MN-SEN

Why Republicans Should Back Franken

Matthew Cooper | April 17, 2009, 11:50AM

It's no surprise that Republicans have supported Norm Coleman's (now all but doomed) effort to be reelected in Minnesota. After all, the Senate's closely divided and Republicans hate Franken who has been tweaking them for a decade. But at some point, I think, Republicans will give up the fight not only because there will be pressure on them to do so but because they'll realize that they are better off with Al Franken in the Senate than without.

I also think the fact that Coleman, who no doubt would like to run again someday, will bow to Minnesota's good-government culture and not stretch this thing out, thereby giving Pawlenty the space to certify Franken. I could be wrong. Maybe they'll make this a scorched earth policy for months to come, the opposite of Gore's exit after the legal battle was lost. But I don't think so. Coleman's self preservation instincts will combine with the need of GOP's consultant culture to put Franken in the Senate. Mitch McConnell won't like it but I think he'll be stuck with it.

Read more »

Barack Obama

Obama's Too-Busy Meme, Cont'd

Matthew Cooper | March 11, 2009, 10:37AM

This morning, Matt Lauer continued the meme by asking Council of Economic Advisers Chair Christina Romer whether the president had "bitten off more than he could chew." Romer responds here:

Most of the he's too-busy meme has been absurd. But the always-smart Bill Galston, over at The New Republic, raises a more nuanced proposition here.

Galston notes that, unlike FDR, Obama doesn't have the same clout in a more divided Congress and that FDR really did keep things focused on the economic emergency in his first months. Galston notes:

Roosevelt delayed most of the structural reforms that did not bear directly on the economic emergency. For example, he did not even propose a commission to consider social insurance until June of 1934. Social Security legislation was introduced six months later, in January 1935, and was not signed into law until August of that year, after the provisions relating to health care had been stripped out.

Roosevelt organized his first term around two principles that the Obama administration would do well to ponder. First, he kept his (and the country's) attention firmly fixed on a single task: ending the crisis of confidence and restarting economic activity. While he was more sensitive than previous presidents to the links among seemingly disparate issues, these interconnections in his view did not warrant trying to move on all fronts at once. The people and the Congress had to be brought along with an agenda and a narrative that they could understand.

Fair enough, but I think there's a response to that, too.

First, distraction is a two-way street. Congress is constantly deviating from the economic emergency to deal with other stuff. I watched a fulsome debate on the transportation of chimpanzees and other primates the other day on C-SPAN. The House was taking up a bill in the wake of that chimp attack. It's not reasonable to focus just on one branch of government.

Second, Obama is talking about a lot of things but he's not sending up a torrent of legislation. There was the stimulus bill but everyone agreed there needed to be some kind of stimulus. He's encouraged Congress to come up with a health care plan but he hasn't forced a bill on them to consider. And besides is health care really a distraction? The facts show that you can't get entitlement reform or any control over future red ink without it. Why wait?

Third, Congress is a much bigger institution than it was in 1933 or even 1977, the other example the Galston cites. Staffs are bigger, there's more capacity to deal with more issues. If we have more of a logjam these days, it's owing to the partisan redrawing of districts, the culture of lobbying and so on but not an innate inability of Congress to handle more than a few things at a time.

As I said originally, if Obama suddenly decides to immerse himself in an obscure border dispute or something truly far afield, he ought to be called out on it. But green energy, health care, education, and other things he's pursuing all seem germane to the economy. You can disagree with them individually but it's hard to chide their relevance to the crisis at hand.

Business Lobby

Gephardt and Less than Meets the Eye

Matthew Cooper | March 9, 2009, 4:23PM

There's been interesting buzz about an item from Ken Silverstein of Harper's about Richard Gephardt, the former House Majority Leader and presidential candidate, whose firm is doing lobbying for the Chamber of Commerce.

When the item first appeared online last week, it seemed to suggest that the champion of organized labor might be doing something untoward. Was Gephardt betraying his union brothers and sisters to work for the man?

