Well it's official. Though Jim Martin is a Better Democrat, Chris and I have been pretty much AWOL on this race. That was not by design, we just sort of didn't feel it. Personally, my belief was that Obama wasn't willing to risk his political capital for Martin despite Martin's request, the Senate Democrats had just betrayed on Lieberman, so there was limited upside for progressives. I like Martin a great deal, but Georgia is Georgia, and I couldn't in good conscience ask people to support someone ardently under these conditions. God bless those who can get up for every race where a Democrat is running, and God bless the organizers who went to Georgia to push for Martin, but I've never believed in the 60 vote threshold argument, and I go back and forth on whether to take risks simply to further establishment Democratic power when the existing establishment Democratic power base refuses to take risks themselves.
If there's some lesson from Georgia, the relatively low turnout despite great organizing work suggests whatever changes occurred to the map in November, 2004 have not really shifted voter allegiances in any firm ideological sense yet. While the Democrats as a whole have changed the conversation somewhat, McCain nationally still got 46% of the vote, and that's only 4 points from a majority, or 1 in 25 Americans. And Georgia is still Georgia.
... Martin also was behind in nine consecutive polls. That was a big factor as well. I couldn't ask people to plunk down cash in this economy for such a long-shot.
Representative Xavier Becerra, a California Democrat who once declared U.S. trade policy was "broken completely," has been offered the job of President- elect Barack Obama's top trade official, two Democrats close to the transition office said.
Becerra, a member of the House Ways and Means Committee, which oversees trade policy, said in a 2005 interview that he regretted voting for Nafta in 1993, and cited the problems with the trade accord as a reason he helped lead the opposition to the Central American Free Trade Agreement that year.
He also voted against a free-trade agreement with Oman, using the example of the record U.S. trade deficit with China as a reason to oppose it.
Beccera hasn't accepted yet, but if he does, my initial reaction is that this is a solid choice. No, it's not perfect - Beccera voted for the landmark China PNTR deal in 2000 and for the Peru Free Trade Agreement. But perfect shouldn't be the enemy of the damn good.
Getting a U.S. Trade Representative who is on record against the NAFTA trade model and with votes against CAFTA and Oman is a huge change from both the Bush administration and the Clinton administration. And it's not just a good pick because it's a change from really bad Trade Representatives, the selection itself is good - and way, way, way better than what it could have been. The selection suggests Obama is serious about reforming our trade policies, and it should be applauded.
This is a thread for returns in the Georgia Senate race. Keep in mind that the early returns will probably, just like on November 4th, be from more pro-Chambliss areas.
Update: Martin is underperforming November 4th by about 8%:
I have a spreadsheet comparing results by county between the runoff and the general election. Martin appears to be underperforming by about 8%. It looks like it will be a short night, unfortunately.
Chambliss will win. It will probably be called very soon. Damn. Much now rests on Minnesota, including the Employee Free Choice Act.
Martin doing 3.2% worse than his 48.5% share of the two-way vote on Nov 4th. That means he's at like 45%.
Hopefully a lot of Absentee/Early Voting in the numbers. Again no democratic counties are in - with extremely low turnout, moderate turnout in those counties can win it for Martin.
Update 3: The numbers are really bad, and Martin is underperforming everywhere. Chambliss will win, and I will stop updating.
I find the traditional media intolerable for its fake little dramas. Obama for instance promised a centrist administration that took in points of view from all sides, and he is delivering on that promise. I didn't like what he said at the time, but I understood he said it. It is not therefore a betrayal of the left that he is doing exactly what he said he'd do. The narrative that Obama was an ideologically progressive was nearly always in contradiction to his own statements and political choices, as Chris noted on Hardball last night.
The drama over Hillary Clinton is similarly ridiculous. In one primary debate, in what was a high-profile moment, Obama snarkily noted he'd want Clinton to advise him should he become President.
And so he did exactly what he promised he'd do during the campaign. He chose Hillary Clinton as someone who would advise him on foreign policy.
Yesterday, I was marveling at the number of media requests I have been receiving over the past two weeks. The following passage from last Sunday's edition of the Chris Matthews show offers key insight into why (big hat tip to David Mizner in quick hits):
Ms. CONNOLLY: It may not be gays in the military, but I guarantee you there are going to be hot button issues that are going to be come up. You're already seeing some of that agitation...
MATTHEWS: Oh......(unintelligible)...trade issues. If we try to put up the trade walls, we're going to have a fight on labor issues, like this card check thing about being able to organize with individual decision making rather than a big voting election kind of thing. Those kind of issues could really reach, as you say, could divide the Democrats, right?
Ms. CONNOLLY: Absolutely, but here's the key to this: Rahm Emanuel, chief of staff. What did he do when he was in the House Democratic caucus? He often was the person who had to break it to the liberals in that caucus that things were not going to go their way.
MATTHEWS: OK. Who's going to break it to the blogosphere? They don't like anything that looks like a give to the right. Where are they going to be on this thing? Are they going to give him a break if he doesn't go hard left, if he doesn't do what they want?
Mr. WHITAKER: I think that Obama has to worry as much about the far left as he does about the far right. But, look, you know, I think that it could be a plus for him in some ways because I think they are going to give him what you might call Sister Souljah moments, when he can stand up to them.
