Fascinating, if not unsurprising column by Politico’s JOHN BRESNAHAN today… Pelosi lays down the law with Rahm”. Apparently she has made it quite clear to Obama’s Chief of Staff-elect that there will be no back door deals with Blue Dog or moderate New Dems, thwarting Pelosi’s leadership on issues.
Citing the Bush admin’s WH leadership as the creators of policy (and aren’t they supposed to??) and the GOPs almost dutiful following on most issues (except immigration and bailouts… and campaign era ostracization…), the Speaker has laid down the law that she will not tolerate repeats of this Presidential power.
Specifically, Pelosi has told Emanuel that she wants to know when representatives of the incoming administration have any contact with her rank-and-file Democrats — and why, sources say.
~~~Pelosi “is not going to allow Obama to triangulate her,” said a Democratic source close to the leadership. “It’s not going to happen to her.”
Pelosi’s mantra, in a way, is “no surprises.” The speaker wants to be told when Reid is communicating with the Blue Dogs or other factions with her caucus, and she expects the same from Obama when he arrives in the Oval Office, said Democratic sources.
This confirmation of intended micro-management of the Oval Office by Congressional leftist leaders does little to dispel the notion that Obama was a better DNC candidate since he would be a more willing dummy to the Pelosi/Reid ventroliquist than a willful Hillary.
Pelosi attempts to make light of laying down the law to the Obama admin, saying they agree on most issues anyway. But the power struggle is inevitable.
But it won’t always be that easy. Capitol Hill veterans predict that, no matter how much goodwill there is at the start of a new administration, there are always battles over policy and legislative priorities between the White House and Congress.
“There is tension. There is going to be tension,” said a Democratic veteran of Capitol Hill. “This is not Hastert. She wants to know what they are up to.”
Obama campaigned on progressive/socialist promises… most of which will be thwarted by economic realities. The media and many of our commenters here at FA have triumphantly stated that Obama will “govern from the left of center”. Pelosi’s goals are anything but “left of center”.
If Obama attempts to walk the moderate left path, there is a serious dust up brewing in the not so distant future between the President-elect, and the very ambitious progressive/socialist Speaker. Pelosi seeks to take advantage of the almost complete hold on power in the three branches. This window of opportunity is narrow and fragile. The power to accomplish any pet legislation – plus stack the Supreme Court with an even heavier balance of judges dedicated to a “living Constitution”, basing decisions on public opinion instead of strict constructionism – spans but a few years.
Considering that Emmanuel’s rise in the party – including ambitions to one day be Speaker – is due to considerable efforts and favors by Pelosi, one will have to wonder with whom Rahm’bo’s loyalty will lie.
Does he stick with the man who tapped him for the administrative position of power?
Or does he align himself with the 3rd in line to the Oval Office, who has already vested time and energy into grooming Emmanuel for a future as a Dem star?
One thing is certain. Pelosi is apt to start calling in favors.
Rahm’bo must weigh his long term future carefully. Who’s apron strings will provide long term security? Obama’s power may only be for one term, and max two…. eight years.
Pelosi, however, is like the energizer bunny… a career powerhouse.
Vietnam era Navy wife, indy/conservative, and an official California escapee now residing as a red speck in the sea of Oregon blue.
Pelosi just wants to make sure Rahm isn’t trying to buy and votes… pay for play the White House way!
Maybe she’s worried he might try and raffle off her seat in the speakers chair.
Doesn’t she know he’s just going to lie and say he had “no contacts?”
I do wish you’d drop that discredited chestnut that somehow Obama campaigned as the uber Socialist.
What this signifies, more than anything else, is Pelosi’s fear that Obama will, in fact, govern as a centrist, and, in many cases, even as a right-centrist. She’s trying to protect her turf. She wouldn’t be doing stuff like this, if she didn’t realize that Obama was actually not going to fall into line with the wishes of the Leftist Democratic base.
Obama isn’t going to be in Harry Reid’s pocket, or in Nancy Pelosi’s handbag. This is completely obvious to anyone who makes the effort to study Obama’s past life.
– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach
Let’s see:
1: increase taxes on the “wealthy”, of which the morphing threshold is determined by Obama. Of course this act is justified and – defined by Obama in his own words – as “spreading the wealth”. Naw… nothing Marxist about that.
