Political Radar: Bush, George W.

Category: Bush, George W. | Main

WMD: Who's telling the truth?

December 08, 2008 3:48 PM

ABC News' Martha Raddatz and Richard Coolidge Report: On Sunday, the New York Times weighed into the debate over Weapons of Mass Destruction and whether it was the Bush administration's true causus belli to go to war in Iraq.

Quoting from the editorial, "The truth is that Mr. Bush, Mr. Cheney and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld had been chafing to attack Iraq before Sept. 11, 2001. They justified that unnecessary war using intelligence reports that they knew or should have known to be faulty. And it was pressure from the White House and a highly politicized Pentagon that compelled people like Secretary of State Colin Powell and George Tenet, the Central Intelligence director, to ignore the counter-evidence and squander their good names on hyped claims of weapons of mass destruction."

In an interview with ABC News' anchor Charlie Gibson that aired last week, President Bush defended his decision to go to war and seemed to spread the blame around.

"The biggest regret of all the presidency has to have been the intelligence failure in Iraq. A lot of people put their reputations on the line and said the weapons of mass destruction is a reason to remove Saddam Hussein. It wasn't just people in my administration; a lot of members in Congress, prior to my arrival in Washington D.C., during the debate on Iraq, a lot of leaders of nations around the world were all looking at the same intelligence. And, you know, that's not a do-over, but I wish the intelligence had been different, I guess.

And what if the intelligence had shown he didn't have any WMD?

"You know, that's an interesting question. That is a do-over that I can't do. It's hard for me to speculate."

But Karl Rove, last week, in a debate about the legacy of the Bush Presidency, was asked whether an invasion would have taken place had the intelligence been accurate (i.e. there had been no WMD), appeared to take a slightly different tack:

"In the aftermath of 9/11 the concern was about a tyrant guilty of enormous human rights abuses, but possessed with weapons of mass destruction and an intention to use them as a state sponsor of terror. Absent that, I suspect the administration’s course would have been to work to find more creative ways to constrain him than he’d been constrained in the nineties."

Today, the White House responded with a statement by National Security Advisor Stephen Hadley:

"While the President has repeatedly acknowledged the mistakes in the pre-war intelligence, there is no support for the Times’ claim that the President and his national security team “knew or should have known [the intelligence] to be faulty” or that “pressure from the White House” led to particular conclusions. Nothing in the many inquiries conducted into these matters supports the view of the Times’ Editorial Board. Indeed, the independent Silberman-Robb Commission and the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence concluded that no political pressure was brought to bear on the Intelligence Community."

The President, however, seemed to be avoiding being drawn further into the debate. In an interview with National Review posted this morning, Bush was asked about the Rove remark. But he sidestepped, saying the President doesn't "get an opportunity to redo a decision," and Bush presented the counter argument that the world would have been left with a tyrant who had sponsored terrorism in the past, had the capacity to make nuclear weapons, next door to an unpredictable Iran, and therefore the region is today much better off without him.

It's a question to which we may never have a satisfactory answer.

December 8, 2008 in Bush, George W., Iraq, Washington, White House | Permalink | User Comments (92)

Obama Points to Farm Subsidies for Budget Cuts

November 25, 2008 4:39 PM

ABC News' Z. Byron Wolf and Nitya Venkataraman Report: Asked today where he would start cutting spending once he becomes President, Barack Obama immediately pointed to abuse of farm subsidies.

If changing government is his goal, he'll have no more difficult time than with farm subsidies, which confound academics and politicians in both parties, but represent a lifeblood of revenue for the middle of the country.

"Let me give you one example of what I'm talking about," Obama said of government waste at a press conference in Chicago today. "There's a report today that from 2003 to 2006, millionaire farmers received $49 million in crop subsidies even though they were earning more than the $2.5 million cutoff for such subsidies. If this is true, it is a prime example of the kind of waste I intend to end as president." (Read the report here.)

While Obama was talking about people gaming the subsidy system, it is interesting that he immediately thought of farm subsidies - sold every five years when the Farm Bill is passed as a way to help family farmers stay in business and keep American agriculture competitive in the global economy - goals that many people think farm subsidies miss by a wide margin as John Stossel found in Nebraska in October.

