The Note
Washington's Original and Most Influential Tipsheet

Rick Klein is ABC News' Senior Political Reporter and author of The Note's morning look at the upcoming day in politics. Throughout the day, ABC News' political team contributes to The Note with the very latest news and analysis from the nation's capital.

To email Rick Klein, click here.

November 2009
Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
8 9 10 11 12 13 14
15 16 17 18 19 20 21
22 23 24 25 26 27 28
29 30

« Previous | Main | Next »

The Note, 12/09/08: Czars and Orphans

December 09, 2008 7:57 AM

BY RICK KLEIN WITH ARNAB DATTA AND FERDOUS AL-FARUQUE

Remember when spending money in Washington was supposed to be fun?

With the auto bailout paralyzing politics for the moment -- who wants this to pass -- really, really wants it to become law?

Surely not the American people -- not with a new ABC News/Washington Post poll showing 54 percent opposition to an auto bailout. 

Maybe not the current president -- who’s deep into legacy mode and would rather not deal with this particular crisis at this particular time.

“We just don't want to put good money after bad,” President Bush told ABC’s Cynthia McFadden, in a “Nightline” interview Monday. “There are some pretty strict standards. One is that anything that's done would as best as possible guarantee the taxpayers get their money back. In other words, there needs to be viability.”

Probably not congressional Republicans, some of whom are sensing a powerful issue at a time that they’re set to see their power wane. (And don’t Democrats miss the Obama and Biden votes -- again?)

“Once a deal is set between Democrats and the Bush administration, it must win the support of at least 10 Senate Republicans. The Republican leader, Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, was expected to voice an opinion on Tuesday,” The New York Times' David M. Herszenhorn reports. “His support will be crucial.”

Maybe not President-elect Barack Obama, who is busy guarding his left flank on the day of one of his more important meetings of the transition period: His face time with former vice president Al Gore.

For Obama, this is dangerous territory. And if he really does want the auto bailout to pass (even in its shaved-down form), he has an interesting way of not fully showing it (and who can blame him, really).

“It all sounds perilously close to a word that no one in Mr. Obama’s camp wants to be caught uttering: nationalization,” David E. Sanger reports in The New York Times. “Not since Harry Truman seized America’s steel mills in 1952 rather than allow a strike to imperil the conduct of the Korean War has Washington toyed with nationalization, or its functional equivalent, on this kind of scale. . . . Government’s record as a corporate manager is miserable, which is why the world has been on a three-decade-long privatization kick, turning national railroads, national airlines and national defense industries into private companies.” 

Pity your rank-and-filer, too: “Grim-faced and drawn, lawmakers Monday began parading across the Senate floor to give their views on the measure -- the start of what will surely be a joyless run-up to one of the least popular votes of the year,” Time’s Jay Newton-Small writes.

No deal quite yet: “Details of the plan, including what kind of oversight and conditions would be imposed on the automakers, could be cause for disagreement. On Monday afternoon, White House officials were concerned that the draft bill does not make explicit enough that loans would only go to companies that can prove they are viable,” ABC’s Jonathan Karl, Ann Compton, and Kate Barrett report.

“One area being hammered out concerned the exact role and powers of a government overseer -- one person, or a group, to supervise company restructuring plans and oversee spending -- with veto power on major company decisions,” James R. Healey reports for USA Today. “Another concerned a provision banning automakers taking the loans from suing individual states that want to impose higher greenhouse-gas emission standards than federal government rules.”

And they’ll be back soon, regardless: “The bill pushes the hard decisions about the future of Detroit's Big Three into early next year and the administration of President-elect Barack Obama. It requires the automakers, along with workers, bondholders, shareholders and others, to agree to major restructuring plans,” The Los Angeles Times’ Jim Puzzanghera writes.

Your day’s big transition storyline: Obama and Vice-president-elect Joe Biden meet with Al Gore, at 1 pm ET in Chicago. Per the transition office’s Nick Shapiro, the meeting will be “to discuss energy and climate change and how policies in this area can stimulate the economy and create jobs.”

The implications are greater than the policies. Obama is facing growing angst -- if not yet anger -- on his left. (And Steve Hildebrand’s attempts to calm everybody down may have had the opposite effect.)

Hear the rumbling grow: “A month into Mr. Obama’s transition, many on the political left are trying to hold their tongues,” Peter Baker writes in The New York Times. “But so far, they are mainly muting their protest, clinging to the belief that Mr. Obama still means what he said on the campaign trail and remaining wary of undermining what they see as the most liberal president sent to the White House in a generation.” 

