TPMDC Morning Roundup
Obama's Day Ahead
President Obama is speaking at 9 a.m. at the National Prayer Breakfast. At 11 a.m. he will sign an executive order establishing the President's Advisory Council on Faith, which will revamp the former Bush Administration's faith-based initiatives. At 12 p.m. he will speak at the Department of Energy. At 3 p.m. he and Joe Biden are meeting with Tim Geithner, and at 3:45 p.m. Obama and Biden will meet with Hillary Clinton. At 8 p.m. ET he will speak to the House Democrats' Issues Conference.
Biden Meeting With O'Malley, Cardin And LaHood
Joe Biden is holding a public event at 10 a.m. with Maryland Governor Martin O'Malley and Senator Ben Cardin, plus Secretary of Transportation Ray LaHood, to discuss the need for greater investments in infrastructure.
Today: Minnesota Supremes Hearing Case For Franken Certification
The Minnesota Supreme Court will be hearing arguments in a very important lawsuit at 10 a.m. ET this morning: The Franken campaign's case that he is entitled to a certificate of election, while Norm Coleman continues to dispute the election result in court. Franken's attorneys believe they have found a state statute that requires a certification, as opposed to the conventional wisdom that one can't be issued until the court case is over, and also argue that he is also entitled to his Senate seat under the federal Constitution.
Gregg: We Need To Work Together On Economic Measures I've Recused Myself From
In his interview with CNBC yesterday, Judd Gregg called for bipartisanship as Washington works to improve the economy: "I think it's necessary we work together." Note: Gregg has recused himself from voting on the stimulus package while his nomination for Secretary of Commerce is pending, which in terms of parliamentary procedure is the same as if he were voting No on every cloture motion.
Poll: Dems Start Out Ahead In Wide-Open 2010 Ohio Senate Race
A new Quinnipiac poll shows Republican former Congressman Rob Portman trailing two potential Democratic candidates in the 2010 Ohio Senate race, which is an open GOP-held seat. The undecideds remain rather high, though: Portman trails Democratic Lt. Governor Lee Fisher by a 42%-27% margin, and Portman trails Dem Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner by 38%-28%.
Mitt To Headline GOP Dinner
The Hill reports that Mitt Romney will be headlining the National Republican Senatorial Committee's annual fundraising dinner, keeping his name and political presence out there for any potential 2012 presidential candidacy. The dinner is scheduled for April 1.
Iowa's David Yepsen Leaving Journalism
David Yepsen, the long-time top political columnist in Iowa, is leaving the Des Moines Register to become director of the Paul Simon Public Policy Institute in Southern Illinois. Yepsen has been a major presence in the coverage of past Iowa caucuses, and his departure is a sign of just how much the political journalism field is now changing.
AP Makes Copyright Infringement Claim On Obama "Hope" Poster
The Associated Press is claiming copyright infringement on the iconic "Hope" poster of Barack Obama, which appears to have been modeled after a photo of Obama from 2006. The AP wants credit and compensation for the use of the photo, while poster creator Shepard Fairey believes he is protected by fair use, and his attorney is in discussions with the AP.
| TOPICS: Barack Obama, MN-SEN, Mitt Romney, OH-SEN, Stimulus, Supreme Court
Josh
Matt
Eric
April first. Fitting.
February 5, 2009 9:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
Obama Finally Wises Up: Says 'Effin BYE to Bipartisanship!'
http://satiricalpolitical.com/?p=5944
February 5, 2009 9:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
want to give economedes props on a fresh thread -- for head of HHS he (she?) suggested Tony Fauci of NIH. excellent idea.
February 5, 2009 9:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
or dean, or mcDermott, or dollar bill bradley.
February 5, 2009 9:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'd vote to confirm Bradley.
February 5, 2009 11:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
That is an interesting idea! He's been quite successful navigating hostile (politically) waters as head of NIH, and he certainly knows how to run a huge bureaucracy pretty effectively. AND another actual scientist/clinician. Hmmmmm.
February 5, 2009 10:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
Actually he is director of NIAID, not the entire NIH. I understand he doesn't want HHS, with all of its financial and regulatory portfolio-wants to stay close to the science.
February 5, 2009 1:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Anyone know about Kitzhaber for HHS? Looks like another good possibility to me--
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2009/2/4/194714/4741/360/693244
February 5, 2009 11:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, the more I learn about what they've done in Oregon, the more I think we should look to someone with experience there. Wyden is mentioned as another possibility.
