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: Benefits of Boring -- Sotomayor on track -- Michigan’s economy, not so much

July 14, 2009 8:14 AM

Klein By RICK KLEIN

We always knew Roe would be inside the hearing room -- we just didn’t think she’d be escorted out that way

And if that was the highlight of the day -- that qualifies as a very good day for the Obama White House.

So far, so blah, so good.

Opening-statement day for Judge Sonia Sotomayor was the congressional equivalent of the Home Run Derby -- am exhibition for the fans, a big showcase for a favorite with home-field advantage, but ultimately meaningless, so long as no one did themselves lasting damage.

They didn’t. This is a president and an administration that benefits from boring -- when the agenda is all his when the press can’t figure out what other stories to tell.

That may begin to change Tuesday, a questioning begins at Sotomayor’s confirmation hearings, and the president himself hits the road again, in Michigan.

(Have we heard the last of stimulus job claims for a while? Will we hear that the recovery act is doing what it’s supposed to, in a state with a 14 percent unemployment rate? Can the president go to Michigan and not talk jobs, jobs, jobs?)

Round One for senators’ questioning of Sotomayor starts at 9:30 am ET, with 30 minutes controlled by each panel member.

President Obama meets with Prime Minister Jan Peter Balkenende of the Netherlands in the morning, then hits Michigan for a 3:40 pm ET speech. He caps his evening by tossing out the first pitch at the All-Star Game in St. Louis. 

The presidential backdrop for the speech is Macomb Community College in Warren, Mich., your most battered of states, where the president hopes to revive some battered policies -- and offer some new ones.

Per the White House, the president will outline a new goal of producing an additional 5 million community college graduates by 2020.

Welcome back: “President Barack Obama returns to Michigan Tuesday 285 days after his last trip to the state, with a speech in Warren and a plan to pump up community colleges,” per the Detroit Free Press’ Todd Spangler

“Barack Obama -- battling to reverse the nation's stubborn economic downturn -- returns to Michigan on Tuesday to unveil an initiative to boost community colleges and worker retraining for jobs in growing industries such as energy and health care,” David Shepardson writes for the Detroit News

“He is making his first visit here as the nation's 44th president but also as the top official overseeing the government's majority ownership in General Motors Co. -- a struggling industrial giant that still serves as a reminder of the region's economic woes and challenges,” Shepardson writes. “Michigan's jobless rate leads the nation at 14.1 percent and the state's Senate Fiscal Agency warns it could reach nearly 17 percent next year.”

Welcoming him in Michigan: “Seems that Obama might do better to focus on encouraging folks here about how his policies -- the stimulus package, in particular -- are going to actually put people back to work,” the Detroit Free Press editorializes. “If it's a teachable moment, it may be more of one for the president than for those he's visiting.” 

“President Barack Obama's plan to attack the recession through massive deficit spending is not producing the results the president promised in February when he convinced the American people to go deep into hock in the name of creating jobs and boosting economic growth,” per the Detroit News editorial

House Republican leaders attack the “government takeover of health care”: “We also have to ask, where will our jobs go if we say ‘yes’ to all the tax hikes, especially those on small businesses, in the Democrats' plan?” House Minority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, and Rep. Dave Camp, R-Mich, write in a Detroit News op-ed. “Small businesses . . . are the foundation of job creation and economic growth. That should be clear to Democrats, whose trillion-dollar ‘stimulus’ -- which focused on expanding government programs, not helping small businesses -- is falling well short of the administration's promises.”

Plus -- an ad from Americans for Job Security runs in the Macomb Daily Tuesday. 

This means she was out of national politics for, oh, about 10 days. . . .

Gov. Sarah Palin, R-Alaska, in a Washington Post op-ed: “Unfortunately, many in the national media would rather focus on the personality-driven political gossip of the day than on the gravity of these challenges. So, at risk of disappointing the chattering class, let me make clear what is foremost on my mind and where my focus will be.

“I am deeply concerned about President Obama's cap-and-trade energy plan, and I believe it is an enormous threat to our economy. It would undermine our recovery over the short term and would inflict permanent damage.”