Fred Kirschenmann who owns a 3500-acre mixed grain and livestock farm in North Dakota says "in the short term, subsidies are necessary when you have volatility in prices" but ultimately are "not a sustainable system" for small family farms.

Farmers, he says, have never been in a position to bring a product in and determine its value against the market. "They have no economic power to negotiate a price that compensates them for their cost of production."

"What we need to be doing is gradually transitioning away from subsidies to a system that allows farmers to recoup their cost of production,' he says. "Subsidies should not be a handout they ought to be designed so that they provide a basic support to a system so a farmer doesn't go out of business."

Obama grudgingly supported the farm bill last Spring, and supported overriding President Bush's veto of it. He argued at the time that while the bill was not perfect, it was good.

That was not the tack President Bush took when he vetoed the bill in large part for not working enough to cut farm subsidies. In the official administration policy against the Farm Bill, the White House said "the bill continues to increase price supports and send farm subsidies to people who are among the wealthiest 2 percent of American tax filers whose three-year average Adjusted Gross Income (AGI) is greater than $200,000. Payments should be targeted to those who really need them, especially those who have a meaningful connection to production agriculture. This action does not represent fiscal stewardship nor is it farm program reform."

Ending farm subsidies altogether is a favorite topic of Obama's favorite Republican, Indiana Republican Richard Lugar.

Lugar and Sen. Frank Lautenberg, D-NJ, in late 2007 offered an amendment to the most recent farm bill that would have ended direct subsidy payments to farmers altogether and instead created a safety net - think large-scale, no cost insurance for emergencies.

Their proposal got 37 votes in 2007. Obama was campaigning, but his Illinois colleague Dick Durbin supported the amendment.

On his change.gov transition website, President-elect Obama promises to "Fight for farm programs that provide family farmers with stability and predictability. Implement a $250,000 payment limitation so we help family farmers -- not large corporate agribusiness. Close the loopholes that allow mega farms to get around payment limits."

Cutting subsidy payments at $250,000 was the same level sought by President Bush (and overridden by Congress with Obama's help).

November 25, 2008 in Bush, George W., Obama, Barack, Vote 2008: Democrats, Vote 2008: Republicans, Washington, White House | Permalink | User Comments (28)

For Obama, a Cautionary Tale on Budget Cuts

November 25, 2008 4:04 PM

ABC News' Jonathan Karl Reports: When President-elect Obama promised today to "scour our federal budget, line by line, and make meaningful cuts" he sounded like the current president.

"Just as we trust Americans with their own money, we need to earn their trust by spending their tax dollars wisely," President Bush said during his State of the Union address on January 28. "Next week, I'll send you a budget that terminates or substantially reduces 151 wasteful or bloated programs, totaling more than $18 billion."

True to his word, President Bush's 2009 budget submission proposed to "terminate or reduce 151 discretionary programs" and calculated that making all 151 of those cuts would reduce 2009 spending by $18 billion.

Given the size of the deficit (it was more than $430 billion last year), $18 billion in savings is quite modest. But how many of those 151 programs were ultimately eliminated?

None. Instead Congress added an extra $20 billion in spending.

November 25, 2008 in Bush, George W., Obama, Barack, Vote 2008: Democrats, Vote 2008: Republicans, Washington, White House | Permalink | User Comments (4)

The Note: Obama Waits on Change for January

November 21, 2008 8:21 AM

ABC News' Rick Klein reports in Friday's Note:

Change doesn’t have to wait until January.

Sen. Ted Stevens, R-Alaska, is gone. (A sign of a new day.)

Rep. John Dingell, D-Mich., is gone, partly, too. (A sign of a new order.)

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y., isn’t going anywhere. (But she’s gone quite a distance to get there.)

Penny Pritzker leaves before she ever even arrives.

And the auto bailout came back to life after it was declared dead, only to die again. (It may yet rise again -- though not until next month.)

As for President-elect Barack Obama -- he is, for the most part, waiting for January.

Read the rest of The Note -- and get all the latest on the 2008 election, Congress, the White House and the wide world of politics every day -- from Rick Klein by bookmarking this link.