Baker continues: “The mixed emotions on the left reflect a larger uncertainty about how to view Mr. Obama. Although National Journal deemed him the most liberal senator based on major votes and many liberals flocked to his campaign, Mr. Obama ran more on inspiration than ideology and has not always adopted the orthodoxy of the left.”

Enter Gore, a hero in these parts.

But don’t expect him to stay: “He may be assembling a Team of Heavyweights, but Barack Obama isn’t likely to have the full-time services of one of the most formidable powers on the political landscape,” Jonathan Martin reports for Politico. “When Obama and Joe Biden sit down with Al Gore at noon Tuesday in Chicago, they’ll be talking issues -- not making the pitch for the former vice-president to return to government service, say transition officials and those close to Gore.”

Both sides say no Gore job is in the offing, but: “Not announced, but almost certainly on the agenda, is drawing Gore into some kind of administration job, even if it's just a perfunctory position,” Andrew Malcolm reports for the Los Angeles Times. “Pretty please, because the Democratic left is really starting to grumble over all this sensible centrist stuff emanating from the new team.”

New disclosure out Tuesday morning from the Clinton Global Initiative: “As a non-profit organization, CGI depends upon sponsorship assistance to fund its operations and the CGI Asia Meeting. CGI thanks the following sponsors: CLSA, Laureate, the Roberson Foundation, Citi, CNN, the Li Ka Shing Foundation, The Economist, HP, Ogilvy, Suzlon, and Thomson Reuters.”

From the annals of transparency: ABC’s Jake Tapper has details on the new transition effort to post memos and suggestions it’s getting from outside groups. “The OTT has now posted some of the memos it has received from CITA Wireless Industry, unions, La Raza, and various other groups,” he writes.

But: “The transition’s commitment to publicizing the names of donors has an exception: The transition is closely tied to a Democratic think tank that keeps many of its donors secret,” Politico’s Ben Smith and Chris Frates report. “The think tank, the Center for American Progress, and its president, John Podesta, are uniquely integrated with the transition. Podesta, on leave from the Center for American Progress (CAP), heads the transition operation. The transition's operations director, general counsel, and co-director all shifted from similar jobs at CAP, and the transition is full of lower-level former CAP staffers or current board members.”

Get ready for a new round of Obama house parties. Some 1,500 are on tap for this weekend -- the next step in taking those e-mail lists and turning them into action.

The Boston Globe’s Scott Helman: “If Obama's campaign was about bringing change to the country, the post-election period is about defining what that change means and how to achieve it. His backers are already using networks developed during the campaign to rally support for causes including building local neighborhood organizations and eliminating racial disparities in the criminal justice system.”

Use it, or . . . “Viewership for President-elect Barack Obama's weekly YouTube ‘fireside chats’ has tanked, dropping more than 50 percent since his initial video three weeks ago,” the Washington Times’ Stephen Dinan writes. “The first video address, released four weekends ago, drew 789,868 viewers over its first three days and is nearing 1 million total, according to TubeMogul's figures. But the second video was viewed 451,077 times in three days, Thanksgiving weekend's video garnered 152,222 views, and this weekend's fourth installment had about 370,000 views as of Monday evening.”

Obama is buying a new tux, and get your invites lined up: “The Obama presidential inauguration committee will not be sanctioning any events organized by outside groups,” Lynn Sweet reports in the Chicago Sun-Times. “That's because the Obama team -- which swore off corporate money for the festivities surrounding the Jan. 20 swearing-in -- does not want to be officially linked with events paid for with money President elect Barack Obama said he would not take. The PIC is not discouraging outside events, nor trying to cut anyone out.”

Latest buzz, at Interior: “Kevin Gover, director of the Smithsonian’s National Museum of the American Indian, is the newest name in the mix for interior secretary,” Politico’s Erika Lovley reports. “A source close to the President-elect Barack Obama’s transition says several environmental groups have contacted environmental transition head Carol Browner, urging her to consider Gover for the top Interior Department post.”

“A member of the Pawnee Tribe of Oklahoma, Gover could become the first Native American nominated to be a Cabinet secretary, and the potential to make history could prove irresistible for Obama. But Gover's spokeswoman, Eileen Maxwell, said he has not ‘heard anything from the transition, nor does Kevin expect to,’ ” The Washington Post’s Al Kamen reports.

Bloomie likes Caroline: “Carolyn Kennedy can do anything,” Mayor Michael Bloomberg, I-N.Y. said at a press conference in Washington Monday, per ABC’s Jonathan Karl. “I’ve always thought she’s hardworking, honest and understands the issues as well as anybody.”

