It took Caroline Kennedy to make me feel sorry for Andrew Cuomo. The latter is said to be “fuming” that Kennedy is stealing the limelight and may have the inside track for the open senate seat. Yes, he’s a “Cuomo,” to state the obvious. But aside from being the progeny of a famous pol, he ran for office, served in real jobs, and knows there is more to the state than Manhattan.
In short, he’s not a dabbler or mere socialite, but a real politician who knows a lot about federal and state issues and how to get things done (a quaint notion in the age of celebrity politics, I know). Some have risen to Kennedy’s defense, contending dynasties are nothing new in American politics. That’s true of course, but the distinction between Cuomo and Kennedy suggests this is a strawman. Yes, lots of politicians go into politics because of family connections. But it’s absurd to claim that Jeb Bush, for example, is nothing more than a legacy case and shouldn’t be a viable candidate — indeed the front runner – for Senate. And Cuomo certainly got into politics with help from his father. But in both cases people paid their dues, learned some nuts and bolts about policy and politics, and went before the voters. Even Hillary Clinton did that.
It will be interesting to see if Governor Paterson has the nerve to say “no” to Kennedy. On one hand, Cuomo would be a “safe” pick — obviously qualified and certainly electable in 2010. But these things have a certain momentum and one senses that Kennedy, despite her Katie Couric-like outing in upstate New York, has been gathering support and making it harder and harder for Paterson to rebuff her. It would, at this point, take a certain independence of mind and even courage to do that – qualities Paterson has yet to demonstrate.
And Cuomo? Well, he could always challenge Paterson for Governor in 2010. That would be sweet revenge.
If the Great Depression II proceeds, will the American people be patient and return a large Democratic majority to perpetuate the unproved policies? Or will people react as they did in 1980, realizing that a period of economic turmoil is threatening the fabric of American society and our standing in the world?
Well, that’s the question, isn’t it? I’m not sure, but I do believe that in 2010 and 2012 the Obama forces will face a stronger reckoning than they anticipate.
to reinforce huxley: why not look more contemporaneously? newt didn’t do that bad of a job in the 1994 campaign…
I don’t know why anyone thinks a quick recovery is even a possibility. This was going to be at least two hard years, depending on the reaction of government. The reaction of government has been to attempt to reinflate a number of bubbles, which is impossible. They are sucking up any available capital. And purposefully it seems erecting disincentives to invest and profit.
Nope. The only real question is when will the ability of the US gov’t to borrow money be curtailed.
Derek
There are two possibilities here. Either Obama knows that his window of opportunity is brief, so he’s front-loading his four years with all of the most dramatic transformations of our economic and political structure. He has the wind at his back, but it’s growing weaker by the day, and he wants to change as much as possible while he still can.
Or else this is just Obama’s modus operandi, and he will continue to roll out these vast changes to the economy and the nation we’ve built, social experiments on the grandest and most dangerous scale. I fear that it’s the latter. I never thought that Obama would be this reckless, seeking to transform our energy and health care sectors while soaking the rich in the midst of a severe economic contraction. But if we think this is all he has up his sleeve, well, I’m afraid we might be wrong again. Perhaps he is just this reckless, just this foolish, just this ideological.
It points to the dangers inherent in the messianic expectations that built up around him during the campaign. People pointed to the dangers among his followers, who worshiped him with religious fervor. I was also worried about the danger for Obama, that he would start to believe that he deserved such adulation. He may not believe that he’s the Messiah in a religious sense, but he does believe that he’s a social and political Messiah, brought to power in just this moment to effect a dramatic and lasting change in our society.
Still, I think the Democrats are vastly overreaching here, and the question is whether the public will see through the fog of Obama’s rhetoric to the reality of what is happening.
I think hillary would have been FAR worse
Actually, in the U.S., the real impetus for translating utopian ideas into Democratic action predates
WWI. That was the ratification of the personal income tax in 1913 and the establishment of the Federal Reserve System in the same year. The Great War itself allowed further implementation of Wilsonian econo-mania. We’ve been on the slippery slope for almost an hundred years now.
I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again. The Republicans need to piece together a Business Contract with America, with policy proposals designed to spur the private sector and increase employment. It should have (1) pro-growth cuts in cap gains and corporate tax rates, (2) a spending freeze for government and a realistic plan to eliminate the deficit, strengthening the dollar, (3) an absolute end to pork, putting requests for federal money in the hands of Governors and mayors, getting Congress out of the pork business, (4) a commitment to open American lands for fossil fuel development by American companies, alongside a commitment to developing a new energy economy, (5) more pro-business immigration policies to allow more immigration of the highly educated and skilled, and (6) tort and regulation reform to reduce the litigation and regulation burdens on American companies.