Lobbying disclosure forms are notoriously vague and so an item from PRWatch.org, Gephardt's firm noted Gephardt's firm, the Gepardt Group, is registered to represent the Chamber on "intellectual property," environmental and manufacturing issues.

So what's the real deal? Gephardt's office told me that it has represented NBC/Universal and U.S. Chamber as part of it work for a group called the Coalition Against Counterfiting and Piracy, dedicated to stamping out intellectual piracy. (Labor is a member of the group too.)

Gephardt's firm's work for NBC/Universal and the Chamber was on an intellectual property bill, the Prioritizing Resources and Orgainzation for Intellectual Property Act of 2008 of PRO IP bill which became law last year. And they're working on other legislation related to intellectual property. So did the Chamber pay Gephardt? Yes. Was it for something anti labor? No.

Barack Obama

"Not a Harry and Louise Moment, a Thelma and Louise Moment"

Matthew Cooper | March 5, 2009, 4:54PM

One of the many amusing lines from President Obama's wrap up of the health care summit at the White House. Here's something of note: Obama pointed to Rep. Jim Cooper saying we can get health care done. This is something we noted here the other day and it belies easy stereotyping of fiscal conservatives as obstinate. Here are some highlights from the Obama Q & A:

Ted Kennedy looked great and talked about the importance of the issue. Mitch McConnell asked about the Conrad-Gregg proposal on reforming Social Security. The prez kicked it back to Congress saying that Medicare and Medicaid is the 800-pound gorilla. Henry Waxman talked about the importance of trade offs and willingness to negotiate. Rep. Joanne Emerson, the kind of moderate Republican Obama will need on many issues going forward, was very complimentary about the discussions as was Charles Grassley, the ranking Republican on the pivotal Senate Finance Committee.

Most interesting was Dan Danner of the National Federation of Independent Business. The group was a key opponent of the Clinton plan in 1994 and while he didn't pledge to support Obama he wasn't hostile either. For Obama's part he told "bleeding hearts" they needed to take cost control into account just as fiscal conservatives needed to know they couldn't control costs just by "throwing seniors off of Medicare."

No shortage of critics on the left have whacked Obama for being too bipartisan but I don't see how a conference like this can do anything but it's hard to imagine how today's session was anything less than helpful in promoting universal health reform. It's not impossible to imagine meetings like these become a practice that's continued by future presidents.

Barack Obama

Biden on EFCA

Matthew Cooper | March 5, 2009, 3:39PM

Joe Biden addressed the AFL's Executive Committee in Miami this morning. Transcript of the event is finally out. Here are Biden's comments on the Employee Free Choice Act. Does not sound like any backing down:

So, folks, that's why there's no one thing we have to do. This is all going to be difficult, and one of the most difficult things will be to reinstitute that basic bargain. And I think the way to do that is the Employee Free Choice Act. (Applause.)

Folks, let's get it straight -- we're not asking -- we're not asking
for anything we don't deserve. And we're not asking for anything that
wasn't intended when the NLRB said we should be encouraging --
encouraging -- unions. We just want to level this playing field again.

Ladies and gentlemen, I think President Obama said it best when he said
-- I'm quoting -- "I don't buy the argument that providing workers with
collective bargaining rights somehow weakens the economy or worsens the
business environment." If you've got workers who have a decent pay and
benefits, they also are customers for your business. (Applause.)

So let me add to that and say that I have a simple, basic belief, one
that we're going to work hard to put into action: If a union is what
you want, a union you're entitled to have. (Applause.)

Housing/Foreclosures

That Housing Bailout Plan Gets Filled In

Matthew Cooper | March 4, 2009, 1:42PM

The Treasury Department has released more details about that housing bailout plan. Still waiting for some of the Washington lobbies to weigh in on it. My colleague, Elana Schor, has interesting reporting on the fight over "cramdowns"--giving bankruptcy judges the power to rewrite mortgage terms. Would be curious to know if readers are hearing about other fights over the proposal. It feels like the Rick Santelli moment has not yet passed. This Wall Street Journal poll shows a lot of public doubt about the plan.

