Your generous
donations help keep
this site running.
Visa/MC/PayPal accepted.
[Note: Since we spent much of the week either looking back at 2009 or looking forward to what 2010 has in store, I thought my New Year's column from the beginning of 2009 was worth looking at again, to see how my suggestions for New Year's resoultions from last year stacked up against reality.
This column [...]
President Barack Obama has the potential of having a pretty good second year in office. Conventional inside-the-Beltway wisdom is that "nothing much gets done in a congressional election year," but this ignores the fact that life itself does not halt for electioneering, but rather keeps right on happening. And there are quite a few positive things either explicitly scheduled for 2010, or at least very likely to happen. This doesn't automatically mean the president is guaranteed to have a great year, but it certainly sets the scene for Obama managing to have a fairly good year.
Who, exactly, is the "Tea Party," is the true question. Are they a grassroots bottom-up movement among like-minded individuals, or are they just crazy people waving hate-filled signs? Are they economic populists, or do they just want to see the president fail spectacularly? Are they a Republican fake-grassroots (or "AstroTurf") mob who is ready, willing, and able to scream on demand, or are they a freedom-infused movement of rugged individualists angry at the overreach of the federal government? Will they force the Republican Party in a bold new direction, or will they actually form a separate Tea Party, complete with their own third-party candidates and platform?
Now, I do realize that we're all getting sick of looking back at 2009, and although I really would much prefer to be writing about looking forward to 2010, we simply must provide a final glance rearwards before moving on to prognosticating the future. Because it is time once again for Obama Poll Watch -- our monthly look back at Obama's approval ratings for the previous month!
Welcome back to my annual outright theft of The McLaughlin Group's awards categories for the past year in politics. What's that? We're sorry, but out lawyers insist we instead use the phrase "my annual legally-allowable constitutionally-protected parody" instead. So sorry. For those of you who missed it, Part 1 of this column ran last week, on Christmas.
While that may seem a rather redundant headline the day before a world-wide party is scheduled, it was actually less provocative than my original concept of selling the theme that America needs more than two viable political parties, which was: "Party! Party! Party! Party!" But then I noticed I had already used one exclamation point in a headline this week; so I realized if I ran my original choice, I would be jeopardizing my standing among the Professional Journalists And Wannabes Who Play One On The Web Guild (the beloved PJAWWPOOTWG, pronounced like... um... well, it's best not to try to pronounce the acronym until you've got at least three stiff drinks under your belt). Where was I? Oh, right, party headlines.
Democrats should realize, by this point, that they're going to have to reposition themselves a bit if they stand any chance in next year's midterm congressional elections. Fortunately for them, there are two issues out there just begging for exploitation. The first is the Republican Party, who has reportedly decided they are going to run next year on taking something away from voters which Democrats have given them -- the healthcare reform bill. And the second is a little-noted bill introduced a few weeks ago by Senators Maria Cantwell (D-WA), John McCain (R-AZ), and Russ Feingold (D-WI), which would bring back a chunk of the banking regulations passed in the Great Depression known as "Glass-Steagall." Together, these two issues present an opportunity for Democrats to reap some of the populist anger brewing out there in the electorate.
Welcome once again to our year-end wrapup and awards ceremony. Honesty dictates that I immediately genuflect to The McLaughlin Group, from whom I have stolen all these award categories. We will begin this week with Part 1 of these annual awards, and then next Friday on New Year's Day, we will present Part 2, with reduced volume levels (for those who are nursing hangovers... ahem).
These days, it takes 60 votes to do just about anything in the United States Senate. That is a fact that galls many, especially since it is a fairly recent development. While the filibuster (or, the more polite modern version, cloture) has been around for a long time, it simply has not been used as such a blunt instrument before in the fashion Republicans are now swinging it around. Which has led to calls to either abolish the filibuster, or scale it back in some way. But proponents of such action should really think long and hard before they do. Because, eventually, the shoe's going to be on the other foot for Democrats in the Senate. This is something which usually gets lost in this debate, or brushed off when mentioned. It really shouldn't, though.
Al Franken provided the sole moment of humor this week, when he smacked down Joe Lieberman, and for that he deserves an Honorable Mention. Franken, sitting in as the guy with the gavel running things in the Senate, was asked by Joe Lieberman for a few more moments (over his 10-minute limit) to speak, by "unanimous consent." Franken, who later said he was just doing what he was told and keeping a strict 10-minute limit, told Lieberman most emphatically "No," and that he -- in the role of senator -- objected, and Lieberman needed to, essentially (Franken was not this blatant), "sit down and shut up."