Unless the Republicans in 2010 make this a national election, a national referendum on whether the American public believes in small-government, private-sector capitalism, or in a gigantic-government-controlled market, they cannot win back enough seats.
#4, I think I agree with you on “it” being the latter. He appears to firmly believe this is his moment and nothing will be able to hinder Him.
History is full of messiahs and their track records do not exactly help one to feel confident about the eventual outcome.
seriously there is a hillary like woman on 24 this year as president and she is scarier than the terrorist guys. I don’t know her exact policies in regards to the economy but i think it would be very communistic and involve seenig her ALOT. iId just like to thank any democrat who voted for obama and not her despite all his alleged anti semetism you really did the world a service
6. in “discovery of freedom” rose wilder lane traces the social engineering compulsion to germany in the 1800′s. it came here in force with william jennings bryant I believe. The “cross of gold” speech and so forth.
Ahithophel–
Re #3
I agree to this as a minimum step, but would go a bit further. I am repulsed by the constant use of federal tax dollars to pay for things that may be “good,” but for purely local reasons. For example, the currently pending omnibus spending bill contains $$ for the Montana World Trade Center, the Myrtle Beach International Trade and Convention Center, the Las Vegas Natural History Museum, and the Polynesian Voyaging Society. They may all be worthy causes (or maybe not) that benefit their respective locales, but they should not be supported by my Wisconsin tax $$. If the residents and local politicians in MT, NC, NV and HI think their communities will benefit, THEY SHOULD PAY FOR THEM OUT OF LOCAL TAXES. Federal expenditures should be limited to those that provide true national benefit, or that cannot effectively be accomplished by local action.
A Repub comeback? You have to be kidding. They are dead and rightfully so. The only way a registered Repub gets elected in a blue zone is because the Dem screwed up, not because the Repub had good ideas.
The Repub party blew a historic opportunity in the ten years they had the reins. Small government and fiscal prudence were thrown by the wayside as they sought to outspend even Dems. They will be in the minority for at least 12-16 years. They deserve it. Now we have over 50% of the voters on the government teat. There is no going back for at least a generation.
Meanwhile, because of their failure we have Dems in complete control of both houses. There will always be a Collins, Snowe or Specter to undermine the 49% of Americans who no longer have a voice. Until those three are kicked out of the party there will always be a fork stuck in the Repubs. That said the Dems, over the next four years will pass every bill that they want, no if’s, and’s or but’s. Pelosi, Reid and Obama will be designing the future. Thanks once again to Collins, Snowe and Specter.
Patrick.
In your wet dreams!
#7, Ahithophel:
Those are all excellent points.
One point I would add is something along the lines of “prudent governance.” Republicans like to be known as the party of “limited government,” but they’re mute when it comes to saying how they would actually run the huge government that is left over after it’s been “limited.” Across the board budget cuts would be great, something I heartily applaud. But then what?
For example, even if McCain had won, and universal, government-run health care was avoided, the federal government would still be the largest player in the health care business. What’s the conservative position? With the exception of Jindal and Romney, Republicans don’t like to talk as passionate advocates of providing improved, lower cost health care to Americans via the free market.
Same goes with education. Is there a national Republican who cares passionately about conservative means of improving education? I can’t think of one.
In times like these, when the federal government is expected to do something, Republicans won’t be trusted as long as they talk sneeringly about the government they ask voters to entrust them with. Kind of like expecting the fox to be put in charge of the chicken coop.
Seems to me that the Obama political plan is already baked in the cake: 1) Do everything you can as fast as you can because most of what any President gets done legislatively is what’s passed in the first year, if not the first quarter or two of the first year; 2) spin any “natural” positive movement in the economy off the panic floor as proof that his policies are “working.”
As much as some of us who actually have to do business in this economy would personally enjoy going on a John Galt strike, and as much as investors are put off by the Master Plan that’s unfolding, we generally have no choice but to work harder and, where possible, more intelligently, and make the best of what’s handed to us. Though the Democrats seem determined to do everything they can to make recovery more difficult, some positive movement, even if it turns out to be a passing respite or, in the stock market, at least a sustained bear market rally, is very likely. It’s also quite possible that events overseas will play a huge direct or indirect role in electoral developments. In the absence of any recovery at all, or of spiraling international crisis, the odds of total repudiation become higher – but the possibility of an even more thoroughgoing re-arrangement of our affairs also would loom larger, and could go either way politically. Chaos theory would become as relevant and predictive as recent political history (i.e., not really very predictive at all), in that case.
