Doug-at-large

Much has been written about Rand Paul’s recent statements where he is opposed to laws forcing private businesses to serve minorities, and has spoken up as a supporter of BP.

Supporters say he is a “libertarian.” But he’s not that either. He’s really just a fringe, right-winger with an inconsistent, somewhat loony mixed bag of personal opinions.

Some examples:

doug

Republicans who thought health care reform was going to be Obama’s Waterloo and are hoping to make repeal their big campaign issue in the fall are going to have to think twice. The Democrats designed it to front load with lots of positive features that people just aren’t going to want to give back once they give it some logical thought.

And opinion polls already show more people in favor of the new law than opposed:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2010-03-23-health-poll-favorable_N.htm?csp=usat.me

doug

Michael Steele, the newly elected chairman of the Republican Party said this:

“It’s time for something completely different and we’re going to bring it to them,” Mr. Steele said. “We’re going to bring this party to every corner, to every boardroom, to every neighborhood, to every community. And we’re going to say to friend and foe alike, ‘we want you to be a part of us, we want you to be with us and for those of you who are going to obstruct, get ready to be knocked over.’ “

What on earth kind of a statement is that? It sounds like a statement the Gestapo would issue.

doug

Well, I’m not going to stay awake while they all have lunch, so I guess I’ll have to see a recap of the parade on the news tomorrow. Maybe I’ll be up in time for the inaugural balls.

I can’t believe Chief Justice Roberts messed up the oath of office!

I thought Obama’s speech was “ok”. Typical Obama rhetoric. A little disjointed. If *I* were the speechwriter I would have book-ended his statement at the beginning about there being a nagging doubt that America is in decline with a declaration that he has no doubts that America is on the rise. But nobody asked me.

I watched some MSNBC live streaming before going into the next room to watch the main event live on CNN on a regular TV. I really haven’t watched MSNBC much before and was surprised to see how it is true what people say about them being “in the tank” for Obama. They don’t even pretend to be unbiased.

For example, one person commented that, “it must be a bittersweet moment for Bush considering all the calls for change” and the anchor said, “Bittersweet? The Bushes must feel like the Romanoffs today. ”

After he repeated the Romanoff comment the other co-anchors tried to get him to back off of that. Apparently that was a bit much even for MSNBC.

But they were basically completely in the tank for Obama. The anchor was even saying Bush probably would not be revisited in history as an interesting president. I don’t think history will treat Bush well, but I doubt he will be ignored. He made so many disastrous decisions it would be hard to ignore him.

Andrea Mitchell was trying to get NY Governor Paterson to say who he selected to replace Clinton. He was saying he didn’t want to distract from today to say who he decided on and Mitchell basically ignored him and asked, “so do you think Caroline Kennedy will be a good senator for NY?”

MSNBC did pause from demonizing Bush and promoting Caroline Kennedy to say the park department doesn’t make crowd estimates anymore because of controversies about them.

The only good commentator on MSNBC was the historian Doris Kearns-Goodwin, who always is a reservoir of presidential information and comparisons between Lincoln and Obama.

I switched to CNN a bit after that to get a better view on a regular TV, but also it seemed CNN at least tried to be balanced in describing what was going on.

doug

Congressional Committee Debates Merits Of Proposed Inauguration Dance

“Prosecutors said Tuesday there is no evidence that Barack Obama was involved in the Blagojevich scandal. Or, as Fox News reported it, ‘Is Barack Obama involved in the Blagojevich scandal?’”

–Amy Poehler

Reading more about this, I can see why the idea of being secretary of state appeals to Hillary Clinton and Obama.

While there is no guarantee Obama will appoint her, it seems he is trying to take a page from Lincoln’s book where he created a cabinet of his rivals to ensure greater unity in the long run. The book “Team of Rivals: The Political Genius of Abraham Lincoln” by Doris Kearns Goodwin is a fascinating and good read by the way. It appears that Obama is a fan of the idea as well.

From Clinton’s perspective, she apparently feels stymied by the seniority system in the senate. Apparently at her age and relative position she has little chance, as junior senator from New York, of ever achieving control of a major committee or becoming majority leader. And she was also apparently rebuffed by Kennedy when she asked him to create a sub-committee to deal with new health care legislation that she could run. That is, after all, her trademark issue.

Also, as somebody else pointed out, while as Secretary of State you still have to attend boring meetings all the time, at least they are with heads of state in glamorous places like resorts in Dubai and Geneva instead of with transit officials at a Holiday Inn in Albany.

Even her critics don’t doubt that she would throw herself into it and do a good job if appointed. She is the type who likes to keep busy and actually accomplish things, so that’s probably why she would not be satisfied with a just senate sinecure.

doug