Rahm: The Man, The Myth, The Failure?

There has been a lot of talk recently about Obama’s inner circle and its effectiveness. Particularly in the news recently has been Rahm Emanuel. The discussions began months ago, but I’d begin with Dana Milbank’s column, where he argued that the problem in the White House isn’t Rahm, but that the President doesn’t listen to him. He begins by pointing to other articles that serve as a good preface to this discussion:

It is the current fashion to blame President Obama’s disappointing first year on his chief of staff. “First, remove Rahm Emanuel,” writes Leslie Gelb in the Daily Beast, because he lacks “the management skills and discipline to run the White House.”

The Financial Times’s Ed Luce reports that the “famously irascible” Emanuel has “alienated many of Mr. Obama’s closest outside supporters,” while the New America Foundation’s Steve Clemons lumps Emanuel in with the “Core Chicago Team Sinking Obama Presidency.”

They join liberal interests who despised Emanuel long before he branded them “retarded.” Jane Hamsher of firedoglake.com, together with conservative activist Grover Norquist, demanded a Justice Department investigation into Emanuel, who is “far too compromised to serve as gatekeeper to the president.”

His argument in the end is, however, that

“Obama’s first year fell apart in large part because he didn’t follow his chief of staff’s advice on crucial matters. Arguably, Emanuel is the only person keeping Obama from becoming Jimmy Carter.”

This was followed up by a new story from the Washington Post by Jason Horowitz, which had as its thrust that Rahm is doing an alright job. Then David Broder, the so-called dean of the Washington press corps, attacked his own paper’s reporting and Dana, which is surprising, as you wouldn’t expect “the Post’s marquee political writer of the past 40 years [to] beat up on the Post.”

Read more

Paterson Intervenes in Domestic Violence Case

Update: I stand by  my comment about how serious the issues are if the story’s implications are correct, but the NYTPicker does a good job of pointing out some of the questions marks left open by the story and the changes that were made between web and print editions. Hat tip to Andrew.

The New York Times is reporting that last fall a woman who had repeatedly pressed her case of domestic violence involving David Johnson, an aide to the governor, backed down after a call from Paterson.

The unidentified woman claims Johnson violently assaulted her. She went to court three times seeking protection from him. She twice complained that the State Police harassed her and that they had demanded she drop the case. Paterson then called her, or she called Paterson, depending on whose account you believe, and the day following that conversation she failed to show up for a hearing and the Court dismissed the case. Her lawyer admits the case was never mentioned directly in her phone call with the Governor, although I am not sure why that matters. The Governor offered his “assistance” or whatever in a case involving one of his closest aides; I am sure she got the message.

Just to be clear on the assault, the woman reportedly told police Johnson “choked her, stripped her of much of her clothing, smashed her against a mirrored dresser and [took] two telephones from her to prevent her from calling for help.”

Yesterday, Paterson suspended Johnson without pay and asked Attorney General Andrew Cuomo to investigate whether state police tried to “improperly influence” the woman, according to the Daily News.

This seems like the most serious charge that the Times has been able to levy against Paterson. As Chas wrote earlier, the Times ran two articles on Paterson last week, one on Johnson’s quick rise to power and the second on Paterson’s relative inability to govern. This final story, though, ties it all together in a tragic way. The aide that has risen so quickly was likely “brutally assaulting” his girlfriend, and then the Governor and his State Police intervened to intimidate the woman.

Ben Smith, of the The Politico, speculates that the case “appears likely to end the governor’s tottering political career.” If the Governor had just had his staff intervene in a domestic violence dispute then that would be enough for me to think he should resign; however, he went even beyond that, he called the woman himself to intimate her. In fact, resignation might not be enough, as the actions might constitute criminal intimidation of a witness. Paterson seems to agree with me, as the Times points out:

Mr. Paterson, who has championed the cause of battered women, [] made extended remarks on the case of Hiram Monserrate, the former state senator who was convicted of misdemeanor assault against his companion and ousted from the Legislature. Mr. Paterson said he was offended that while the woman had been granted an order of protection against Mr. Monserrate, the senator’s aides had continued to have contact with her and assist her.

“The order of protection is designed to allow for independence of the victim,” he said. “This victim apparently had no independence.”

He said the conduct of the aides warranted a criminal investigation, perhaps for witness intimidation.