Business Lobby

Another Ex-Lawmaker Takes a Shortcut Around the Lobbying Ban

Elana Schor | March 3, 2009, 11:31AM

When the new Democratic Congress passed a sweeping ethics bill in 2007, controversy erupted over the proposed new "revolving-door" ban on ex-lawmakers and aides lobbying their former colleagues. Senators wanted to double the ban to two years, while House Democrats pushed for keeping a one-year ban that would allow them to nail down lucrative lobbying gigs after leaving the Hill.

But no matter the length of the revolving-door ban, both Republicans and Democrats have long taken advantage of its enormous loophole. Let's call it the "senior adviser" route -- instead of lobbying current lawmakers directly, defeated members of Congress are flocking in droves to become behind-the-scenes consiglieres to the lobbyists that are allowed to contact sitting members.

The "senior adviser" club got another member just this morning ...

Read more »

Barack Obama

Chamber of Commerce Touting Stimulus

Matthew Cooper | February 19, 2009, 5:24PM

I'm not sure I agree with my boss's assessment of Washington.

You could argue that the entrenched interests stopped the Reagan and Bush administrations from doing what they would have liked, too.

I tend to think the town is more wired for inertia than anything, an entropy that stymies the ambitious goals of every president from Reagan to Obama. But I'm less despairing about it changing, too because crisis provokes change.

One sign of the crack is the Chamber of Commerce. They supported the stimulus plan and the morning after Obama's address to Congress next week, they'll be holding a panel discussion on how the money will be dispensed. Of course, the Chamber will fight Obama on the Employee Free Choice Act and any number of other issues but it's telling that they're not battling him on this.

On another matter I hear the Hilda Solis vote in the Senate could come as soon as Tuesday or at least an effort to invoke cloture and get it moving. It'd be nice to get the cabinet done by March.

Capitol Culture

The Fairness Doctrine, R.I.P.

Matthew Cooper | February 18, 2009, 6:47PM

Well, it looks like "the fairness doctrine" died a quiet death today. White House spokesman Ben LaBolt told Fox News that President Obama was not interested in restoring the Federal Communications Commission rule that basically requires broadcasters to give equal time to opposing points of view.

If enforced, the rule would obviously create havoc in talk radio land where conservatives dominate the airwaves. Not surprisingly, the right has been in a tailspin about this, predicting that Obama would somehow take away half of Rush and Sean and Laura and but liberals in their place. Talk about redistribution! But despite some congressional interest in the measure, the idea of restoring it was never really in play.

Intellectually, I think the idea is weak and the administration seems to think so, too. After all, it hearkens back to a pre-internet era when finding an opposing view was harder. But there were some lingering questions about what Obama would do. David Axelrod got asked about it on Fox News Sunday--yes, this is a News Corp obsession--and he punted, saying it was a decision best left for Julius Genachowski, Obama's not-yet-announced nominee to chair the FCC. (Genachowski is a close friend, for what it's worth.) But it looks like the decision's already been made. Seems sensible to me but the right loses something to fulminate about. I'm curious to see how much disappointment there is on the left.

Capitol Culture

Stanford's Company Helped Underwrite Congressional Baseball Game

Elana Schor | February 18, 2009, 6:25PM

It was a squeaker, but Team GOP prevailed over the Democratic squad in last year's installment of the annual Congressional Baseball Game.

As Politico reported in 2007, lawmakers found that corporate solicitations for the annual ballgame became a heavier lift than usual after the passage of new lobbying and ethics laws. But several brave businesses were willing to step up for '08 -- including the Stanford Financial Group, owned by accused bilion-dollar fraudster Allen Stanford, he of the Caribbean junkets and crusade to block anti-money-laundering rules.

Stanford's company political action committee contributed $10,000 to cover expenses for last year's Congressional game, according to disclosures filed with the Clerk of the House. Overall 2006 fundraising for the game totaled $120,000, according to the Politico report.

Bailout

Lobbies React to Obama's Mortgage Plan

Matthew Cooper | February 18, 2009, 3:06PM

Now that President Obama has unveiled his long anticipated mortgage relief plan, what does the permanent government of Washington have to say about the plan? The plan got a tentative thumbs up from the American Bankers Association. Diane Casey-Landry, ABA senior executive vice president and chief operating officer said in a statement.

