More Random Thoughts to Shake a Stick At
» NYT: In Meetings With Allies, Clinton Hones ’08 Strategy (Patrick Healy, Adam Nagourney)
Just another sign of the attention devoted to minutia of the Presidential twists and turns. Also another sign of one problem that will follow Hillary more than any other: discipline.
Mrs. Clinton has gone to great lengths to try to keep these meetings private. She and her aides have strongly asked Democrats not to report what has taken place there, from what she says to what she eats, and where (she had the lamb at Ruth’s Chris Steak House in Washington, the Dover sole at the Four Seasons in New York). Many people who discussed the meetings did so on the condition of anonymity, and some of her advisers pointedly refused to talk.
Boy don't we all feel enlightened knowing what Hillary ate during a strategy meeting? That said, I think it's worth seeing two different sides of Hillary's message discipline problem here. Obviously, what concerns me most are those who talk, be it anonymously or for attribution. In the case of the latter, there are simply too many people enamored with seeing their name in the paper. In the case of the former, it's worth contemplating where their loyalties truly reside if they're offering up any substantive details above and beyond the dining fare.
Through it all, this article does touch on one actual substantive hurdle for Hillary in the primary race:
Some New Hampshire Democrats expressed concern that Mrs. Clinton’s first dinner with political players from that state, on Dec. 9, was limited to three who were active in her husband’s campaigns in the 1990s and not a broader group that reflected the vanguard of state party politics today.Terie T. Norelli, who became speaker of the New Hampshire House in December and the first Democratic speaker in 70 years, said she had not heard from Mrs. Clinton.
“It’ll only be tricky for her if she stops with those people,” Ms. Norelli said in reference to the Clintons’ longest-standing New Hampshire friends. “Democratic politics has certainly changed since the 1990s, if you look at how many Democrats have been elected to the House and the two new Democrats going to Congress. It would be wise for any candidate to move on and reach out to many of the new activists that we have.”
True, part of this is just sour grapes from someone with a high sense of self-importance who bemoans the fact that her phone hasn't rung off the hook yet. But the complaint that Hillary's style is from a seemingly bygone era is one that I suspect she'll deal with ... and possibly over matters more substantive than this example offers.
» WaPo: A Chance To Change The Game (Sen. Barack Obama)
Case in point from that final Hillary comment. Reading this op-ed, there's not really a whole lot new in it - that is, if you've followed the last two years of CampaignVille. What is rather surprising is that Barack Obama is the one writing it. Not that he's not known for putting pen to paper, just that this might be something you see from say ... the incoming Senate Majority Leader (Reid), or a more veteran party leader (Kennedy, Schumer), or maybe a Senator from the paper's immediate vicinity (of which, they have two freshmen who might could use the publicity). No, this went to Obama.
Why? I don't have the foggiest notion, but from Obama's vantagepoint, it's good maneuvering. This puts his stamp on the current mood, demonstrating more timely relevance to the current political mood. Considering that Hillary will be spending a fair amount of time battling the sense that she suffers from a hangover of 90s triangulation, stuff like this out of Obama is a pretty nifty signal move to counter Hillary without really doing anything more directly aimed at her.
As the NYT article mentions, Hillary may be bemoaning the fact that the 2008 race is heating up a bit more quickly than she'd like, it's unmistakable that the campaign is on.
» AA-S: McCall endorses Pitts in speakers race (Laylan Copelin, W. Gardner Selby)
For what no doubt qualifies as the biggest surprise in the Speaker's race since the onset of a Speaker's race, this article serves as just another datapoint of how crappy Texas political news reporting really is on the whole:
A lobbyist familiar with the negotiations said that Pitts had 20 votes and McCall had 70 but that they agreed Pitts could more easily put a winning list of names together."All of McCall's supporters would vote for Pitts," said the source, requesting anonymity. "All of Pitts' would not vote for McCall."
Without doubting the reality that there weren't 5 Pitts commits that could move to McCall, there's still a lot missing from this. Namely ... the why. Journalism students may remember that as one of the key, critical ingredients of a good story. Well, unless their names are Selby & Copelin, I suppose.