Thus far through the transition, we’re learning that Obama remains, at his core, a cautious and patient politician -- one who can be quite stingy with his political capital.

Meanwhile, the stock market is in freefall, Detroit is near collapse, and Congress is in a stalemate. Obama has had nearly half of his Cabinet filled for him, without a single formal announcement.

(If you’re scoring at home, he’s now had more haircuts than press conferences as president-elect.)

Other than a few comments, Obama has chosen not to play in the current crisis: “With the stock market plunging and the credit market entering a new freeze, cries are being heard for a new government intervention to prop up major financial institutions before President-elect Barack Obama takes office,” Floyd Norris writes in The New York Times. “By resigning from the Senate before the current session began and allowing it to appear that a sense of drift could prevail until he is inaugurated, Mr. Obama may have missed an opportunity to exert leadership.”

“How much can go wrong in the two months before Mr. Obama takes the oath of office? The answer, unfortunately, is: a lot,” Paul Krugman writes in his column. “At minimum, the next two months will inflict serious pain on hundreds of thousands of Americans, who will lose their jobs, their homes, or both. What’s really troubling, however, is the possibility that some of the damage being done right now will be irreversible.”

“The problem is that nothing of significance can or will happen until the new President takes office in January, even though there is -- finally -- a great appetite for action in Washington. This is going to be a very frustrating few months,” Time’s Joe Klein writes.

Continue reading today's Note by clicking HERE.

ABC News' Hope Ditto contributed to this report.

November 21, 2008 in Biden, Joe, Bush, George W., Clinton, Bill, Clinton, Hillary, Inauguration, Obama, Barack, Palin, Sarah, Washington, White House | Permalink | User Comments (43)

The Note: Clinton Drama Haunts Obama Transition

November 19, 2008 8:35 AM

ABC News' Rick Klein reports in Wednesday's Note:

Which of these items should surprise us:

- The fact that Vice-president-elect Joe Biden is still a member of the United States Senate? (Albeit one with no intentions of actually casting another vote.)

- The fact that Sen. Ted Stevens is still a member of the Republican caucus? (Albeit one with very few votes left to cast.)

- The fact that Sen. Joe Lieberman is still a member of the Democratic caucus? (Just with one fewer subcommittee chairmanship that no one knew he had.)

- The fact that it there might be more old Clinton hands in the incoming Obama administration that there would have been if Hillary Clinton had won?

- The fact that conventional wisdom on Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton at State has shifted from why-would-he-want-her to why-would-she-want-it? (Is this all part of a power-play dance?)

- The fact that President-elect Barack Obama hasn’t had complete, leak-proof control of any of his major appointments so far in the transition process? (All this before he names a single member of his Cabinet . . . )

Forgiveness is in the air on the Hill, and maybe in Chicago, too.

Add Eric Holder, Obama’s choice for attorney general, to two running lists: worst-kept appointment secrets, and former top Clinton administration officials filling out the Obama team.

If Holder gets the nod, this means we know there will be at least one (if not a dozen) confirmation fights that reopen the old battles of the Clinton years.

This while Sen. Clinton plays out her internal fight over whether she wants to be Secretary of State. (Sorry, did someone mention drama?)

“While Mr. Obama has yet to name any of his cabinet secretaries, his early choices for White House staff positions and the names currently at the top of the list for staff and cabinet jobs suggest that his administration could be heavily stocked with Democrats who served under Mr. Clinton,” The New York Times' Eric Lichtblau and John M. Broder report.

This storyline, again: “President-elect Barack Obama repeatedly is turning to the Clinton administration for his Cabinet and staff, the latest example coming yesterday when Eric Holder emerged as the leading candidate for attorney general,” Bloomberg’s James Rowley and Julianna Goldman write. “To be sure, some of the problems that beset the Clinton administration could follow as well.”

Obama “wants the best people for the job, and he’s willing to overcome that chatter if he determines that anyone he appoints is the best person for the job, even if they did serve in the Clinton administration,” ABC’s George Stephanopoulos said on “Good Morning America” Wednesday.

Continue reading today's Note by clicking HERE.

ABC News' Hope Ditto contributed to this report.

