington Post arguing, on its front page no less, that the White House is in dire straits because it doesn't listen to Rahm Emanuel enough. This was in response to suggestions the White House could pull itself out of dire straits if it listened to Rahm Emanuel less. Then there was Sunday's New York Times, which concluded the White House was in dire straits because it listens to David Axelrod too much. 

You don't even need to disdain Mark Knopfler as much as I do to tire of all this talk about dire straits and the White House, particularly when under examination, things don't look too bad for the Obama administration. True, this is not a great time for Democrats: Americans have too little patience with incumbents at the moment, probably because too many Americans are out of work. The economy is still a little too sluggish in its recovery, the deficit is a little too large for anyone's liking, and Charles Rangel's dealings appear to be a little too shady. The party can expect a tough run in the mid term elections.

But if you look a little farther afield than the Times' condemnation of Axelrod, you'll see within its pages a perfectly cogent summation of Obama's political fortunes:

Polls suggest that the public is already on the president’s side. In a New York Times/CBS News survey early last month, respondents were twice as likely to say that President Obama was trying to work with Republicans as they were to say that Republicans were trying to work with President Obama (62 percent versus 29 percent). And by overwhelming margins, they said they wanted both sides to compromise some positions “in order to get things done.”

[...]

In the New York Times/CBS poll last month, 51 percent said they view the Democrats unfavorably, the highest since November 1994, when the Republicans swept into office. But 57 percent said they view the Republicans the same way, near the all-time high of 60 percent.

The paper quotes a Democratic pollster, Stanley Greenberg:

Greenberg ... noted that the energy behind Democrats in 2006 had been building for a year, beginning with anger over President George W. Bush’s handling of Hurricane Katrina and the Iraq war. “The other side got demoralized as they watched our energy,” Mr. Greenberg said. This time, “our side is demoralized by the lack of progress. It’s almost independent of the energy on the other side.”

The Democrats have to do two things, he said. They have to show that they can govern successfully — passing some version of health care reform would be his preference — and then they have to frame the election as a choice for Democrats

Greenberg may be partisan, but his reading is accurate. This is not yet a Presidency on the ropes. For a start, as Matt Yglesias points out, Obama can lay claim to quite a few accomplishments from his first year in office. The President's approval rating, hovering around 51 per cent, is not nearly as high as it was during the heady months after he first took office, but it remains respectably positive. And most importantly, though commentators seem all too eager to elide this detail, health care, Obama's signature reform, is not dead yet. Rather than proving themselves unable to govern, Democrats are nearing the end of a long process of reform that nobody should have expected would be easy.

As my colleague Erin pointed out in an essay written for the USSC last year [PDF],  the Obama administration's approach "was not married to any particular version of health reform policy. Rather, it crafted an approach to the manner in which the policy would be shaped and political forces managed." In so doing, Erin argues, Obama has advanced this current attempt at reform closer to realisation than ever before.

Now that the Democrats have gotten over their Scott Brown-inspired shakes and realised that 41 Senate seats does not make a majority, this bill has every chance of making it as far as the President's desk. And while I would have preferred to see Obama campaigning six months ago for this legislation as hard as he is now, and while plenty of people around Washington pinpoint the length of time Max Baucus was permitted to seek the support of Senate Republicans (apparently Obama's fault), Obama has so far been reasonably successful in promoting a difficult and historic piece of legislative reform. Examining his administration's supposed failure is like complaining that, a hundred metres short of the finish line, a marathon runner has taken too long to complete the race. 

Hide

Print This Post 0 Comments

Abraham Lincoln, Vampire Hunter

By Jonathan Bradley in Seattle, WA
8 March 2010

Erin has talked before about the odd place Presidents hold in American culture, but this book I spotted in my most recent trip to Borders, is taking the obsession just a little bit too far. I mean, I smirked too when I saw the title of Grahame-Smith's most recent opus, Pride and Prejudice and Zombies, but the Great Emancipator as a nouveau-Buffy? I'm not buying it.

Print This Post 0 Comments

Voting in Australia: Mulholland Drive or Twin Peaks?

By Jonathan Bradley in Seattle, WA
6 March 2010

That's the question I have for USA Today reporter Scott Bowles, who's utterly baffled by a system of voting that millions of Australians seem to cope with every time an election rolls around. 

Our number-the-boxes system came up today because it's being used by the Academy Awards. And although we seem to use it just fine, Bowles seems to think his readers will be baffled. Australian voters will be pleased to know they have the smarts of a “statistics major”:

Explaining Oscar's new voting system for best picture is a little like watching a David Lynch movie: Sometimes you have to nod your head and pretend you understand.

As byzantine as the Academy Awards' new preferential voting format is, there's good reason to change from the one-vote, one-movie system of the past. With 10 nominees, a movie could ostensibly win with 11% of the overall vote.

The new system ensures that won't happen, but Oscar could probably use a statistics major by his side when counting ballots.

Ever since Ralph Nader helped George Bush win the 2000 election, I've thought the U.S. could benefit from a look at, as they call it, instant run-off voting. And were it used in the mid-terms this year, I have no doubt we'd see a plethora of candidates running under the Tea Party banner, assured they would not be robbing votes from more electable Republicans.

Incidentally, voters in Minneapolis-St. Paul, San Francisco, and Cambridge, Massachusetts must have those maths degree smarts, too; they've adopted the Aussie voting system for some races. With something as influential as the Oscars adding their ballot to the list, perhaps it's time the Australian Electoral Commission sent a delegation over here to the States.

Print This Post 1 Comments

Next »