The State Senate did the right thing when they tossed out Monserrate. Domestic violence is not a trivial problem—it deserves punishment. Intimidation is the tool used to prevent women from seeking the rights they should have. If the story is true, he likely should be prosecuted. I am not sure if that will happen, but I suggest reading the Times article in full so you can see how awful the accusations are, and then ask yourself whether Paterson should really be our governor until January 1. If this article is true, if Paterson as well as his State Police protection intimated a victim of domestic violence, I think impeachment needs to be used in this situation if he will not resign. I do not want to see it have to become political like that but it seems that at worst he conspired to intimate an assaulted woman for an aide of his and at best he just intimated her himself.

Meeting Gillibrand, The Public Option, and Medicare For All

Despite much rhetoric to the contrary, Senator Kirsten Gillibrand is quite charming in person, far more so than I had originally assumed prior to meeting her last Wednesday evening. I met her at a fundraiser scheduled by Young Professionals for Gillibrand, which was held at The Gates, a club on the West Side. As barely a young professional myself, I saw it as a unique opportunity to go there and, as our friend Joe Biden likes to say, “test her metal” – to see for myself if she was really ready for prime time. After the night was through, Zac and I were in complete agreement: she didn’t disappoint.

After an impassioned speech and a few questions, it was my turn to stick myself in there and see if she could speak to the issue that I cared most about: fixing our wasteful, inefficient and immoral health care system. The question I asked, though not verbatim, went something like this:

Senator Gillibrand, I’d first like to thank you the recent letter you signed and sent to Harry Reid demanding that we use reconciliation to bring back the public option and score a big victory for the American people. [Applause]

As for going forward on health care reform in the near future, what are our chances that we will get the public option, the government run alternative that will provide real competition to the exploitative, wasteful, and inefficient health care corporate cartel that is gauging American workers and holding this nation back from progress? [Applause]

Okay, maybe I didn’t pull a Keith Olbermann and use the word “cartel,” but I did say pretty much everything else. At this point, although I was very impressed with what Gillibrand had been saying prior to my question, I was expecting the same old politician/focus-group-tested-response, like:

Great Question. We are currently working very hard to bring back the public option, and we will all do our best. We need to remember that the most important thing is not the specifics, but that we have some competition, not necessarily in the form of a government plan.

But she didn’t say that. Read more

Races In 2010 Are Going To Be Trouble For Both Sides

It’s no surprise that with the current stagnation in the Senate and a  fear of an anti-incumbent backlash, some Democrats are increasingly worried of what this November might mean for the balance in Congress and the future of President Obama’s legislative agenda. However before we all start assuming the worst, Nate Silver points out on fivethirtyeight.com, that Republicans have races of their own that are going to need some defending:

Even if Republicans can recruit a good candidate in Washington or New York, and make smart decisions in California, and win the toss-ups in places like Illinois, and not screw up any of the seven or so races in which they appear to be favored, they also have to make sure that Democrats don’t take over any of their own seats. And this is the factor that the market may not be properly accounting for. The Democrats are competitive right now in Missouri, Ohio, New Hampshire, and Kentucky, could become that way in North Carolina and possibly Florida, and there’s an outside chance they could get a wild card of their own like Arizona. In most of these races, you either have a Republican (in an anti-establishment year) who is more a part of the establishment than his opponent, primary dynamics that could lead to the selection of an inexperienced or too-conservative candidate, or both.

While Republicans look at present events as political opportunities, reminiscing over their 8 seat Senate gain in 1994, Silver explains that the Party of NO still remains nationally unpopular and much less united this time around as they struggle with their own internal factions like the tea party movement trying to pull candidates even further to the right.

The fact New York was mentioned at all should be a sign that this year organizing has to be stronger, campaigning has to be tighter and we’re all going to have to surpass our previous efforts to get the word out on why we need to keep Democrats in Congress.

Fingers Crossed: Stimulus Money May Stimulate Moynihan Station!

Investing in our mass transportation infrastructure: this is a key, key function of government, and one that ours has ignored for way too long.  This is why one of the two key rail hub in New York is the nasty maze underneath Madison Square Garden known as Penn Station.

But hope is on the horizon!  The forever-stalled project to turn the old Farley Post Office into a real live honest-to-goodness train station may actually happen, thanks to the injection of stimulus funds for the first phase of the project.  At right is a pic of an atrium planned in a Moynihan Station concept.  Sunlight and trains! In the same place! Amazing!

Stuff like this is a perfect demonstration of good economic stimulus in action – instead of budget-busting tax breaks that may or may not actually cause businesses to hire more people, make more stuff, or do anything else particularly useful for getting the economy back on track, this money can go directly to employing people (yay!) who will be working on laying the groundwork for increased economic activity (in this case, better rail access).

Bottom line, infrastructure spending is investing in America, essentially.