February 5, 2009 11:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
This is outrageous. Even if he feels he has to recuse himself on final passage, why can't he summon the cojones to vote for cloture in the interest of seeing the Senate give the bill an up-or-down vote? How is that a conflict of interest? And why didn't the administration insist on this as a precondition of his getting the nomination?
February 5, 2009 9:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
Whoo Hoo! Yepsen's leaving! Iowa's own version of Chris Matthews and Tim Russert moving down the road is cause for celebration.
On the other hand, it makes me wonder about the Paul Simon Center.
February 5, 2009 9:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
The GOP has successfully framed the stimulus package as pork-filled librul pet project money grab.
It was a complete team effort as they even had fake populist Billo the Clown describing it as such on the morning shows.
Anything Obama does now is seen as damage control and he'll have to burn political capital to eventually get it passed.
So while Obama is preaching bi-partisanship, he's getting out maneuvered by the partisan right who went to the media early and often.
February 5, 2009 9:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
Remember how hard Bush sold the Iraq War, he sold it to the point that any opposition was marginalized. Maybe Obama should be using the buzz words "danger", "unpatriotic" more often.
February 5, 2009 10:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
The problem with that is the king and his court were a bunch of liars. They were lying about everything. The obama administration will not do that. If they do, then it really is over.
February 5, 2009 10:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
True he is speaking bipartisanship and trying to make the republicans look petty and like obstructionists if they don't play ball.
Question: Do you actually think that the republicans would not have done the same thing concerning the minor aspects of the bill that they have been harping on if obama was not seeking bipartisanship? If you do, I have a bridge to sell you. This stuff takes time and won't happen overnight.
By the way, the sky is falling, the sky is falling. It's been two weeks and two days and nothing has been accomplished. OH NO! The sky is falling.
February 5, 2009 10:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
That's exactly right.
SCHIP, Equal Pay, Middle East Ambassador, ending Bush's drilling sales.
I'll take two weeks of nothing over 8 years of "something" any day any time. Anyone who's upset about the stimulus or the cabinet probs is WATCHING TOO MUCH TEE VEE.
February 5, 2009 10:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
He's actually done more in two weeks than most presidents accomplish in six months, but shhh, don't tell anyone. They are more interested in complaining and screaming that the sky is falling.
By the way, I would add to that list that he was responsible for the isreali pull out of gaza as well and a host of other foreign policy accomplishments.
But, the sky is falling, the sky is falling. Oh No!
February 5, 2009 10:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, but in those two weeks he still hasn't managed to completely eliminate cronyism and corruption from politics. Change we can believe in?! He's no different than Bush!
February 5, 2009 10:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
Is there someone in particular that you're directing this same snarky comment towards? Because I don't see anyone here screaming that the sky is falling, and I don't think some criticism over how the stimulus bill has been handled constitutes chicken-littlism.
February 5, 2009 11:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
No. Also, its not just over how the stimulus bill was handled. Its every single attempt by obama to broaden his base and people involved in his government. Every time he acts in a manner that is not trying to shove the dem agenda down people's throats, many commentors are up in arms. Obama is looking long term, give him some time and see how it plays out as opposed to nit-picking non-issues. That's the point.
In any event, I will stop and was planning on doing so in any event.
February 5, 2009 12:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't know. It sure looks that way, but I am also getting a strong sense of de ja vu. Specifically back to all the second guessing during the summer of the campaign when Obama was being attacked as a celebrity and everyone was saying that he was losing, needed to fight back, etc.
No doubt Obama has given the Republicans a lot of rope on this - but as has happened in the past - that rope may be used to hang themselves.
Republicans can not seriously argue that they have not been involved in this process. This will make it much easier to paint them as obstructionists when it finally comes to vote, should they stick by their guns and vote against it. We tried to work with them, they made their intentions clear, we'll move on without them...
Two things that we learned from the campaign about Obama is 1) he knows how to make an argument to the American public and now has the most powerful bully pulpit in recent memory, 2) He has an exquisite sense of timing.
My gut tells me that the Republicans are over playing their hand with this.
February 5, 2009 10:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yep. Rope-a-dope all over again.
February 5, 2009 1:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
The AP can go to hell. They have no claim to Obama's face. They just want money. Scumbags.
February 5, 2009 10:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
I can't believe on this news day I am going to make a comment about the AP/Fairey dispute, but here goes.
Back in the day I used to be an intellectual property attorney, and I had a fair share of copyright cases.