2: universal, govt issued health care, taxpayers’ expense, of course
3: “windfall profits” on Obama select businesses… the same as dictating to a private enterprise just how much they are allowed to make before the govt seizes “overage”
4: taxpayer funded preschool with “social & economic justice” curriculum
5: taxpayer funded college, no doubt with curriculum emphasis as above, as that’s Obama’s (and coincidently Bill Ayers) educational mantra
6: taxpayer funded adult “re’training” classes
7: taxpayer funded (and thereby govt owned?) new energy grids and alternative sources
8: a new youth citizen milita… and I have my theories what that’s all about. But I’ll address it when it comes down the pike.
Of course, that’s not all. This is just a short list that I’ms sure others can and will add too. But wait… the President elect and his Congressional buddies now want a new “auto czar”, exacting the price of the auto bailout to control over the auto manuf for models produced, and the price they will sell for. Another ‘unofficial’ take over of business, without putting the enterprise in the US govt’s name.
And the sad part? Isn’t but a handful of conservatives in Congress willing to raise a whimper.
Sorry Mark… you may “wish” we’d drope the socialist chestnut. All I can say is, the truth hurts. Get used to it. Obama campaigned as a progressive/socialist. What he will govern as? Time will only tell. But whatever he does in the move to the far left, it will be in small increments, and preceded by some crisis of “doom” to justify it.
It seems Nanci has bought into the lie that obama plans to govern from the center. Look at his picks and tell me he’s picked moderates. Other than Gates and maybe retired General Jim Jones, he has NOT picked moderates. He campaigned as a major socialist and will govern as such as soon as he can. Those that cannot see this are willingly blind.
Ummm and Larry, I have studied obama’s past. He comes from marxists, made it a point to socialize with them in college, and in his political career. If you are honest with yourself you may look back on these posts and kick yourself for being so deliberately blind when obama reveals what he truly is.
It makes sense, Pelosi is a micromanager.
________________________________________________________________________
@Mark, …
Obama IS a socialist, as are all of todays Dems and some of todays Reps.
http://obamaism.blogspot.com/
http://newzeal.blogspot.com/2008/10/obama-file-41-obama-was-new-party.html
http://www.tinyvital.com/blog/2008/10/27/obamas-constitution-written-in-pencil/
http://obamawtf.blogspot.com/2008_05_01_archive.html
etc., etc., etc., etc., ………..
It’s about time you Bozos droped the discredited chestnut that Obama’s (and the Dems’) negatives have been discredited.
“Obama isn’t going to be in Harry Reid’s pocket, or in Nancy Pelosi’s handbag.”
Could it lead to the ultimate grudge match? If their infighting is more intense than their hatred of Bush, this could get real interesting, especailly if it leads to the demise of the Left. Hey, one can “hope.”
Mark,
By FA standards Alan Greenspan is a socialist. Literally. This guys are so far from mainstream they don’t even know it.
Fit, I have no idea where you came up with that. Perhaps you’d like to show us anywhere in the FA archives that any one of us has likened Greenspan to a Marxist/socialist? Made some errors of judgment in his time, but who hasn’t. And with that position, errors really rock the economic world.
You have, otherwise, just made a blanket statement of idiocy to kiss the butt of Mark. And I, for one, think that’s far beneath you.
Greenspan has said a progressive tax structure is essential for capitalism to function. I believe he even used the dreaded “redistribution of wealth” phrase.
Fit
You are dodging Mata’s question, arguing YOURSELF that he fits whatever conception you have of what we consider Leftist. But you need to make the case that, as you claim, we say so, otherwise please don’t continue embarassing yourslef. Also, just becaue you “believe” he said something that “fits” your misconception of what our conceptions might be doesn’t make it true.
What a tangled web they weave.
Fit, the problem with your claim is the wealth statement alone doesn’t make him a socialist. Taken as a whole, obama is definitely a socialist and that is simply more proof to add to the mountain. Greenspan? Not at all when you look at overall picture. Trying to twist that phrase into a smear on FA posters is dispicable. Have we not had our coffee yet?
Mata, Yonason,
I’m not a lawyer but sometimes I write like one. Re-read my original statement. I didn’t say anyone here said that, what I said was by your standards. If you consider Obama a socialist per his conversation with Joe, then by your standards Greenspan should be as well. I’ve linked to web articles supporting this before. The “redistribution of wealth” came during a television interview, which until I have hours to track down, I’ll just say “I believe he said”.