MATTHEWS: Right.
Mr. WHITAKER: I've been talking to some veterans of those early Clinton wars who think that particularly this issue--the card check push by the labor unions to change the rules on organizing could be a moment for him, either by delaying that, standing up to the unions, of positioning himself more in the middle and making it harder for the far right to position him the way they tried to during the campaign. It's a predictable...
Mr. IGNATIUS: This is where the economic crisis, you know, ends up being crucial because people are angry. The country's furious, and a lot of these really divisive issues, I think, will come from the left, not from the right, and they'll come from unions, from working people who are enraged at bailouts for big banks and wealthy executives, and the pressure on Obama to check some of what he'd like to do on the economy, I think's going to be very strong from angry people.
Unlike David in quick hits, I don't actually find this passage disheartening. While these pundits were looking for a backlash, the options they floated from the right--cultural issues and the Employee Free Choice Act--were pretty weak and unconvincing. Second, they actually seemed to suggest the greater possibility of a continued, mass, populist left-wing backlash against the federal government, even with Democrats in charge. Third, they seemed to grant the blogosphere more power and unity than we actually have. Since power perceived is often power achieved, I'll take it.
I'm liking where this narrative is going. More in the extended entry.
While there's a fair amount of denial going on in the righty blogosphere (it was the media's fault!) there are some examples of refreshing, head-not-buried-entirely-in-the-sand, honesty:
We lost because nobody in their right mind would trust us to run a government.
Why? What did you do wrong?
We've long been the Party of fiscal restraint, but when we had all three branches we went on a spending binge that would embarrass a drunken sailor...... In seven years we demonstrated to the American people that we really didn't mean what we'd said for all those years; we weren't against spending, we were against Democrat spending. We weren't against big government, we just wanted it big in the places we like. The people caught us in the lie and held us responsible for it.
But wasn't it just the media's fault?
I know, it wasn't right, wasn't fair, was a media lynching of GWB; all of that is true, but we laid ourselves open for it. When you run as the adults of the group, you don't put the former general counsel of a horsebreeding association in charge of a high profile federal agency.
Picky picky. But what should be done? From the comments:
Who pushed us into the suckosphere?
I know you don't like this question, but if we don't get rid of those who lead us here won't they just lead us back to sucking after they again gain power?
The cancer of suck isn't cured by just acknowledging the suck...I think at this point maybe a regiment of suck killing chemo might be in order. Otherwise we will just see a remission of suck until it comes back more powerful. And that would really suck.
Per my last blog post on depression in the business lobbying world, the National Association of Manufacturer's, one of the 'gang of six' hardcore conservative business lobby groups, is axing 10% of its staff though of course not its higher level senior staff, since expensive Republican lobbyists are so valuable in this environment. One point made this morning at my Carlyle group sponsored corporate meeting is that dues for associations are on the chopping block. If I were a mean liberal, I'd probably argue that these are the kinds of frivolous expenses that companies getting government assistance shouldn't be able to shell out. Meddling in politics is only for healthy companies.
One reason the backlash in 1994 was so powerful is because it was well-funded by wealthy interests with discretionary income. This recession, though, is hitting corporations and wealthy individuals right where it hurts, through the credit market, so to the extent that this recession continues through 2009 and 2010, it may actually impede the regrowth of the conservative movement. Once these lobbying groups start weakening, they become less relevant, and it's something of a vicious cycle as revenue streams collapse.
If I'm a business lobbyist in town, I'm focusing my energy on getting business from green companies and the tech world to take advantage of an open government and green stimulus. We may see a very different 'business community' emerge.
I've tried to put myself in the shoes of the Long Island lemmings who stomped the life out of Jdimytai "Jimbo" Damour in their rampage to ring up a bargain, but I just can't seem to fit into their frenzied footwear. Black Friday--this travesty of a tradition of dashing out the door to score a discounted tv or dvd player before you've even begun to digest your Thanksgiving dinner--is a sign of how badly we need to heed the Reverend Billy and seek salvation at the Church of Stop Shopping.
So I was at an event this morning called 'the New Washington' sponsored by Qorvis, a business lobbying group that has done good work on behalf of net neutrality. The business community, as it's known in DC, is an ideologically conservative group, with a history of representing huge sprawlconomy companies that thrive on a pliant DC and a weak union movement. Their revenue streams have been hit hard already by this economic downturn and the liquidity crunch. I met Todd Stottlemyer, the President and CEO of the National Federation of Independent Businesses, which represents a certain slice of the small business world. These older groups are being displaced by a less savvy but more potent green and webbie business world represented by Google's constantly expanding presence, and they sort of know it.
I wanted to get the mood of the conservative trade association crowd; the strain of spinning something positive from the election and the crushing recession was evident. Aside from discussions of businesses cutting expenses like dues to the Chamber of Commerce and Christmas parties, and a realization that companies like Deloite are going to lose their contracts for work that should be done with the civil service, the panels included quotes like this, from the President of a local Chamber of Commerce:
"There's opportunity for positive thinkers. I've heard of one firm that is taking their real estate lawyers and retraining them on bankruptcy and divorce."
So I was at an event this morning called 'the New Washington' sponsored by 