November 19, 2008 in Biden, Joe, Bush, George W., Clinton, Bill, Clinton, Hillary, McCain, John, Obama, Barack, Palin, Sarah, Washington, White House | Permalink | User Comments (38)

The Note: Obama, McCain Could be Valuable Allies

November 17, 2008 8:24 AM

ABC News' Rick Klein reports in Monday's Note:

Questions worth pondering while you’re thinking about the prospect of a Palin-free week:

1. Who will play a bigger role in filling out President-elect Barack Obama’s Cabinet -- Joe Biden, Bill Clinton, or Doris Kearns Goodwin?

2. Will the Republican Party have to blow itself up to put itself back together? (Which of those directions does Mike Huckabee’s new book take the party?)

3. Will the president-elect spend more political capital getting a playoff system for college football than he will pushing a bailout package to help save Detroit? (And will he spend this much time in the gym when he’s in the White House?)

4. What does it say about the most open and transparent transition in history that Obama meets in super-secrecy with Democrats, while press releases are sent out for meetings with Republicans?

5. Who’s the more powerful Republican this week -- John Boehner, Mitch McConnell, or John McCain?

The rival reclamation tour continues Monday in Chicago, with Obama set to meet at noon ET with that other individual who almost stopped him from becoming president: McCain.

McCain is at heart a dealmaker, and his return to the Senate as part of a diminished GOP caucus enhances his opportunities to cut them. Just like he’d have to if he’d won, McCain will be forced to work with Democrats -- and, of course, there’s one Democrat in particular whose cooperation is vital if McCain wants to remain a potent force.

McCain, R-Ariz., has no more friends in the Senate (in either party) than he did before he ran. And the Senate remains the place where some of the bolder Obama ideas may go to die.

But McCain won’t be speaking for leadership in the new Congress. Even more than after his 2000 run, he is one of a handful of senators whose celebrity brings power that can’t be measured by chairmanships or seniority (Hillary Clinton is another). When an Obama measure -- any measure -- is sent to Congress, who do you think will be the first lawmaker reporters seek out for reaction?

“Both have much to gain from swift reconciliation after a bitter contest,” The Wall Street Journal’s Jonathan Weisman and Laura Meckler write. “Mr. Obama's pledge to move beyond the partisan bickering requires Republican partners. Sen. McCain would be a potent symbol -- and one with a long history of working with Democrats on key issues on the president-elect's agenda: climate change, energy efficiency and national service. . . . Obama aides stress the opportunity the president-elect is offering Sen. McCain.”

The Palin mania that’s enveloped the past week has mostly enhanced McCain by not focusing on his missteps (other than, possibly, his selection of Sarah Palin).

So the Arizona senator returns to the Hill with the potential to be more of a power source than ever -- the one man whose reaction to an Obama proposal could immediately set the tone for debate.

“Sources close to McCain say their man wants to leave the campaign behind and return to the role he forged for himself on Capitol Hill as the leading reformer and bi-partisan legislator in the Senate,” Time’s James Carney writes. “By meeting with McCain so shortly after the election, Obama is demonstrating both magnanimity and self-confidence. But his move is also based on self-interest. Obama is keenly aware of the fact that, despite increased Democratic majorities in both the Senate and the House, he cannot enact the kind of sweeping legislative overhaul he envisions without the help of Republicans.”

With two years left on his term -- why wouldn’t he want to be a player? And the choice of wingmen for Monday’s meeting -- new White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel for Obama, Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C. -- for McCain -- says that both men are serious about a potential partnership.

Continue reading today's Note by clicking HERE.

ABC News' Hope Ditto contributed to this report.

November 17, 2008 in Biden, Joe, Bush, George W., Clinton, Bill, Clinton, Hillary, Huckabee, Mike, McCain, John, Obama, Barack, Palin, Sarah, Washington, White House | Permalink | User Comments (114)

The Note: Obama’s ‘Change’ Meets Reality

November 13, 2008 8:51 AM

ABC News' Rick Klein reports in Thursday's Note:

Since the most transparent presidential transition in history is translucent at the moment, while the most open process ever is continuing behind doors marked “private,” here’s some of what the president-elect is learning:

1. Being more organized than Bill Clinton and less formal than George W. Bush doesn’t make a successful White House by itself -- but may be a good start.