Then again, even with the allocation of the stimulus funds, the future of the Moynihan Station project isn’t certain.  From the Observer:

All is not to say that a shiny new train hall is about to become a reality. With the project always collapsing under its own ambition, the state and Port Authority in 2009 restructured it into “bite-size chunks,” in the words of one official, and the stimulus money is going toward just the first phase, $267 million in infrastructure work that would build new entrances along Eighth Avenue and expand an underground concourse on the western end of Penn Station’s platforms.

Taken in isolation, this first phase does not seem a project worth the significant money being devoted to it, and now the concern becomes whether the second phase will indeed ever happen. Private developers the Related Companies and Vornado Realty Trust-a partnership between which once planned a far grander scheme that involved moving Madison Square Garden-still say they are interested, and Amtrak has signed an agreement to move to the Farley Building, should a train hall be built.

But the history of the project dictates this will never be as easy a task as it seems. The question with the potential start of construction within months is whether or not Moynihan has actually turned a corner.

More on this from City Room.

Schumer To Giants: If You Are A NY Team, You Should Practice In NY

The NY Giants organization had planned to discontinue their regular summer training at the University of Albany as soon as the practice facility adjacent to the new Meadowland Stadium was ready to go. The potential lose of this seasonal tourist staple has worried local business leaders and university officials who have been petitioning the team’s front office to reconsider.

Senator Schumer, a self described Giants loyalist, went so far as to call John Mara, the team owner, to discuss the merits of the Giant’s remaining at the SUNY campus. His office released this statement:

Holding the training camp in Albany is good for both the Giants’ morale and cohesion and the local economy.  What’s more, the training camp has become one of the favorite ways for Capital Region families to spend a summer day and, quite frankly, it is the Giants last physical link to New York State.

The New York Giants have been practicing at the University of Albany’s campus since the Dan Reeves era and the facility has benefited both the team and the region … Each year, thousands of fans come to the University of Albany’s campus to watch their Giants and pump money into the local economy … We’ve now got all of our New York teams training in Upstate and I’m committed to keeping it that way. Anything we can do to keep the fans and money pouring in is a score in my book.

According to the NFL insiders discussions between both the team and the school are looking good and it seems very likely that the team will be returning for another summer upstate.

Now Senator, is there anything your office can do to help us fix up the defense…

Holy !@#$, 8 in 10 Americans Agree On Something

Recall that a few weeks ago, the Supreme Court basically handed our democracy to corporations:

In Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, the high court ruled 5-4 that corporations have the same rights as individuals when it comes to political speech and can therefore use their profits to support or oppose individual candidates. The decision appears to open the door to unlimited spending by corporations, trade groups and unions in the weeks leading up to an election, which has been explicitly banned for decades

This decision has finally given the people of this country something we can pretty much ALL agree on:

Eight in ten poll respondents say they oppose the high court’s Jan. 21 decision to allow unfettered corporate political spending, with 65 percent “strongly” opposed. Nearly as many backed congressional action to curb the ruling, with 72 percent in favor of reinstating limits.

Eight in ten! Is there any other issue that unites us like this? And it’s completely and totally bipartisan:

The poll reveals relatively little difference of opinion on the issue among Democrats (85 percent opposed to the ruling), Republicans (76 percent) and independents (81 percent).

Now…. is anyone in DC listening to the People?

Washington Post Poll

Weprin Defeats GOP Candidate In Special Election

When the polls closed Tuesday night for the special election to fill Mark Weprin’s 24th Assembly district seat in Queens, voters overwhelming decided that his brother David Weprin, former city councilman and ex-candidate for city comptroller was the best man for the job. Final results show that out of the roughly 6900 ballots cast, Weprin won with 62 % versus GOP candidate Bob Friedrich’s 38%.

However this victory is not as long lasting as you may think. Weprin’s win only gives him the seat through November when he’ll have to campaign again for a full term of his own. Judging by the intensity from both sides during the last few weeks of this race, a re-match in the fall is definitely not out of the picture.

Holy #%@&, What Happened Yesterday?!

Yesterday was one frakking eventful day in NY politics.  Let’s review:

Good News: The NYS Senate voted overwhelmingly to tell Hiram Monserrate to take a hike.

"I feel a lot better about us as an institution right now, that we finally did something that was correct. It was a step forward," said Albany Senator Neil Breslin.

Word.

For those who have blocked out this one and/or weren’t following the story, Monserrate is part of the “thug and thief” tag-team that started the state senate coup last summer.  He was convicted of misdemeanor domestic assault charges recently but acquitted of felony charges, prompting many to demand that the senate Fire Monserrate.