All things being even, history favors a Republican comeback to some degree in 2010, even in the context of economic recovery at least in part appearing to validate Obamanomics. We’ll then have to wait for the evidence to come in regarding the strength of whatever recovery, the success or failure of Obama foreign policy, the perceived need to reign in budgetary and other excesses, and, especially incalculable at this time, credibility of Republican standard-bearer.
It would be nice to see a bit of balance on this blog, lest we think it serves merely to disparage, not actually to support cherished causes.
U.S. pulls out of racism conference over israel criticism
http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0209/US_pulls_out_of_Durban_conference.html#comments
The other fear is that, if Obama feels his mandate slipping away, will he start down the path of coercion. The authoritarian impulse on the left is pretty strong. I could see some nastiness with ACORN and ANSWER in 2010 if he feels he is losing. These people that he comes from are not going to shrink from a fight. Remember, his Bible is not The Federalist papers, it is Rules for Radicals.
Why not take time out for a little dose of reality from your boy Larry Sabato?
“The long and winding road that leads to the 2010 U.S. Senate elections has just begun, but already we can see that it will be extremely difficult, bordering on the impossible, for Republicans to re-take control of the upper chamber then. In fact, based on an early reading of the thirty-six contests, Democrats have the better opportunity to gain seats, thereby lifting the party over the sixty mark that can (if the Democrats hold together) enable them to shut off filibusters and invoke cloture. … Odds are very substantial that Republicans will be playing Senate defense for Barack Obama’s entire first presidential term.”
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/political_commentary/commentary_by_larry_j_sabato/senate_2010_part_three
#14
Health care and education are two things for which there is no federal power delineated in the constitution. The correct conservative response is that these two issues, and actually many others, are the province of the states or the people. However, it appears that the population in general, knowing that the federal government can coerce huge tax payments from the citizenry and business and borrow or print money, is best equipped financially to address perceived problems in those areas. It should be the conservative position that even if federal funds are allocated to health and education programs, their development and implementation should take place at the local level.
#19:
In principal, I agree with you. There really should be no Department of Education.
However, the cows have left the barn on that one. And for a lot of the other cabinet agencies as well.
Standing athwart history yelling “stop” will only lead to one’s becoming road kill. I’d be happy at this point just to get the darn thing to slow down.
My point is that Republicans have to regain, after the debacles of the Bush years, a reputation for prudent and shrewd executive management of the government: realistic and cautious in the tasks the government ought to undertake, but insistent upon good results for those things it is expected to do.
#11:
You make a good argument, John. I want to think about it more, but I like it. I do think that Republicans need to regain their emphasis on state and local powers, limiting the federal.
It is possible that, despite the best efforts of Number One to slow the recovery with his misguided stimulus and mortgage plans, the fickle American consumers will quickly take the slightest sign of a reversal of the recession as evidence of full recovery and begin consuming wildly again, thereby making the recovery a reality.
This will, of course, be followed by much inflation, as the belated stimulus programs kick in.
So, if there is a “recovery”, Number One will then have to concoct a new story to escape blame for the next crisis of inflation — of course, he’ll blame Congress for its profligate spending (he doesn’t pass the laws, he just administers them). And the foot-dragging R’s.
The end result could be a semi-socialist state by default — the worst of Japan and Italy, if you can imagine that.
Larry Sabato is not a Republican as far as I know–certainly not a conservative.
It’s pointless right now to try to project into the future. Election results next year will depend to a large extent on feelings about the parties next year, which likely will mean feelings about the economy. Simply on paper, the GOP will have better chances in 2012 and 2014, but we don’t know how it will turn out.
Barack Obama is an 8 year President, regardless what happens to the economy good, bad or ugly or if something worse than 9/11 happens. President Obama won reelection in 2012 on Feb 17, 2009, Tuesday, when he signed the 2009 Stimulus Bill. It bought votes for the Democrat Party for 2010 and 2012. There is nothing conservatives or Republicans can do about it because that is what the American people want is – “what the government can do for me”. Barack Obama won 2008 election on health care reform. If national health care is socialism, then most Americans want socialism. I would say that most Americans agree with Obama’s $650 Billion dollar National Health Care , $3.6 trillion budget, $787 billion Stimulus Bill and $700 billion dollar TARP. . We are now all Democrats, Democrats Rule.
Question about Rush Limbaugh’s speech at CPAC:
Do Americans care about America?