Really complicating everything: “The U.S. federal budget deficit broke through the $1 trillion mark in June, potentially complicating the Obama administration's efforts to revive the economy and enact its longer-term policy agenda,” John D. McKinnon writes in The Wall Street Journal. “Surging deficits could also tie the administration's hands in responding to the economy's problems, by eroding support among voters and making Congress leery of adopting policies -- such as an overhaul of the health-care system -- that the administration believes are necessary for sustainable growth.” 

Jobs, jobs . . . not so much: “It's very hard to say exactly -- you don't know what the baseline is,” Christina Romer, chair of the President's Council of Economic Advisors, said on CNBC, about the job impact of the stimulus. “Because you don't know what the economy would have done without it.” 

“The White House will be forced to confront the disconnect between its original, upbeat predictions and the mainstream consensus about how the economy is likely to perform in a new budget forecast to be unveiled next month,” Politico’s Jeanne Cummings writes

Tuesday brings the House health care bill (finally).

And that means? “Concerns voiced by moderate Democrats prompted party leaders to delay release of details over the weekend and have spurred a round of high-level meetings on Capitol Hill to corral the restive members,” Greg Hitt and Laura Meckler write in The Wall Street Journal. “[Sen. Max] Baucus said Monday that for now, the House and Senate will focus on producing their own bills, and worry about reconciling differences -- such as on financing -- later. While the House is zeroing in on a surtax on high earners, the Senate is considering a wider range of ways to raise revenue, including possible levies on drug and insurance companies.” 

Time for LBJ? “The tough talk in the Rose Garden gave way hours later to behind-the-scenes Lyndon B. Johnson-style lobbying, as Obama pledged in a pair of private meetings with Democratic lawmakers to stake his political capital on this year's top agenda item,” Ceci Connolly writes in The Washington Post. “Obama devotes at least one hour a day to health care, often studying briefing memos about individual lawmakers and their pet issues, said one White House aide. The topic is woven into most of his public appearances, as he ‘makes the case that inaction has disastrous implications for the future,’ [David] Axelrod said.” 

Sen. Baucus, D-Mont.: “The urgency barometer is up.”

“I just want to put everybody on notice, because there was a lot of chatter during the week that I was gone: We are going to get this done,” Obama said Monday, per ABC’s Jake Tapper and Sunlen Miller. “Inaction is not an option. And for those naysayers and cynics who think that this is not going to happen, don't bet against us.” 

Decision time: “Events are pushing Obama to a crucial decision: when and how to plunge more directly into the specifics of the sensitive negotiations,” the Los Angeles Times’ Noam N. Levey and Peter Nicholas write. “In particular, he is under mounting pressure to spell out where he stands on two of the most divisive questions confronting lawmakers: how to pay for an overhaul that will cost at least $1 trillion over the next 10 years, and whether it should include a new government-run insurance program as an alternative to private coverage.” 

“The longer it takes for Democrats on both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue to coalesce around healthcare reform, the greater opportunity they provide Republicans and interest groups to mount a coordinated opposition -- a fact not lost on the GOP,” per The Hill’s Sam Youngman and Jeffrey Young

Throwing another ball into the economic juggle: “In a meeting with President Obama today at the White House, top labor leaders pushed for a second stimulus package to create more jobs,” ABC’s Karen Travers reports

Tuesday’s White House proposal, per ABC’s Yunji de Nies, includes: 1. Community College Challenge Grants & Access and Completion Grants. . . 2. Helping Struggling Students . . . 3. Working with Other Institutions . . . 4. Modernizing Facilities, with $2.5 billion in seed money for a 10-year, $10 billion program.

“His initiative is intended to stimulate renovations at schools, expand curricula and increase by five million the number community-college graduates in the country by 2020,” Bloomberg’s Nicholas Johnston writes

On Sotomayor -- Norma McCorvey’s arrest and Sen. Lindsey Graham’s musings counted as the only surprises of day one.