If you think you write like a lawyer, Fit, my suggestion is “don’t quit your day job”. Burden of proof here is on you, and the key words to prove is “by FA standards”.
The progressive tax system has been in place since 1913, when the Congress did an amendment ratifying the original US Constitutional language that stated:
Frankly, the notion of a progressive tax was appalling to the Founders, and still is appalling to me. I prefer a flat tax. But do not misconstrue my adverbs of appalling and unConstitutional as to accusations of socialist/Marxist.
Fact is Hard Right is totally correct. It is not merely Obama’s “spread the wealth” mentality by taking more from the higher earners, and giving it to those who earn less. It is a piece of the Obama puzzle…. the associations from childhood until his campaign. When those associations became under scrutiny, he tossed them aside until the election was over. They will resurface… all of them.
The beliefs laid out in his book. His choice of quotes and speech themes that revolve around Alinsky. His educational philosophy. His predictable and obvious (even to you, if you pay attention) pat answers that all problems must be addressed and cured by government, regulations, and social welfare programs…. always financed by someone else. Fact is, Obama is great at spending other people’s money. He’s extraordinary at extolling and soliciting cash… and as the CAC proves, he is a wasteful and unproductive spender as an administrator.
Socialist/Marxism isn’t a single act. It is an imbred theology. Obama will dance the center line on any and all issues until he sees a clear path in to a far left turn. Larry doesn’t think he’ll do it. If it’s not going to pass muster with the population, neither do I, because Obama lives for approval ratings. But progressive/socialist is where Obama lives.. and has been raised… politically. This from his past, present and future designs.
And I see you can’t figure out where the “FA standards”… if there was such a thing as we authors constantly do battle on and off forum… nail Greenspan as a socialist. So I’d be content that you just admit you overreached in order to placate a fellow “out of the mainstream” commenter.
Socialism isn’t a theology, it’s an economic system. I’d be content if you learned that.
My error. You are correct that it isn’t a theology… it is a political philosophy. That’s the end of your accuracy. And I’d be content if *you* learned that.
We need a new term for the quasi-socialism we find ourselves in right now. The government hasn’t exactly nationalized finance/banking/automobile manufactering, but it has or will have invested to the point where is has a decided interest in how they operate.
Since Marxism is referred to as both Marxist philosophy and Marxist theory, that was why I typed theology originally… not meant in the religious sense. But since that was misleading for the common definition of theology, that’s why I admitted my error.
As for the new quasi-socialism, that’s why I’ve been referring to it as the Europeanization of America. Tecnically, as the US govt has not taken formal ownership of all banks, all energy, and auto industries, the act is not absolute. However with auto czars attempting to make production and price control decisions, there’s not much left but to take title.
Fit, I already disproved your straw man that simply saying “redistribution of wealth” means we think they are a socialist. You are wrong, move on and quit embarrassing yourself.
“What this signifies, more than anything else, is Pelosi’s fear that Obama will, in fact, govern as a centrist, and, in many cases, even as a right-centrist.” (Larry W.)
Cut the spin and stop dreaming, Larry. Get back to reality. This is all smokescreen. This is how manipulator operates: “Faint right, move left”. His goal is to destroy capitalism in the States… he is a communist at heart. Your eyes are wide shut. When will you open them?
Craig, Larry is faaarrrr too gone to listen. He is truly delusional. Despite my postings on the beliefs of the people he has appointed and obama’s backround, he still wants to believe they are moderates and that so is obama. He is so wrapped up in the fantasy that obama will save us there is no point trying to tell him otherwise.
I just saw where some of obama’s picks are rabidly anti-gun and will likely do everything they can to ban as many firearms as possible. If they do, it may cost them Congress. We shall see.
Mata, my opinion of the flat tax vs the progressive tax:
I’m in favor of the progressive tax, because people in the higher income levels benefit from public sector activities to a multiplicative degree.
A business owner (or even a movie star or athlete) owes his/her success to an educated workforce, a good infrastructure, including air traffic control and the Internet, good health care, local security, defense of shipping lanes and national defense in general, the patent system and federal defense of intellectual property, the security and exhange commission, the Departments of Commerce and the Treasury, and on and on.
To the extent that each of these activities benefits the individual, the top tier income earners, who owe their incomes to the success of the individuals “beneath” them (who collectively generate the capital which contributes to the assets of the top tier) receive disproportionate benefit from public sector activities. Therefore, the top tier (income wise) should rightfully contribute a disproportionate share of public resources.