The "why," it's been circulating, is that the Republicans in the middle are leary of forming a majority Democratic caucus. The bigger problem with leaving that out is that it does nothing to explain the algebra of a Pitts Speakership, which presumably would STILL have a majority of Democrats in the caucus. That assumes nobody new jumps Craddick's ship, of course. Big assumption these days.
Peggy Fikac shares byline duty with the Chron and San An E-N papers and is the logical suspect for nailing a quote for this angle of the race:
Rep. Pat Haggerty, R-El Paso, said McCall decided to support Pitts because "Craddick's group was making a big thing that Brian was the Democrats' candidate, so the idea is to make this a Republican function and try to have 30-35 (GOP) members there."At least 30 Republican members, including McCall, are expected to be at Pitts' side today, said Haggerty, who added that, "That's going to be a powerful indication that this is over."
By midweek, McCall could count on no more than 19 Republican votes, according to his figures, with Democrats accounting for the majority of his support, at 57 or 58 votes. Pitts, in contrast, had a total of 34 to 39 Republican pledges, said a McCall loyalist who was not authorized to speak publicly.
The fact that much of McCall's support came from Democrats was seen as reason for caution by some Republicans, who said GOP lawmakers who supported him would be handing power to Democrats.
It's surprising that the Austin paper (with presumably better coverage what with the Capitol being right there and all) missed this angle entirely. What will now be worth watching is to see if Peggy Fikac does the logical followup of unearthing why it is that a coalition with slightly over a dozen GOP members is considered "handing power over to Democrats" while one with 30-35 Republican Reps (still a minority of the supposed winning coalition) is somehow considered acceptable to Republican lawmakers.
» FWST: Group: Ditching Craddick aids Dems (John Moritz)
And on a comedic note, we get the following:
The head of the conservative Texas Eagle Forum warned Tuesday that the move to unseat Republican House Speaker Tom Craddick would effectively return power to the Democrats who had ruled the chamber for the 100 years before the GOP takeover in 2002."Our conservative agenda would be DOA," said Cathie Adams, who is trying to rally GOP base voters to pressure lawmakers to stick with Craddick as he battles two Republican colleagues for leadership. "We've worked too hard for too many years to win a Republican majority in the House just to hand it over to the Democrats."
Clearly, the fate of Texas conservatism rests with the continued leadership of Tom Craddick! Actually, what's interesting about this, to me at least, is that Houston Republican freshman Jim Murphy campaigned with his membership in the Eagle Forum as a feather in his cap to combat all those tax hike charges he was facing in the primary. Thus far, Murphy's name hasn't left Craddick's list (unlike another Houston-area freshwoman Republican). It'll be interesting to see whether the session starts off with the famous "moderate" Jim Murphy or if he starts his brief career in the lege as a member of the "slash & burn" wing of the party.
» WaPo: Pelosi Walks Tightrope Enforcing Rules (Michael Grunwald and Juliet Eilperin)
Actually, what caught my attention about this article was the foreword:
"First in a series of occasional articles on the new Democratic-controlled Congress."
One would hope that the Washington Post covers the new Democratic-controlled Congress at least slightly more than "occassional[ly]". Yeah, I know what they're going for there. But the freudian slip is too easily noticable. It's hard to take the mass quantieis of Eilperin-isms seriously afterward. From Pelosi "nearly choosing Alcee Hastings" (something I suspect is akin to being 'a little pregnant') to giving way too much credence to Karen Carter's obvious sour grapes at being unable to oust a corrupt incumbent as an alleged indication of Pelosi's commitment to ethics reform, this is typical nonsense.
Taking the cake is this gem:
Pelosi quickly realized that late-night jokes about "Dollar Bill" and his cold cash were muddying her message about GOP corruption. She joined with Hastert in condemning the raid as an executive-branch intrusion on congressional prerogatives, but she also met privately with Jefferson and asked him to leave Ways and Means.
So, in a Woodwardian maneuver, Juliet Eilperin gets in Pelosi's head to determine the speed of her "realization" at a late-night joke. And follow that up with "asking" Jefferson to leave Ways and Means ... without noting that Pelosi very unceremoniously removed Jefferson from Ways and Means instead.