“The start of hearings on President Obama’s nomination of Judge Sotomayor . . . was permeated with electoral politics, with Republicans taking pains not to offend Hispanic voters even as they sought to assure conservatives that they were vigorously challenging Judge Sotomayor and Mr. Obama on ideological grounds,” Peter Baker and Neil A. Lewis report in The New York Times. “The session also quickly became a proxy for a larger struggle over the court.” 

“After weeks of public silence, Judge Sonia Sotomayor used the opening statement of her Supreme Court confirmation hearing today to tell members of the Senate Judiciary committee and some skeptical Republicans that she will not let her personal beliefs get in the way of her impartiality,” ABC’s Ariane de Vogue and Jan Crawford Greenburg report

Playing it carefully: “Sonia Sotomayor's confirmation hearings opened yesterday against the backdrop of demographic changes that continue to alter the nation's politics. What drama exists this week is less the question of whether she will be confirmed than what the first Latina Supreme Court justice might contribute to those changing politics,” Dan Balz writes in The Washington Post

On notice: “I find particularly shocking,” said Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Wis., “the suggestion that she will be biased against some litigants because of her racial and ethnic heritage.” 

“The only real suspense in the confirmation hearings for Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor is whether the Republican Party will persist in tying its fortunes to an anachronistic claim of white male exceptionalism and privilege,” Eugene Robinson writes in his column

“Skeptical Republicans warned that they would ask tough questions beginning today about her background and activism,” McClatchy’s David Lightman and Marisa Taylor write. “By the end of the day -- a largely polite five hours of opening statements by the nominee and the committee's 12 Democrats and seven Republicans -- there were no obvious roadblocks to her confirmation to succeed retired Justice David H. Souter.” 

(That was seven rapid-response documents from the Senate Republican Communications Center Monday -- putting out a few times’ more text than Sotomayor herself spoke.)

“If Sonia Sotomayor's Supreme Court confirmation hearing were a trial, it would stand as evidence that nothing ever ends in the Senate, and proof that debates persist years after the votes are counted,” the AP’s David Espo writes

Let’s see if this standard sticks: “The senators should bore in on Judge Sotomayor’s legal views, and she should answer substantively,” per The New York Times editorial. “Recent nominees have made an art of refusing to answer questions about the law. The Senate should not have accepted their evasions, and it should not allow Judge Sotomayor to decline to discuss her views.” 

As for the arrest of “Jane Roe”: “With that, the culture wars that the Obama administration has so carefully tried to avoid forced their way back into full view,” Ann Gerhart writes in The Washington Post. “It was a rare eruption during a day that seemed choreographed to emphasize cordiality, even deliberate blandness.”

 “A secret Central Intelligence Agency initiative axed by Director Leon Panetta examined how to assassinate members of al Qaeda with hit teams on the ground, according to current and former national-security officials familiar with the matter,” Siobhan Gorman writes in The Wall Street Journal. “The plan was never carried out, and Mr. Panetta canceled the effort on the day he learned of it, June 23. The next day, he alerted Congress, which didn't know about the plan.” 

“Year after year, according to officials briefed on the program, the plans were never completely shelved because the Bush administration sought an alternative to killing terror suspects with missiles fired from drone aircraft or seizing them overseas and imprisoning them in secret C.I.A. jails,” Mark Mazzetti and Scott Shane report in The New York Times. “Mr. Panetta scuttled the program, which would have relied on paramilitary teams, shortly after the C.I.A.’s counterterrorism center recently informed him of its existence.” 

New details on the secret CIA program that never happened: “The secret CIA program that was withheld from Congress was designed to find and capture or kill senior al-Qaeda leadership at close range rather than through air strikes, government officials said,” ABC’s Jonathan Karl and John Hendren report. “Democrats on Capitol Hill say they will investigate the spy agency's failure to inform lawmakers about the secret program.” 

From a senior Republican strategist: “Do Democrats really want to engage on this? . . .
1. The Obama administration is doing this now in Pakistan through drones (and hopefully are pursuing al Qaeda anywhere they are) . . . 2. I think most people in most Congressional districts want the administration to kill terrorists. . . . 3.Dems prove that they leak classified information and it probably wasn’t a bad idea not to share with them and tip off those al Qaeda leaders.”