With regard to the inheritance tax, this is necessary to prevent the emergence of a “to the manor born” class of Americans, owing their fortune with respect to accident of birth, as opposed to initiative, hard work, and inspiration.
– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA
Hard/Craig:
Liberals/Progressives are screaming that Obama is appointing centrists and right centrists to all the top cabinet positions. I’ve referenced these previously.
The fact that you guys think that Obama is appointing Leftists and the fact that true Leftists are complaining that Obama is appointing Centrists and Rightists means that Obama has found the sweet spot of successful America electoral politics.
– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA
Larry, you are rolling person income tax and corporate/business tax into one there…. INRE personal income tax, I’m with the framers… uniform & equal.
I’m speechless INRE your inheritance comment. …
Even reading it again… I’m just shocked into silence and despair at such an attitude prevailing in the US.
Let me get this straight… you believe that the earned rewards of the parents should be automatically remanded to the government for “the good” of the offspring? Those who earned their assets should have no say in how to delegate their own personal rewards?
What can one say to that? I swear, the more I look around and listen, the more I’m quite sure that I’m an alien, abandoned here by accident. And frankly, I wish they’d come back for me….
That you and so many place not only such faith, but your hard earned cash into the hands of “government” is beyond baffling. Can you not see daily that those you entrust are rabid and corrupt power brokers? all except your Obama, I guess you believe… That’s okay, Larry. I have vast patience. I’m quite content to wait for the pixie dust to wear off… as it will. But while I’m waiting, I’m not going to stand idly by and allow those that think like you to seize personal assets “for the children”, so to speak. Not while I live and breathe.
Tell you what… you give *your* assets to the government upon death. I’ll pass mine on to my son. Choice… the freedom of choice. How very American, yes? You won’t strip your children of “initiative” and “inspiration”, and hopefully I’ll help my son achieve his. We’re both happy.
But don’t tell me you’re taking my assets after death, and giving them to the corrupt in the DC beltway to piss away… all for “the good” of my son. Horse manure. You actually know people who buy this crock of shit?? I’m stunned, I tell you.
If this is the nanny/communal notions the Republicans must “play to” in order to win elections, then conservatism, capitalism, ambition, pride of achievement and responsibility for self and family are already dead in this country. Thank you for a thoroughly depressing comment.
You know Mata, I had to re-read that comment from Larry myself. I guess I shouldn’t be shocked by the attitude, but it makes me despair for the direction this country is going in. To think that it would be better that any one of us would not be allowed to pass on the assets we worked so hard to acquire to our own children, and instead give it to the government is….is just astounding.
I guess Queen Pelosi has spoken;
(Scene opens on follow-up phone call; Obama to Pelosi)
“Nancy? Barry here. Yeah just spoke to Rahm.”
(Fast indistinguishable chatter on other end of line in background)
“No I hear you, I hear you. You have my word, and you know my word is my bond, that our’s will be a cohesive and seamless partnership for America.”
(Pulls aside drapes to reveal Rahm climbing into the Obama bus to warm it up. We hear; ‘Va-room, chuga-chuga-chuga’)
“A-a-absolutely. In fact, I was just looking at a vehicle for this that I’m sure Harry and you could surely get under to get this whole thing rolling. It will be like a well-oiled machine, you’ll see… Rest assured the back door has a warning alarm on it and I’ll have it in my rear view, so you needn’t be concerned about that. I promise nobody in my staff is going to be sneaking anyone in without me knowing it.”
(More chatter)
“No, no surprises. Naancyy, I wouldn’t s4!7 you, you’re my favorite turd.”
“Hey no, just kidding there. I know you guys worked magic with the DNC to get me in here over Hillary during the primaries. Pay to play as they say.” chuckles, “And I owe you bigtime. I always pay back my friends.”
(Chatter seems more calm. Obama dons a blue jacket then reaches for what looks like a round chaffeur’s cap with a front bill.)
“I’ll be right over there to go over a couple of things. Just have to uh, get behind my um… steering committee on the way, but I’ll be right there. Why don’t you and Harry wait for me out in front of the Capital building in… say; oh about 10 minutes? Ciao Baby.”
#23, Larry, I have disproven your claims of them being moderate repeatedly. How about you show some proof they are moderates?
The rabid left wants Kucinich, Ayers, and Code Pink types. They got just plain old leftists. That is why they are angry.
No all it means is that you are lost in your fantasy.