The funny thing is, Republicans used to love to point to such slights as evidence of a "liberal media." Far from it ... they're just bad, not biased.
» WaPo: Litmus Test for Pro-Life Democrats (Robert Novak)
Robert Novak is long past his tipping point of being a joke. The day any Dem, pro-life or otherwise, accepts a litmus test from someone with as little a clue as Novak would be a low ebb for human thought.
» WSJ: What the Congress Can Do For America (George W. Bush)
Apparently someone didn't get the message this past election. About the best thing Congress can do for America is ignore the intellectual flatulence passing for political discourse coming out of 1600 Pennsylvania. Veiled recommendations for the "Minority Protection Clause" in Congress only make the final two years of this man's Presidency laughable at best.
» WaPo: Passed Over by Pelosi, Harman Doesn't Get Even. She Gets Mad. (Lois Romano)
About the only surprising thing regarding the Pelosi-Harman tiff is that nobody's ever come out and said what it's all really about. The quieter that front is, the more indicative it is that it's something amazingly trivial.
» NYT: Spitzer’s Health Care Pledge Focuses on Easing the Way for Those Entitled (Richard Perez-Pena)
Interesting read here, not so much for the question of how Spitzer fulfills his campaign promise of increasing health insurance in New York, but on the question of what factors go into defining coverage itself.
The uninsured, we're told, are younger healthier types who forego something they don't see much need for, but also poorer people without the documentation required to enroll. In the case of New York, any child is eligible to enroll in CHIPs so long as they're willing to pay the "less than $200" monthly fee. That fact, apparently, was used by now-former Governor Pataki to proclaim that every child in New York had coverage. Fair enough ... but by that same logic, everyone in the United States has access to health care and therefore, there is no health care crisis at all.
What jumps out at me is that $200 price tag, though. Granted, I'm one who believes that at least 90% of whatever health care problem there might be is due to the nature of the industry rather than any political act or lack thereof. But I also think there has to be some way to get a coverage option that is both widely available in the private market, open to pretty much everyone, and covers some definition of widely-needed elements of coverage ... at $99 a month ... if not lower. Easier said than done, I fully realize. But once you find the right combination there at that price point, you start cutting the number of uninsured without a single act of Congress. Well, actually it would likely take several acts of Congress to allow the industry changes necessary I suspect. What all goes into that, I won't profess to have the full prescription for. I'll leave that for Michael Porter. The problem facing American health care isn't the threat of being federalized ... it's that it already IS federalized.
» Chron: Comets coach Chancellor resigns (Michael Murphy)
The WNBA ain't what it used to be, even in Houston. It's still sad to see Coach Chancellor hang it up, though. The sale of the team is another curiosity. Granted, Les Alexander's attention span to secondary sports teams is remarkably fleeting (says this one-time fan of the Texas Terror!). I didn't realize the sale was looking to be transacted with the guy who attacks mattresses with chainsaws on late-night TV ads, declaring "That's a fact, Jack!" Sadly, that speaks volumes about the state of the WNBA.
» Chron: Here are the don't-miss concerts of 2007 (Andrew Dansby)
Strange inclusion for the "Front Page." That said, I think I'll skip all of these suggestions. Granted, Emmylou is tempting just to say I've seen her. $35 to get in the door at Jones Hall isn't a bad deal, either. But it's a stretch considering I'm not a huge fan by any definition. I've already got tickets to see Chris Tomlin in the new Berry Center up in Cypress. I'd argue that's a pretty nice "Under the Radar" entrant, but it's not like I just assume the Chron music writers have a deep sense of appreciation for CCM tunes. As for the other side of the coin (the musical one, that is), I should also note that I eagerly await The Darkness getting their singer out of rehad and hitting American shores for a tour this year.
UPDATE: I'm alerted to the fact that one item of interest that went past me during the hectic campaign season was that lead singer Justin Hawkins has officially left The Darkness after his stint in rehab. On the plus side, there is definitely a concert coming up that gets added to the mix: Winger is coming to town again, folks. I repeat ... Winger!!! Do not be alarmed.