"The American Bankers Association welcomes the Homeowner Affordability and Stability Plan announced today by President Obama. The plan is a constructive, flexible and multifaceted initiative likely to have a positive effect on preventing mortgage foreclosures. The ABA is committed to working closely with the administration as it completes the remaining details of the plan. In particular, the plan is:

*A major commitment of funding sufficient in scope to have a significant impact.

*Aimed at those at-risk homeowners most likely to avoid foreclosure under the planned assistance and incentives.

* Designed to include market incentives, and to complement and reinforce industry initiatives and FHA programs."

I've been trying to reach the National Association of Realtors and the National Home Builders Association for their reaction as well.

Not surprisingly, the reaction from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac has been positive. They stand to get $200 billion in new funds. Besides, they're under government conservatorship and not really in a position to criticize the big guy.

"The Administration's unprecedented effort to prevent foreclosures and expand refinancing options for more borrowers offers hope to many struggling families across America. This is just the beginning of a sustained effort that will build over time. Fannie Mae is committed to working with the Administration," says Herb Allison, Fannie's CEO.

The biggest obstacle that lies ahead is the administration's plan to give bankruptcy court judges the power to rewrite mortgage terms. Not surprisingly, the banks are not crazy about this and will oppose it but the threat of giving judges such power--something opposed by the Bush administration--gives the banks plenty of incentive to rewrite the terms of loans before the judges do. Benjamin Lockwood in The Atlantic argues against these judicial "cram downs" here.

Will update as we hear more but this fight over bankruptcy judges is the one to watch.

Barack Obama

Obama's F 22 Decision

Matthew Cooper | February 18, 2009, 2:07PM

If you're interested in the question of whether Barack Obama can change the culture of Washington, one of the things worth looking at is the lobbying efforts over the F 22 Raptor. The decision of what to do with this fighter aircraft is one of the more important defense procurement questions the administration will face. And, like all defense issues, it's wrapped up in politics especially in a deep recession when jobs are scarce and good-aying jobs are even scarcer.

Some background: Over decades, weapons systems have taken on a life of their own and proven hard to halt even when the Pentagon is ambivalent about having them. My former TIME colleague, Mark Thompson, a veteran defense correspondent, has, for instance, written at length about the problems bedeviling the V-22 Osprey aircraft and why, despite its woes, billions have been pumped into the project.

When it comes to the F 22 Raptor, the administration is facing a March 1 deadline to decide how many more F22s to order. Lockheed is supposed to deliver the last of the current batch of 181 on order in 2011. The argument against ordering still more F22s is that the Pentagon already has a similar aircraft, the F 35 Joint Strike fighter online and, besides, the more pressing issue for the U.S. is not air superiority in a conventional war but rooting out terrorists in the Khyber Pass. The Air Force has indicated that it would like a total of 381 but several senior Pentagon officials, including Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, have hinted that they'd like far fewer if not to put the kabosh on the program entirely. The Pentagon "has not demonstrated the need or value for making further investments" in the plane, the Government Accountability Office found.

So not surprisingly there's a lot of lobbying going on to keep the F 22 rolling. Northrop and Lockheed Martin are lobbying heavily to keep the plane in production and there's a large press availability this week where reporters can sit in simulators and learn all about the 95,000 jobs the plane's advocates say are at state. Any state where there's work related to the Raptor is lobbying for it. "With rising unemployment, we need to make sure that we're not making a knee-jerk reaction and we keep this program going strong," Keith Scott, president of the Baltimore County Chamber of Commerce told the Baltimore Sun. Our point is, No. 1, this preserves jobs, and No. 2, it is immediate. You don't have to develop anything," Lawson said. "This is 'shovel ready.' "

According to the Los Angeles Times, the F-22 program is directly responsible for 25,000 jobs at Bethesda, Md.-based Lockheed Martin and its major suppliers. But Lockheed officials say when jobs from sub-suppliers are added in, the F-22 program maintains 95,000 jobs in 44 states. Among the firms helping Lockheed in Washington is Public Strategies, home to George W. Bush media adviser Mark McKinnon. In Congress, prominent senators from Ted Kennedy to Judd Gregg to Dianne Feinstein signed a letter back in January urging then President Elect Obama to keep the F22 going. Not surprisingly there's a website, www.preserveraptorjobs.com that's just part of the lobbying campaign being waged by the Lockheed, Boeing and other suppliers of the jet fighter. We'll know soon whether their efforts have been successful.