While Monserrate will go to court to overturn the senate’s decision, the panel that recommended expelling him did a great job digging up a long line of precedents on the right of state legislatures to expel members for intolerable conduct.  I doubt Monserrate will succeed in overturning this.

Bad News: We got thumped in yesterday’s special elections for four assembly seats.

Republican Bob Castelli (who is a fan of the tea partiers, apparently) beat Westchester County Legislator Peter Harckham by about ten points.  I volunteered for Harckham, who is a great guy and one of the best and most effective legislators in Westchester, and his campaign did pretty much everything right.  Democratic voters are angry and dismayed and don’t want to come out to vote for Democrats.  Young people were especially absent on this one – on a college campus (SUNY Purchase) with over 1,000 registered to vote, only 25 pulled the lever on election day.  The state controls tuition, marriage equality, and tons of other key issues – young people need to come out and vote, if only to fight for our interests in the face of state budget squeezes.

Elsewhere, David Weprin held on to his brother’s old Assembly seat in Queens, but other than that, we lost yesterday, failing to capture a vacated Republican seat in Nassau County and failing to hold onto a Democratic seat in Suffolk County.

Against the backdrop of these setbacks, etc, our leaders clearly need to learn a key lesson.  To avoid a backslide into Republican dominance, Democrats will need to be bold, buck the national leadership when the national leadership is failing, show a commitment to fighting for results.  We need to be a party worth believing in.

I’m-Just-Not-Going-To-Characterize-This News:

NYC Councilman Larry Seabrook turned himself in to the Feds yesterday after they announced an amazing, sixty-six page indictment.  From the DN:

The litany of larceny for the married politician ran the gamut from funneling $322,800 to his girlfriend through dicey nonprofits to collecting $177 in expenses for a $7 bagel and diet soda.

"I don’t know about the bagel," said his defense attorney, Murray Richman. "But bagels can be expensive."

I’m shocked his lawyer didn’t claim instead that a $177 bagel is only a little worse than the $175 burgers available at the Wall Street Burger Shoppe.  *Sigh*…

Is Obama’s Inner Circle a Problem?

A recent piece in the Financial Times looked at the inner circle around Obama in the White House, Rahm Emanuel, David Axelrod, Valerie Jarrett, and Robert Gibbs – and (on the basis of deep background anonymity) quite a few people from the next few rings of influence around Obama indicate that this foursome’s presence has become a major problem for the administration. I’m not much of a fan of deep background journalism, but Steve Clemons, a DC blogger who really knows his stuff – and DC’s stuff – says that the FT piece is almost entirely correct. That’s not good.

Key somewhat haunting quote from the original essay:

barring Richard Nixon’s White House, few can think of an administration that has been so dominated by such a small inner circle.

Key analysis from Clemons:

one thing essential to understand is that the kind of policy that smart strategists — including by people like National Security Adviser Jim Jones, Defense Secretary Robert Gates and other advisers like Denis McDonough, Tom Donilon, James Steinberg, William Burns, (previously Gregory Craig) — would be putting forward is getting twisted either in the rough-and-tumble of a a team of rivals operation that is not working, or is being distorted by the Chicago political gang’s tactical advice that is seducing Obama towards a course that has not only violated deals he made with those who voted him into office but which is failing to hit any of the major strategic targets by which the administration will be historically measured.

President Obama needs to take stock quickly. Read the Luce piece. Be honest about what is happening. Read Plouffe’s smart book again. Send Rahm Emanuel back to the House in a senior role. Make Valerie Jarrett an important Ambassador. Keep Axelrod — but balance him with someone like Plouffe, and get back to putting good policy before short term politics.

Overall it is a troubling possible status quo. While certainly voters elected not only Obama the individual but Obama the organization, speaking at least for myself I certainly did not bust my ass to make Rahm Emanuel some kind of policy viceroy. Or Axelrod the main adviser on China. Or an inner team so feared that journalists won’t even link to the FT piece for fear of being cut off. Isolation is one of the core reasons that the Presidency of Bush 43 was such an abject failure for him and for America, and that was with a Congress that actually let the majority agenda play itself out even a tiny bit. Obama is definitely not G.W. Bush, but if this analysis is correct – and it seems that like it probably is – then being disappointed is probably the least of an Obama supporter’s worries…

Both Must Reads:
America: A fearsome foursome (Edward Luce @ The Financial Times)
Core Chicago Team Sinking Obama Presidency (Steve Clemons)

Next Page »