2. A new politics requires old faces -- and those Clinton folks really don’t look so bad when it’s time to fill out a Democratic administration. (Even Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton herself may not be so bad to have around . . . )

3. That online army he brings with him doesn’t take orders from the top.

4. Being president-elect can mean acting like a president only when you want -- but there are some crises too big to avoid.

5. There are a few campaign promises that may not be so bad to ignore for a very long while.

As the Bidens meet the Cheneys, Hank Paulson meets reality, the GOP meets to ponder a new path, Sarah Palin meets a few more cameras, John McCain meets politics again, and Alaska’s Uncle Ted meets the real fallout of his actions . . .

The various political scenes playing out all over Washington and beyond lack a major player: President-elect Barack Obama.

The no-drama edict/reality of the Obama campaign has morphed seamlessly into the transition, no leaks, no errors.

But can it last? With each new issue, and with each new name, the realities of governing threaten to clash with the rhetoric of campaigning.

Change is so hard to track -- with new faces like Rahm Emanuel, John Podesta, Larry Summers, Madeleine Albright, Ron Klain, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, James Steinberg . . . (Think the Netroots are happy about this?)

Your new players (hope you kept your old program): “The Obama transition team yesterday rolled out a new list of officials who will help guide the process, singling out the Treasury, Defense and State departments as its first three areas of focus,” Anne E. Kornblut and Michael Abramowitz write in The Washington Post. “Three policy-oriented Democrats -- Melody Barnes, Lisa Brown and Don Gips -- will serve as co-chairs of the agency review process, the office of President-elect Barack Obama said.”

The list “sheds light on the types of people his administration will lean on and what institutions may claim clout in the new Washington,” The Wall Street Journal’s Laura Meckler and Jonathan Weisman report. “The group is filled with second-tier veterans of the Clinton administration and workers in the technology and financial sectors. It includes four former lobbyists, three top campaign fund-raisers and two former employees of troubled mortgage giant Fannie Mae, with some overlap among them. Four people in the group have ties to the consultant McKinsey & Co. and two have experience leading high-tech start-ups.”

“16 out of 19 of these folks worked in some capacity for the administration of President Clinton, which will no doubt cause some to question just how much ‘change’ can really come of these appointments,” ABC’s Jake Tapper reports. “But on the other hand, one can't expect Democrats who can be relied upon to help run a government to just pop out fresh from thin air.”

Get used to it, says ABC’s Sam Donaldson: “Successful presidents surround themselves with experienced people. That doesn't always work out – consider the outgoing Bush administration -- but when they don't do that, it almost never works out -- consider the Carter administration.”

Continue reading today's Note by clicking HERE.

ABC News' Hope Ditto contributed to this report.

November 13, 2008 in Biden, Joe, Bush, George W., Clinton, Bill, Clinton, Hillary, Edwards, John, McCain, John, Obama, Barack, Palin, Sarah, Romney, Mitt, Washington, White House | Permalink | User Comments (28)

The Note: Obama Gambles on Bailout Bill

November 12, 2008 8:29 AM

ABC News' Rick Klein reports in Wednesday's Note:

Whatever the outcome of the clash between the Bush administration and the Democratic Congress over a bailout package for Detroit, know that President-elect Barack Obama placed himself at this table -- and promptly tossed some valuable chips into the pot.

He had an easy way out: the one-president-at-a-time line. He’s just a senator until Jan. 20. He didn’t have to turn his Oval Office session with President Bush into a lobbying powwow. And with just the two of them in the room, he certainly (as the Bush team reminded him with a high hard one tossed via Drudge) didn’t have to turn private talks into a public spat.

With House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Harry Reid pushing a measure to help automakers during the lame-duck session, they have a partner in ownership: Obama.

It’s a quiet kind of power play by a president-elect who’s seeking a delicate balance: Obama, insisting that the economy needs more help now, is showing action, not just talking about it.

If it works, Obama would notch a legislative victory even before he’s president -- in a quick payoff for his union backers, and (just maybe) for a troubled industry and the economy as a whole.