A source close to Gov. David Paterson, D-N.Y., tells the New York Post’s Fred Dicker and Daphne Retter: “When the mayor says something like this, of course the governor pays attention.”

And Sen. Ted Kennedy is on the case: “In recent days the Massachusetts senator has called Gov. David A. Paterson and Senator Charles E. Schumer, as well as Senator Robert Menendez of New Jersey, who took over last month as head of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee when Mr. Schumer stepped down,” David M. Halbfinger writes in The New York Times. “Mr. Kennedy’s message, according to Democratic aides who were not authorized to discuss the conversations, is that Ms. Kennedy -- backed by the Kennedy family’s extensive fund-raising network -- would have the wherewithal to run back-to-back costly statewide races without having to seek help from Mr. Paterson or Mr. Schumer.”

But: “Gov. Paterson said he will consider longtime city teachers union President Randi Weingarten for the U.S. Senate seat being vacated by Hillary Clinton,” Kenneth Lovett reports in the New York Daily News. “Paterson told the Daily News on Monday that Weingarten recently contacted him about the seat -- fresh evidence that ambitious New York Democrats aren't about to clear out of the way for Caroline Kennedy.”

Legacy time: “In case any Bush administration officials have trouble summing up the boss' record, the White House is providing a few helpful suggestions,” Peter Nicholas reports in the Los Angeles Times. “A two-page memo that has been sent to Cabinet members and other high-ranking officials offers a guide for discussing Bush's eight-year tenure during their public speeches.”

“Titled ‘Speech Topper on the Bush Record,’ the talking points state that Bush ‘kept the American people safe’ after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, lifted the economy after 2001 through tax cuts, curbed AIDS in Africa and maintained ‘the honor and the dignity of his office.’ The document presents the Bush record as an unalloyed success,” Nicholas writes.

More from the president’s interview with Cynthia McFadden, on faith: “It is hard for me to justify or prove the mystery of the Almighty in my life. . . . All I can just tell you is that I got back into religion and I quit drinking shortly thereafter and I asked for help -- I was a one-step program guy.”

When asked if he thought he would have become president had it not been for his faith, Bush said, “I don't know; it's hard to tell. I do know that I would have been -- I'm pretty confident I would have been a pretty selfish person.”

He said he is often asked if he thinks he was chosen by God to be president.

“I just, I can't go there,” he said. “I'm not that confident in knowing, you know, the Almighty, to be able to say, 'Yeah, God wanted me of all the other people.' My relationship [with God] is on a personal basis trying to become as closer to the Almighty as I possibly can get. And I've got a lot of problems. I mean, I got, you know, the ego . . . all the things that prevent me from being closer to the Almighty. So, I don't analyze my relationship with the good Lord in terms of, well, you know, God has plucked you out or God wants you to do this. I know this: I know that the call is to better understand and live out your life according to the will of God.”

The Kicker:

“Art transcends politics this weekend.” -- Barbra Streisand, on accepting a hug at the Kennedy Center from President Bush, whom she once described as “an alien sent here to destroy the Earth.”

Bookmark the link below to get The Note’s daily morning analysis:
http://blogs.abcnews.com/thenote/the_note/index.html

And for up-to-the-minute political updates check out The Note’s new blog . . . all day every day:
http://blogs.abcnews.com/thenote/

December 9, 2008 in The Note | Permalink | Share | User Comments (72)

User Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Look - America is at the point where Wall Street has screwed up just about everything. Banks ain't lending even though they've been given billions of dollars. Hard working people are losing their jobs. If we have to "nationalize" some businesses - so be it. To hell with the Republicans and Conservatives and their "hands off" capitalism. It's time America moves into a mode of strength and take over private corporations and kick out the non-performing mgmt and regulate Wall Street and the banks. No more easy money for investment bankers and CEOs. It's past time for American workers to be the winners and not the losers. Turn around Detroit and force them to make smaller fuel efficient cars getting 40-50 mpg to start. Might take a couple of years of retooling but we've done it before during World War II.

Posted by: Bob | Dec 9, 2008 8:44:52 AM

Killing this final compromise draft for an auto bailout would be a fitting end to Bush's presidency. Heap $2 trillion in secret loans on financial and investment companies, let the Big Three (and the unions) go way under...

http://www.political-buzz.com/

Posted by: matt | Dec 9, 2008 8:50:29 AM

Is the auto industry going to horde the bailout money the way the banking industry has?

Posted by: Terri | Dec 9, 2008 9:05:21 AM

I cannot believe these politicians. They have the audacity to criticise the auto companies while Senator Dodd and the crowd has been getting funds from UBS - a foreighn bank that encourages customers to bank in Switzerland in the hope of not paying taxes.

