Entries for January 2009

By Robert Schlesinger, Thomas Jefferson Street blog

Bonnie is rather dismissive of what she describes as the "veiled myth of post-partisanship" in the Obama years, based on the fact that no House Republicans voted for the stimulus package. "If Mr. Obama's definition of post-partisanship is a more cordial, less harsh atmosphere in which to discuss partisan disagreements, then certainly he's done better on that front than President Bush," Bonnie writes, going on to note that she expected post-partisanship to be bi-partisanship.

I think she's got it wrong—even tonal changes can be significant. 

By Robert Schlesinger, Thomas Jefferson Street blog

I don't know who has bugged me more during the debate over the stimulus bill, the Democrats or the Republicans. Americans, we are constantly reminded, voted for change, but both sides have been playing familiar roles in this legislative process.

Let's start with congressional Democrats, who seem to be operating from the Bush-Rove-Cheney playbook: Declare that the country faces a crisis and then meet it with whatever hoary policy proposals you've been touting anyway. Granted in execution it's also a classic legislative maneuver: When a bill is bound to pass you pack pet projects on for the ride. But for sheer scale and chutzpah, the shady characters from the 43rd presidential administration must be proud. (Ron Brownstein compares the move to Ronald Reagan in 1981.)

By Robert Schlesinger, Thomas Jefferson Street blog

Another former lobbyist enters the Obama administration ...

By Robert Schlesinger, Thomas Jefferson Street blog

Asked if her new political action committee was an early signal that she is running for president in 2012, Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin replied: "No, not at all, not at all, no. It's helpful to have a PAC so that when I'm invited to things even like to speak at the Lincoln Day dinner in Fairbanks, to have a PAC pay for that instead of have the state pay for that because that could be considered quasi-political." Uh-huh. She's being something less than completely honest here, but we can forgive her.

By Robert Schlesinger, Thomas Jefferson Street blog

Sarah Palin has started a PAC, a sure first sign that she plans on maintaining her national profile for at least the next few years (read: Palin '12). A couple of prominent Republican thinkers I saw Tuesday had some interesting comments about Palin and what has come to be identified with Palin-ism (my word, not theirs).

By Robert Schlesinger, Thomas Jefferson Street blog

What can we deduce from SarahPAC, the new political action committee affiliated with the Alaska governor? That she's not going to go quietly back to Land of the Midnight Sun. SarahPAC is a leadership PAC, a fairly common (the Center for Responsive Politics counted 340 of them in the last election cycle) vehicle for pols who want to play on a national stage. Obama had one, as did Hillary Clinton, and all of the leaders of both parties.

They serve two purposes: Leadership PACs give politicians a fund from which they can make contributions to candidates around the country, building political chits for down the line (a sure sign that Palin is gearing up specifically for a presidential run will be SarahPAC making contributions to New Hampshire and Iowa state-level candidates and parties); and the leadership PAC will also cover her expenses as she flies around the country fundraising and campaigning for Republicans, again stockpiling political chits.

By Robert Schlesinger, Thomas Jefferson Street blog

The New American Foundation had an interesting panel this morning on "Repairing the Republican Brand." I'll blog a bit more on it later on, but one comment at the end particularly struck me. The panelists were asked about the Bush-Cheney (or maybe that should be Cheney-Bush) imperial presidential doctrines—not letting White House staff testify before Congress, etc.

Douglas Holtz-Eakin, most recently the senior policy adviser for the McCain presidential campaign, made an interesting comment about the Bush administration's practice of rewriting, for example, climate change-related documents: "I don't think there's anything with the Bush administration's censoring of documents that has helped them make their case for their stance on climate change," Holtz-Eakin said. "It's a disgrace. Have the information out, have the debate, and win on the merits. Don't win on the editing process."

Like I said, more later.