But if it fails to pass, or if it passes and then fails to work, or even if it works but fails to impress, the president-elect owns an issue that helped get him here a bit earlier -- and more completely -- than he did before.

“Democratic leaders in Congress said Tuesday they will push legislation next week to use the $700 billion Wall Street rescue fund to bail out Detroit auto makers, and President-elect Barack Obama ordered his transition team to look at ways to aid the car industry even before his inauguration,” The Wall Street Journal’s Jonathan Weisman, Greg Hitt and John D. McKinnon report.

“For Mr. Obama, the crisis in Detroit is turning into an early test of his leadership. Organized labor, including the United Auto Workers, invested heavily in Mr. Obama's campaign,” they continue. “It's a situation Mr. Obama's team had hoped to avoid, potentially giving the president-elect responsibility for an emergency before he has any real authority to deal with it. . . . For Mr. Obama, a public intervention on behalf of Detroit puts his political capital at stake on behalf of companies that have lost the confidence of investors and many consumers -- reflected in the reluctance of banks to lend to the companies and their continuing loss of market share.”

“A senior Democratic official . . . said Ms. Pelosi had decided to challenge Mr. Bush to work with the Democrats or veto aid to the teetering auto companies -- and take the blame if one of them fails,” David M. Herszenhorn and Carl Hulse write in The New York Times. “The White House has resisted calls by Congress to use the $700 billion to help the automakers, saying that money is better spent easing the credit crunch at the heart of the economic crisis.”

Key detail: “Congressional aides said Democratic leaders were coordinating their activities with [Obama’s] transition team,” Herszenhorn and Hulse report.

What of his role? “Mr. Obama does not intend to play a leading role in the [lame-duck] session. Aides said he was focused on the economic packages he would offer as president, as well as working behind the scenes with Congressional Democratic leaders,” Herszenhorn and Hulse report. “But aides have not definitively ruled out the prospect of Mr. Obama casting his vote if it was needed. His Senate replacement will not be named by then.”

Continue reading today's Note by clicking HERE.

ABC News' Hope Ditto contributed to this report.

November 12, 2008 in Biden, Joe, Bush, George W., Clinton, Hillary, Edwards, John, McCain, John, Obama, Barack, Palin, Sarah, Washington, White House | Permalink | User Comments (45)

The Note: Obama Challenged to Lead Early

November 11, 2008 8:38 AM

ABC News' Rick Klein reports in Tuesday's Note:

President-elect Barack Obama might have wanted some relaxation time -- or at least some thinking time before that White House he toured Monday becomes his.

But politics is inviting Obama in at every turn: world leaders reaching out; advocacy groups growing restless (already); a Senate run-off where his pull will be tested; a Democrat-turned-independent-turned-McCain-endorser whose future is being debated on the Hill; and, most pressingly, a series of financial matters that can’t wait for Jan. 20 to be resolved.

(And Gov. Sarah Palin is inviting in politics at every turn -- what, is she running for something?)

There will be many Barack Obamas, surely, over the course of his presidency -- the one of the first 100 days, the economic healer, the wartime leader, the manager, the speaker, the relationship-builder, the one who responds to unforeseen crises, and the one who (soon enough) gears up for reelection.

All of them could be defined in part by the pre-presidential Obama we’re seeing now. Just a week past Election Day, Obama is being asked to fill leadership voids all over Washington, and as he responds -- tentatively, for now -- he knows that he’s setting the tone for when it counts.

Behind the pageantry, the makings of a presidential-level standoff: “President-elect Barack Obama yesterday urged President Bush to support immediate aid for struggling automakers and back a new stimulus package, even as congressional Democrats began drafting legislation to give the Detroit automakers quick access to $25 billion by adding them to the Treasury Department's $700 billion economic rescue program,” Lori Montgomery and Michael D. Shear write in The Washington Post.

“Bush, speaking privately to Obama during their first Oval Office meeting, repeated his administration's stand that he might support quick action on those bills if Democratic leaders drop their opposition to a Colombia trade agreement that Bush supports,” they report. “The discussions raised the stakes for a lame-duck session of Congress that could begin next week and came as fears about General Motors' financial condition yesterday pushed the company's stock price to its lowest level in about 60 years.”