The Auto companies employ ordinary American while the wall street employs super rich thieves. Mind you senators where falling over each other to give 700 billion to wall street and they are doing everything stop giving the auto companies 15 billion to 34 billion that employs thousand of American that was affected by the wall street meltdown.

Even if the GM was making the best fuel efficient cars there will be no buyers as people are loosing their jobs. Senators and Dubya (or Dumbya) how about helping the auto companies? Are you guys so much in the wall street pocket that you cannot take some money out of that 700 billion?

Posted by: Hector | Dec 9, 2008 9:06:59 AM

I hate all these bailouts, it started with the airlines eight years ago! However compared to what Bush/Paulson has borrowed to give banks, 700 billion, another 150 billion so congressmen opposed to the first bailout would go along with the second...15 or 25 billion is nothing in todays borrow and spend mentality!

We cannot keep having these job losses, if nothing else it's less people paying into their 401ks which have been fueling Wall Street. Job losses have a domino effect.

However if they want the money GM and the rest need to bring jobs back to the US otherwise they should ask Mexicans for a bailout!

Posted by: Hege! | Dec 9, 2008 9:14:00 AM

GM will not make it, that Volt is a nice looking car, will save on gas and it's good for the environment...but not at 40k! Toyota and Nissan are coming out with an electric car I'd sooner wait.

Posted by: Hege! | Dec 9, 2008 9:15:30 AM

The liberals would like nothing more than to have as much gov't stake in private enterprise as possible.

It almost makes me sick seeing barney and nancy together as the supposed saviors of this mess, when it was these two, and other socialist wackjobs, who have brought us here in the first place.
Barney, through is and others endless crusades of attempting to achieve "income equality", is partly the reason the autoworkers made $70.00hr to watch a machine go by. Then people wonder why the asian market can make a better car at a cheaper price- they pay their workers $70.00 a month!

As for fannie and freddie, just 2 yrs ago the republicans were calling for fannie and freddie to tighten their lending practices, and who fought that?
Barney frank was one of the loudest voicest against oversight saying "any pressure of fannie/freddie will only diminsh the amount of affordable housing". He also said "fannie and freddie are financially sound- leave them alone"

Posted by: liberalsaresocialists | Dec 9, 2008 9:15:47 AM

Can we please have a moratorium on the word "czar"? Has anyone looked it up or read any history?

Posted by: Peter | Dec 9, 2008 9:20:56 AM

Our politicians are a bunch of idiots. I don't care whether you're liberal or conservative or whether you voted Obama or McCain. These boneheads have no sense of business nor do they know what the American people want. What these politicians should be doing is giving these millions back to the American people to which they stole it from in the first place. This way we'll have money to purchase cars and payoff our mortgages.

Posted by: BT | Dec 9, 2008 9:23:47 AM

liberalsaresocialists wrote: "Barney, through is and others endless crusades of attempting to achieve "income equality", is partly the reason the autoworkers made $70.00hr to watch a machine go by. Then people wonder why the asian market can make a better car at a cheaper price- they pay their workers $70.00 a month!"
=====================
So you think $70 is a fair wage? Why do you prefer feudalism and serfdom?

Posted by: The_Mick | Dec 9, 2008 9:24:43 AM

It is not so much the Democrats on the left Obama is losing, it is the independent voters that voted for Change and got more Clinton. Rahm Emanuel and Hillary Clinton are a big turnoff. In a pinch the Democrats on the left will always vote democratic, the independents will go their own way.

Posted by: JoeForSure | Dec 9, 2008 9:25:14 AM

No bailout without Union renegotiation of contracts.

Posted by: cam | Dec 9, 2008 9:28:58 AM

Here is the plan we should be demanding now-The government simply absorbs the remaining $350 billion from the stimulus bill and suspends the collection of all income and payroll taxes for two months. Even trade. This means that for two months you get your entire paycheck (well … less any State withholding). The government ends up with the same amount of money in its coffers, and the income earners in this country have some extra money to spend – an average about $2,000 per taxpayer – over the following two months.

Posted by: Integritywaslost | Dec 9, 2008 9:30:00 AM

czar
Variant(s):
also tsar or tzar \ˈzär, ˈ(t)sär\
Function:
noun
Etymology:
New Latin czar, from Russian tsar', from Old Russian tsĭsarĭ, from Gothic kaisar, from Greek or Latin; Greek, from Latin Caesar — more at caesar
Date:
1555
1: emperor ; specifically : the ruler of Russia until the 1917 revolution
2: one having great power or authority
— czar·dom also tsar·dom or tzar·dom \ˈzär-dəm, ˈ(t)sär-\ noun

Posted by: Integritywaslost | Dec 9, 2008 9:31:48 AM

read the entire article at CNBC http://www.cnbc.com/id/28108013

Clearly we don't need the imput of Republicans who let lobbyists dictate legislations.