Capitol Culture

More Malkin Insanity

Matthew Cooper | February 18, 2009, 9:57AM

Conservative commentators are going wild over the small number of journalists who have chosen to go into the Obama administration. It's proof, they say, of the media's liberal bias. Michelle Malkin goes into a rant on this.

Oh, please.

We're in economic chaos and print media is in free fall. I have no doubt that if John McCain had won, you would have seen some journalists head into the administration. In case, you missed it, no shortage of reporters love the guy.

As for the bias of those who've gone into the administration, let's take them one by one. There's my old Time colleague, Jay Carney, who is working for Biden. I don't think I'm giving away a state secret to say that more than a decade ago, as I recall, McCain had some interest in hiring Carney and the two have been friendly personally even while occasionally battling it out in print. Carney is probably one of the least partisan people I know. Jill Zuckman of the Chicago Tribune, after all, went to work for Ray LaHood, the Republican Secretary of Transportation from Illinois who she knew well from writing for the state's largest daily. Peter Gosselin of the L.A. Times, the widower of the late and much liked New York Times reporter, Robin Toner, who passed away recently, should hardly be begrudged for giving up the maelstrom of the Tribune company and Sam Zell to go work for Tim Geithner who was Hank Paulson's partner as much as he is Barack Obama's. In other words, big deal.

And even if they'd gone to work for more partisan figures or had more partisan leanings themselves, so what? I'm not sure it's a bad thing.

Besides, I'm of the school that service in government is good for journalists. I worked at the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights after college and the experience has always given me a more supple understanding of how government works. Many of my colleagues from the center-left The Washington Monthly where I began my career in journalism--James Fallows, Walter Shapiro, Paul Glastris, Steven Waldman and the magazine's founder, Charles Peters--have all worked in government.

I see no one on the right complaining about Michael Gerson having gone from U.S. News & World Report to the George W. Bush administration or William Safire's exodus from the Nixon administration to The New York Times. (I realize I'm conflating columnists and reporters here, but still, the point is the same.) Left and right can bitch about the MSM but I really don't think government service, whether it's Jay Carney or Tony Snow or Chris Matthews, should really be condemned. Geoff Morrell of ABC News went to work as the Pentagon spokesman under W. Now he's still there under Bob Gates who obviously stayed. Am I supposed to be alarmed by that?

Media bias is a perennial debate and I know how many TPM readers, I'm sure, see a right leaning bias in the MSM. But it strikes me that bias and government service are different questions, each worth parsing on their own.

Barack Obama

The Tyranny of Overscheduling

Matthew Cooper | February 17, 2009, 1:43PM

I suspected last week, when Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner, rolled out his incomplete bank bailout plan that he did so because it was on the schedule and nothing was going to move it. Today's much lauded piece in the Washington Post confirmed my suspicion. I spoke with a former Clinton Treasury official who was amazed that the Geithner thing got dumped just at the time when Obama could have been taking a victory lap for getting the stimulus deal all but closed. (This was before the Judd Gregg withdrawal but that's another matter.)

The larger point here is the administration's deeply ingrained habit of sticking to the schedule. That instinct served them well during the campaign when they didn't respond to every idiotic event and stuck with their plan. Pressure to attack Hillary Clinton more viscerally or to sign on to the gas tax holiday? Fuggedaboutit. Stick with the plan. But the tendency to stick with the plan has it's downside as we saw with Geithner's less-than-stellar roll out. Over the weekend, David Axelrod said that the stimulus signing was long scheduled to be out of town but was there really a need to give the right ammunition for delaying the signing of a bill that Obama said was urgent? The right's point is goofy. The money couldn't have gone out the door over a federal holiday. Still, the optics aren't great.