Creds established, it seems to me that the AP has an argument, but probably not a successful argument. Fair use of news items, be they written word or image, is fairly strong, and there is probably no issue that the AP printed the image to accompany a news item. Fairey's use is, furthermore, derivative of that image and contains creative elements not found in the original image. Think Warhol's Campbell's Soup image. If Fairey had just slapped "Hope" under the AP's identical photo, then there may be a different case, but here, I doubt it.
If you are getting that soft and squishy feeling from me on this, it's because the standards for copyright violations are, outside the realm of direct copying or counterfeiting, squishy. And they get squishier the further from a direct copy you get. Recall the sampling legal battles of the early 1990s (e.g., "Pretty Woman" and 2 Live Crew), and you get a sense of how squishy this gets.
But my gut on copyright law proved to be right about 72.3% of the time. If it looks like infringement, it probably is. But if it's far enough removed from actual copying, and is infused with creative elements, it probably isn't. I think it's fairly far enough on this side of the line for Fairey to prevail.
Plus, what will invariably bobble to the surface of any judge's thinking is: "Hold on a second. This image has been peddled and lauded since, what, February 2007? And you are bringing this case now? Come on."
February 5, 2009 10:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
One other point, fairey has not made a penny off of the poster. He purposely has allowed it to be used and published everywhere as long as noone is profiting from the use of the poster. There are no damages, other than potentially statutory damages. No profits.
February 5, 2009 10:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
The AP. Screw them. What a bunch of jerks. A 1st year law student could defend this case.
February 5, 2009 10:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
Setting aside the legal arguments, this also seems to be a really bad move by the AP just on a basic PR level. As Lars pointed out, this image has been around for over a year without anybody making a secret of the fact that it's derived from an AP photo. Fairey himself was quite open in saying that he used an AP photo and was trying to contact the original photographer.
It seems to me that if this lawsuit goes forward, it would be just like what happened when the RIAA sued regular citizens for file sharing. Even if they win, they're going to lose in the broader public.
February 5, 2009 10:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
Fairey is an idiot, and he's actually pretty well known as a plagiarist, a lot of his work is 'modeled' off of pre-existing stuff. On the other hand, while the angle of Obama's head is the same, the expression on his face is totally different. In the AP photo he looks constipated, in the Fairy poster he looks hopeful, introspective, etc. There's an entirely different kind of image.
A few months ago the AP was claiming that bloggers couldn't even quote their articles. They're idiots.
February 5, 2009 10:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
You say "idiot plagiarist," I say "derivative work." Or as copyfighter Larry Lessig might put it, Fairey is a prime example of our "remix culture." The dude created those Andre the Giant "OBEY" stickers, fer chrissakes, he's not exactly Thomas Kincaid.
February 5, 2009 11:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
What will the MN-SC say? Here's a suggestion:
Norm, listen up. You are entitled to your day in court like anyone else. You are NOT entitled to abuse that right. This case has gone on for almost two weeks and you've produced bupkis in the way of evidence supporting your claims. If you've got a case, you'd better present it and now. You've got three days and if at the end of that time you've shown nothing but shadow puppets, we're going to shut this down and award Franken the certificate. Got it? Three days.
February 5, 2009 10:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
I can see that. I would submit that they probably give him more than 3 days though. I say he gets one more week. It sounds better.
February 5, 2009 10:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
The other interesting part of this case is that I'm sure the judges don't appreciate their intelligence being insulted with the claim that these witnesses are not cherry-picked. OTOH, given the quality of the witnesses, maybe they weren't.
So we're left with two alternative conclusions:
1. The witnesses were not cherry-picked, in which case Coleman's attorneys are idiots.
2. They were cherry-picked and his case is just that bad.
February 5, 2009 10:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
I pick option 2. I guarantee that they went through this stuff with a fine tooth comb to find the best that they could. The case is that bad.
February 5, 2009 10:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
Obama wrote an op-ed for WaPo. I love a good counteroffensive.
February 5, 2009 10:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think a big election day round-up was the testimony about the SEC handling of Madoff yesterday afternoon. I can't believe they are claiming executive privilege on the testimony. The SEC has been a colossal f-up. They failed on monitoring securities, they failed by removing the up-tick rule that has torn down companies, they completely failed in this Madoff ponzi scheme.
I don't know if they should go to jail but these people in that agency should never be allowed to be in Government again, every.
February 5, 2009 10:42 AM | Reply | Permalink