Posted by: Hege! | Dec 9, 2008 9:35:37 AM

I plan on voting out my Representatives in my region. Diane Feinstein and Nancy Peolosi, and Barbara Boxer. All of them are weak, mindless, rich, overpampered broads, who do not have the fainted idea of what the averaage American tax payer is going through. There decisions have cost us a recession because they choose to vote to keep giving our money away to rich assholes instead of trying to help the the tax payer. Until these rich pricks understand that if they don't give back to the American people, a lot more business will close down because we will not be buying anything. 2010 is coming around the corner and they better be aware that could possibly their last time in office. I want someone in office who can stand up to these rich assholes and say no more bailout. If they can give up this much money, then it should not be a problem for them to vote a nice stimulus package for the tax payers.

Posted by: cdd | Dec 9, 2008 9:36:49 AM

Isn't it interesting how we are using the word Czar? It's Russian and our use of it sickens me.

Have you notice that though things are failing not one lawmaker or one CEO has been fired/arrested/indited. Nor have laws been changed. The fundamentals of our country has changed dramatically in the past 12 years.

Since I'm a realtor I'll use an analogy I'm familiar with.. a home. Our country's foundation has been chipped away for over 30 years with exporting jobs to foriegn companies, thus getting rid of 'low class-low paying' jobs. These jobs were the foundations that built our communities and average folks out of high school could work. As a nation we can not compete with $8 a day labor nor should we want to compete with essentially slave labor.

Now the big three make/bring in a lot of money to this country. So did a lot of textile, ceramic, computer chips, and other companies. These jobs have disappeared yet Congress is concerned only for the automakers? If it's okay for the other jobs to go then Chinese cars should do just fine here as well. Right?

Now Congress solution is in essence to put a new roof on a home that is on fire. Nothing inside was changed neither was the foundation rebuilt.

We as a nation.. unless we face up and admit the race to the bottom (as far as work salary goes) is destroying our home and nation.

Posted by: Jonathan | Dec 9, 2008 9:38:38 AM

As for fannie and freddie, just 2 yrs ago the republicans were calling for fannie and freddie to tighten their lending practices, and who fought that?
Barney frank was one of the loudest voicest against oversight saying "any pressure of fannie/freddie will only diminsh the amount of affordable housing". He also said "fannie and freddie are financially sound- leave them alone"____HA HA HA What a crock Freddie and Fannie Mae paid millions to Republicans who controlled Congress to kill the legislation! Please read http://www.cnbc.com/id/28108013. Here's an excerpt, "In 2005, Freddie Mac hired political consultant Frank Luntz, a Washington fixture whose specialty is choosing the right buzz words to achieve a particular goal. The records AP obtained do not cover 2005 and Freddie Mac refuses to confirm that it brought Luntz on board.

The AP previously described, in October, how Freddie Mac thwarted efforts to bring a tough regulatory bill sponsored by Republican Sens. Chuck Hagel of Nebraska, John Sununu of New Hampshire, Elizabeth Dole of North Carolina and John McCain of Arizona to a full Senate vote.

At a meeting days after Hagel's bill went to the full Senate, Syron and McLoughlin berated the company's in-house lobbyists for failing to keep Hagel's bill corralled in committee, said the four people familiar with events at Freddie Mac at the time.

Freddie Mac shifted into high gear, secretly paying a Republican consulting firm, Washington-based DCI Group, $2 million to kill Hagel's legislation. The covert lobbying campaign targeted Republican senators in 2005-06. "

You complain about workers making a decent wage but the loser CEOs who have lost money for their companies for years are living the high life with millions of dollars in compensation and private jets.

Posted by: Hege! | Dec 9, 2008 9:40:08 AM

The_Mick
All I was demonstrating is that America has been paying its workers 1000 times more than its competitors yet liberals still talk about how terrible America is.

Posted by: liberalsaresocialists | Dec 9, 2008 9:40:11 AM

Rick Waggoner is a good honest person. He always reported honest earnings, not going back to reset them to increase the price of stock.Sen. Dodd can't understand a good honest person. When he ran for Pres. must of his support came fron the Banking and Insurance Co, that he helped bail out. I wonder what his position be if he got funds from G.M.

Posted by: Stuart Left | Dec 9, 2008 9:40:50 AM

Post a comment