Back to my original point, sticking to the schedule isn't always wise.

Business Lobby

The Freshman and the Hedge Funds

Matthew Cooper | February 16, 2009, 2:07PM

In the coming weeks, hopefully we'll be able to provide some insight into the various banking lobbies and how they operate and what we can expect as a bank bailout package goes from blueprint to practice. As I tried to explain on Thursday, the banking lobby is hardly a monolith. While the banking lobby merits interest on its own, it's also a useful prism for asking the larger questions about how much Washington is or is not changing in the Obama era.

On Thursday, before Congress left town for its Presidents Day recess, I had the chance to speak with Jim Himes, the Democratic Congressman from Connecticut who defeated Christopher Shays in last fall's election. The 43-year-old Harvard grad sits on the House Financial Services Committee and he's also co chairing the New Democratic Coalition task force on financial reform along with Rep. Melissa Bean of Illinois. His story offers some insight into why its hard to use simple metrics to explain the story that's unfolding in Washington.

Himes's district includes Stamford and the prosperous New York City suburbs that have come to be known as Hedgefundistan for all of the wealth financiers who built megamansions in his district along side the oldline prosperous homes. If you were trying to identify who among Congressional Democrats might be an advocate for the hedge fund industry it would make sense to examine Himes. After all, so many of them live in his district. Besides he's taken a lot of money from various banking interests.

According to the Center for Repsonsive Politics, he received more money from recipients of the Troubled Assets Relief Program or TARP than any other member of the House Financial Services Committee in the 2008 campaign cycle--over $195,000 which is significantly more than the next highest recipient, the ranking member, Spencer Bauchus, the Alabama Republican. Himes earned more than $144,000 from Goldman Sachs employees alone. Oh, and the Rhodes Scholar also used to work for Goldman Sachs

Still, it would be wrong to assume from contributions or a financial services background alone dictates what a Congressman might or might not do. I asked Himes where he stood on the question of compelling hedge funds to disclose their investments, something that is being promoted indirectly in Congress by Senators Carl Levin, the Michigan Democrat, and Charles Grassley, the Iowa Republican. Their bill would give the Securities and Exchange Commission clear regulatory authority over hedge funds. (Right now the SEC's jurisdiction is ambiguous and has been taken up by the courts.) While Himes would have every incentive, given his district and where much of his money comes from, to protect the industry he said to me that "the highest priority is transparency." He didn't take a definitive position on the Levin-Grassley when I spoke to him but he was emphasizing transparency above all else which cannot be comforting to his neighbors in Hedgefundistan.

On the larger question of financial restructuring, Himes emphasized that "I want to make sure that risk resides with the people who take it."

Himes is one person to watch as we go forward. If winds up voting for a tough oversight of financial services, I think you'll have a good sense that Washington really is changing. The Fourth Congressional District of Connecticut has been in Republican hands since 1969. That it's now represented by a Democrat and one claiming, despite his pedigree, to take on financial services shows that this are changing here.

Capitol Culture

Bonnie Newman, We Hardly Knew Ye

Matthew Cooper | February 12, 2009, 6:37PM

Well, that was weird. I guess the senatorial career and presidential aspirations of Bonnie Newman have been cut a bit short.

Gregg seems to have acquitted himself better at the press conference than in his statement which at first seemed to suggest that he was going to try and play Sir Thomas More in "A Man For All Seasons," dying on a pyre to protect the sanctity of the Census from the politically expedient ruler.

I still think the Census thing has a slightly bogus quality to it. Gregg surely had more than enough clout to ensure that the Census Director, whoever it was, was someone he could live with even if the appointment was not his alone to make. It's not like the President was going to force Terry McAuliffe or some Demohack on him.

The stimulus thing is a little odd, too, since the whole package moved in a more Collins-Snowey direction in the last week. He should have been more reconciled to the bill by week's end, not less. But, that said, if he changed his mind for his own reasons or in part because he had raised eyebrows back home, then it's probably better we know now.