Plus: “Former Vice President Dick Cheney's daughter, who has emerged as a fierce critic of President Obama's foreign and national security policies, said Monday that she is seriously considering a run for political office,” Joseph Weber writes in the Washington Times

“It's something I very well may do,” Liz Cheney told the Times' “America's Morning News” radio show.

It’s election day in CA-32, in the House special to fill Labor Secretary Hilda Solis’ old seat. “Judy Chu rose through the ranks of local politics and is on the State Board of Equalization,” Rebecca Kimitch writes in the Pasadena Star-News. “Judy Chu is the heavy favorite in the largely Democratic district.” 

Watching the governors’ races: Christopher Christie is up 12 on Gov. Jon Corzine, D-N.J., in the latest Quinnipiac poll: It’s 53-41.

Ready for the return of Hillary Clinton? “According to her aides, she is ready to articulate her own policy agenda, one that focuses in part on strengthening Americans’ capacity for what has been called ‘smart power,’ ” Ben Smith reports for Politico. “The speech she is scheduled to give Wednesday to the Council on Foreign Relations is expected to serve as an explanation and framework of the administration’s foreign policy and a tour of its busy first half-year. But it will sound some themes closely associated with Clinton’s former life as first lady and U.S. senator.” 

And don’t be nervous, Mr. President: It’s only Albert Pujols on the receiving end: “Whether it's draining a three-pointer for American troops in Kuwait or playing a pick-up game with the North Carolina Tar Heels, President Barack Obama has shown he's got game on the basketball court,” writes ABC’s Karen Travers. “But can he throw some heat over home plate?” 


The Kicker:

“Judges are like empires.” -- Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., just missing the analogy of the day. 

“I'd do just about anything for her. . . .But I really don't think I'd vote for her if she ran for President.” -- Levi Johnston (still getting network TV airtime), on Sarah Palin. 


Today on the “Top Line” political Webcast, live at noon ET: Rep. John Dingell, D-Mich., and GOP strategist Kevin Madden.

Follow The Note on Twitter: http://twitter.com/thenote

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



 

July 14, 2009 | Permalink | Share | User Comments (18)

User Comments

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

Sotomayor is on an easy path to confirmation. Now maybe the anti-Obama press can finally start telling the truth about Obama's actions to save the economy.

Posted by: matt | Jul 14, 2009 8:43:07 AM

Matt,

Sotomayor probably is on an easy path to confirmation.

As to the "anti-Obama press," I am at a loss to figure out who that is.

And the press has "finally start[ed] telling the truth about Obama's actions to save the economy"--they aren't working.

Posted by: Gene | Jul 14, 2009 9:30:26 AM

Why won’t the Louisiana governor and other top Republicans denounce the Young Republicans’ new chairman, Audra Shay, who's accused of spreading racial hate on Facebook? check TDB

Posted by: watching | Jul 14, 2009 9:59:41 AM

Judge Sotomayor in her opening statement to the Senate Judiciary Committee attempted to dispell any doubts about her prejudices when she declared she would not let her personal prejudices get in the way of impartiality. Duh! She admitted she has prejudices. She has previously demonstrated her inability to separate her prejudice from her decisions by rendering her decision concerning the Pennsylvania firefighters which was recently overturned by the Supreme Court. Is she saying she won't do it again? Haven't we heard that argument from every caught wrongdoer of all time?

Posted by: mmonroeliveson | Jul 14, 2009 10:00:48 AM

Matt - name a success in the plan ? I'll be waiting - and not a road project that will put people out of work as soon as it is done.. I mean lasting employment !

Posted by: halfmn | Jul 14, 2009 10:02:48 AM

all the press does is kiss his butt. they are so afraid to say something bad about that jerk.. they are afraid it will start riots...well fox isnt afraid to say anything bad about the fool on the hill

Posted by: GORDON HENDRICKS | Jul 14, 2009 10:03:17 AM

Give it a rest, mmonroeliveson.