“A week after Mr. Obama’s election, and more than two months before he takes office, the steadily weakening economy and the prospect of many more job losses are testing his effort to remain aloof from the nation’s business on the argument that ‘we only have one president at a time,’ ” Jackie Calmes writes in The New York Times.

“As the auto industry reels, rarely has an issue so quickly illustrated the differences from one White House occupant to the next,” she writes. “How Mr. Obama responds to the industry’s dire straits will indicate how much government intervention in the private sector he is willing to tolerate. It will also offer hints of how he will approach his job under pressure, testing the limits of his conciliation toward the opposition party and his willingness to stand up to the interest groups in his own.”

“Mr. Obama's focus on the auto industry came as fellow Democrats on Capitol Hill started moving on their own to help Detroit gain access to federal rescue funds allocated for the financial sector,” Jonathan Weisman and John D. McKinnon report in The Wall Street Journal. “Sen. Carl Levin of Michigan said Monday that he is drafting legislation, aimed for quick passage, that would free up money from the $700 billion Wall Street rescue for Detroit auto makers careening toward seeking bankruptcy protection.”

Continue reading today's Note by clicking HERE.

ABC News' Hope Ditto contributed to this report.

November 11, 2008 in Biden, Joe, Bush, George W., McCain, John, Obama, Barack, Palin, Sarah, Washington, White House | Permalink | User Comments (22)

The Note: Goldilocks Approach: Obama Seeks Balanced Pace

November 10, 2008 8:37 AM

ABC News' Rick Klein reports in Monday's Note:

When No. 43 hosts No. 44 Monday, the two men come to the White House riding competing historical crosscurrents -- and it’s not just that one is coming and one is going.

The future of the Republican Party hinges on the argument over whether the GOP got where it is because it was growing too big or thinking too small.

The future of the Democratic Party hinges on the argument over whether President-Elect Barack Obama will get where he needs to by acting big or aiming small.

The challenge for Obama and the team he’s putting together is in finding a Goldilocks balance, when plenty of folks want it hot, and plenty of others want it cold. He needs to deliver on his promises for change, while not eroding the promise of the broad change to politics his election meant to so many.

The new guy gets a big platform, and a bigger opportunity. Early on, he’s conveying the sense of measured action, after months of stasis in the executive branch.

“The American people, right now, need help economically,” incoming White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel told ABC’s George Stephanopoulos Sunday on “This Week.” “It is essential that we focus on the stress and strains on the middle class.”

Bipartisanship, now: “The challenges are big enough that there's going to be an ability for people of both parties, as well as independents, to contribute ideas to help meet the challenges on health care, energy, tax reform, education,” Emanuel said. “So that is the tone. That is the policy. And that is exactly how we're going to go forward.”

But pacing is everything: “The debate between a big-bang strategy of pressing aggressively on multiple fronts versus a more pragmatic, step-by-step approach has flavored the discussion among Mr. Obama’s transition advisers for months, even before his election,” Peter Baker writes in the Sunday New York Times. “The tension between these strategies has been a recurring theme in the memorandums prepared for him on various issues, advisers said.”

“The argument for an aggressive approach in the mold of Franklin D. Roosevelt or Lyndon B. Johnson is that health care, energy and education are all part of systemic economic problems and should be addressed comprehensively. But Democrats are discussing a hybrid strategy that would push for a bold economic program and also encompass other elements of Mr. Obama’s campaign platform, even if larger goals are put off.”

The pressure builds, already: “Saying Obama's decisive election victory amounts to a mandate, many of the president-elect's staunchest supporters, including labor leaders, are looking for strong, swift action on many of the sweeping proposals -- including reforming health care and increasing the minimum wage and indexing it to inflation -- that he pushed on the campaign trail,” Michael A. Fletcher writes in The Washington Post. “But at the same time, Obama will be under pressure from fiscal conservatives and others to restrain spending, which could cause him to move slowly on his most ambitious plans.”

Continue reading today's Note by clicking HERE.

ABC News' Hope Ditto contributed to this report.

November 10, 2008 in Biden, Joe, Bush, George W., McCain, John, Obama, Barack, Palin, Sarah, Washington, White House | Permalink | User Comments (29)