I pitch Eric Schmidt for the job. It's primarily a science job. NOAA is most of the budget. And then there's the Census. What Google was meant for (albeit in a slightly creepy way).

Capitol Culture

The Long, Long Partisan Era

Elana Schor | February 12, 2009, 11:14AM

As we're thinking about President Obama's quest for "post-partisanship," and discussing Congress' habit of legislating in a messy rush, it's worth asking: Has Washington always been plagued by feuds over access and transparency?

Here's one answer: Can you guess the year that this Senate coverage was published in the New York Times?

No conclusion of any kind regarding the tariff bill was reached, although the Republicans said they hoped to be able to report the bill to the full committee on Monday. ... [T]he Democrats would not agree to fix a date, saying they wanted a reasonable time to consider the bill, and there would be no undue delay. The Democrats were not shown a copy of the bill, nor did they receive any information regarding its character.

Read more »

Capitol Culture

Source: Solis Gets a Vote Today

Matthew Cooper | February 11, 2009, 12:00PM

Last night, it seemed as though the Solis nomination would get put off until after recess. It looks like there will be a Solis vote today, a labor source emails me. (Of course, Congress being Congress delays are always possible.) This comes just in time as the Service Employees International Union along with Latino, environmental and other groups will drop more than 10,000 petitions at the committee's door to advocate for Solis's confirmation. Not surprisingly they have a video along with the petition that you can see here.

Have three thoughts on all of this:

1. Solis did not help herself at the confirmation. By being hesitant on the Employee Free Choice Act and otherwise slightly Palinesque, she didn't do herself or the administration a favor. People who know Solis don't have a good explanation for her performance. Usually, she's nobody's pushover but for whatever reason she seemed weak and that gave the Republicans an in.

2. Tax woes run amok. The law of Washington scandals is that they tend to spread out until they become unwieldy and absurd. Thus the Tom Daschle failure to pay taxes on limo rides became Solis's problem when it was revealed her husband had a tax lien. At a certain point, the scandal gets defined in such a large way that everyone gets caught up in it. I can think of two other instances of this. The first was when Zoe Baird's nomination to be attorney general was derailed in 1993 because of failure to pay taxes for domestic help. A second Clinton nominee, Kimba Wood, also fell for a problem with taxes on domestic help. Janet Reno, not one to use domestic help, was the third and final nominee. Eventually the collective DC zeitgeist declared the once insurmountable problem, to not be a problem as long as you paid up and a slew of nominees were confirmed.

In 1987, Douglas Ginsburg was nominated for the Supreme Court by Ronald Reagan after Robert Bork's nomination was rejected by the U.S. Senate. Ginsburg's nomination had to be withdrawn after it was revealed that he'd smoked pot as a student and as a law professor at Harvard. (Hey, it was a different time.) In the days after Ginsburg's withdrawal a slew of aspiring politicians including Al Gore, Bruce Babbitt, and others admitted their marijuana use and the once prohibitive crime of joints smoked as an adult was rendered, at most, a misdemeanor. Solis got caught up in a smaller version of that dynamic.

3. The fight over Solis is really just a precursor of the looming battle over the Employee Free Choice Act. A person with knowledge of the meeting earlier this week between AFL president John Sweeney and Vice President Joe Biden noted that they discussed EFCA and the administration's continued commitment to it. When the battle is joined--probably in late Spring--Solis's nomination will look like a skirmish.

Late Update: Solis' nomination will get a committee vote at 5pm today. The timeline for consideration by the full Senate, however, remains unclear. --e.s.

Capitol Culture

Feinstein Wants Pentagon Investigation of Alleged Gitmo Burrowers

Elana Schor | February 6, 2009, 9:43AM

Remember the case of Kathie Olsen, the Bush political appointee who's now safely ensconced in a suspiciously junior position at the same agency where she was once the No. 2?

Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) thinks she's uncovered a similar situation at the Pentagon's Office of Detainee Affairs, where former Bushies are still involved in politically sensitive debates over the Guantanamo Bay prison. Feinstein wrote to Defense Secretary Robert Gates on Wednesday seeking an inquiry into whether two political appointees "have been improperly converted to career positions within the Department of Defense." From her letter:

Read more »

Capitol Culture

The Charmingly Dry Wit of Nancy Pelosi

Elana Schor | February 4, 2009, 2:21PM

There are many truisms of life inside the Capitol that occasionally surface in media coverage but are rarely explained straight-up to those outside the building. Here's one: House Democrats -- like many in the party's grassroots base -- often watch in frustration as legislation that can easily pass in their chamber slows down to a stop in the Senate.

Despite the Democrats' control of 58 Senate seats (pending the outcome in Minnesota), that climate hasn't changed this year. One House Dem recently told me that his party should consider lowering the filibuster margin from 60 to 55 votes, citing the 1977 rules change that knocked it down from 67 votes to 60.

So given that accepted truism of House-Senate relations, it's hard not to grin at this exchange, which occurred during Speaker Nancy Pelosi's (D-CA) press briefing today:

QUESTION: Speaker Pelosi, it's a lot easier to pass legislation through the House than it is in the Senate...

PELOSI: You notice that?

Republicans

Joe the Plumber Hits the Capitol to Meet With GOPers

Elana Schor | February 4, 2009, 9:59AM

Your eyes do not deceive you -- that was indeed Joe Wurzelbacher, a.k.a. Joe the Plumber, visiting the Capitol yesterday in coat and tie (tie and leather jacket, to be more exact).

Joe told reporters that he had met with Republican aides, ostensibly to offer his astute political messaging advice, but that no lawmakers were present for his visit.

When asked whether he had plans to see old pal Sen. John McCain (R-AZ), Joe was non-committal. And when asked, wholly in jest, whether he planned to lay any pipe during his day in D.C., Joe was downright incensed. A moment of awkward silence followed the question. "All the puns have been made," Joe warned the reporter who queried him.

I don't know, Joe ... sometimes the puns deserve to be made again.

Capitol Culture

When Falling Short of 60 Doesn't Mean A Filibuster

Elana Schor | February 3, 2009, 4:23PM

A reader writes in to note my description of a Senate transportation amendment as falling "two votes short" today, suggesting that it had in fact been filibustered by the GOP.

The Republicans certainly did block the amendment, but it wasn't a filibuster -- what occurred was a motion to waive budgetary rules to allow for more new spending that isn't offset by cuts. Such a motion is more of a fiscal box-checking than a political obstruction, though it has the same effect in practice. Sixty votes are needed to waive budgetary rules, the same margin needed to break a filibuster.

But If no budgetary motion had been made on the amendment, it likely would have been deemed "non-germane" according to Senate rules -- and fallen short in the end. Such is the mind-numbing tradition of parliamentary procedure.

Stimulus

Letting Congress Be Congress: Transportation Funding

Elana Schor | February 3, 2009, 12:07PM

A new president is in charge, but Congress' allergy to innovation and reliance on outmoded ideas hasn't really changed at all. Exhibit B: the transportation funding amendment that Sens. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) and Patty Murray (D-WA) are pushing to add to the stimulus bill this week.

Read more »

Capitol Culture

Previewing the Senate Stimulus Debate: Do They Have the Votes?

Elana Schor | January 30, 2009, 3:18PM

As this slow news day moves on, it's a good time to prepare for the Senate stimulus debate that will begin on Monday -- it's shaping up an only slightly more genial cage match than we saw in the House.

One possible X factor arising today is the sideline maneuvering of Sen. Ben "Gang of 14" Nelson. He's staying true to form by trying to build a bipartisan coalition of senators to support major changes to the House bill.

Read more »

Capitol Culture

What Lies Behind a Slow News Day

Elana Schor | January 30, 2009, 11:08AM

Fridays are often slow news days in the capital, and today is no exception. Aside from some talk of a third Republican in the Obama Cabinet and the RNC chairman's race, few major storylines are unspooling at the moment -- part of the reason for that is the House GOP's departure for their annual retreat in the mountain town of Hot Springs, Virginia.

But in another sense, the relative quiet of a slow news Friday is a Washington cultural tradition.

Read more »