Every human being has prejudices. I remember when Irish Protestants were discriminating against Irish Catholics -that's two, white, Christian groups hating each other - what an accomplishment.

The only "evidence" Sotomayer might discriminate according to race is her verdict, made in agreement with two white justices, that the city could throw out a test when most of the black firefighters, working in a mostly black area, failed to pass it. Oh, the horror! Allowing the city to decide that a written test is not the best test of a firefighter's ability to protect his or her neighborhood.

Honestly, Scalia, Thomas, Roberts and Alito mafe verdicts based on their prejudices every day, its just that they happened to be prejudiced in favor of conservatism, big corporations, and the government. what's the diff?

Posted by: Amy B Maine | Jul 14, 2009 10:15:05 AM

Obama is going to have to brush up on his song and dance routine in Michigan. He has promised jobs will be forthcoming but instead unemployment is on the rise. A trillion dollars later unemployment is on the rise. His defense? We don't know how many more jobs would have been lost without the stimulus. No we don't. That's unimportant to those who want to work but have no jobs. Those are the ones he'll be facing today. His folly in prioritization of healthcare reform, education reform, saving the financial industry, saving the rest of the world, prioritization of all these things above saving jobs, is coming home to roost. Confidence in our government is a missing element in new business development and lack of trust in our government's direction is likewise preventing economic recovery. This administration is acting as if only the government can bring about economic recovery. I have news. Only the private businesses of America can bring about economic recovery. The government needs to demonstrate somne compassion for, some trust in, some support of our small businesses. It's time to stop trying to squeeze every ounce of profit out of every citizen and every business so the government will have more money to squander.

Posted by: mmonroeliveson | Jul 14, 2009 10:16:43 AM

Amy B in Maine; She admitted she is prejudiced. Surely everyone is prejudiced but to admit it is a differnet thing. It's grounds for removal from office for most politicians. We're talking about appointing an openly prejudiced person, prejudiced against certain people and prejudiced for certain people, to a critical decision making position for life. That's the difference. It's one thing to have prejudices concerning the deep meaning of the provisions of our constitution as applies to all the other justices. It's a whole different thing to have prejudices against men, against whites, against those born into affluent and influential families as Judge Sotomayor has openly admitted.

Posted by: mmonroeliveson | Jul 14, 2009 10:30:10 AM

there is a little plant over in arlington texas i wish the president would visit. The plant makes seats for the large suvs made by GM in arlington and was closed down while the GM plant was shut down as part of GM restructing. Over the weekend the employees of the seat mfg were called back to work and fired and replaced by non union workers, 500 union job, 500 families according to the Dallas Morning News. come on down they would love to hear from you.

Posted by: william | Jul 14, 2009 10:46:24 AM

mmonroeliveson

I think you are prejudiced against Democrats and liberals, which is to say you cannot see Sotomayer clearly or make an unbiased decision regarding her.

Therefore, I am dismissing your arguments on the grounds they are formulated to advance the interests of your preferred group.

Posted by: Amy B Maine | Jul 14, 2009 10:49:55 AM

Forgive my intrusion, but fine as those sentiments sound, little has changed for us peasants down here on the ground. Turn a blind eye Evita..er..Obama, turn a blind eye! Instead of government, we had a stage. Instead of ideas, higher taxes we paid. Instead of help we were left to drown, he didn't say much, but he said it loud. Barry Obama Peron.

Posted by: mojo | Jul 14, 2009 11:04:36 AM

IF MJ WAS the "King of Pop", can we begin referring to Mr. O'Babble as the "King of Blather" ? I mean, has there been a single day when this guy hasn't spent some part of it running his mouth ? Looks to me like those "czars" are running the country while O'Bab babbles.

Posted by: Ron | Jul 14, 2009 11:18:17 AM

Amy B; Since you've turned judgemental, you've opened the door for a "back at you"! I am prejudiced, just as you are. I do believe in what I believe in, just as you do. But my prejudice is for what I think is right for America, not what's right for any segment or subsegment of Americans. However, I'm not seeking a position of power. I believe in America. I don't believe we need to recreate a government that worked for 225 years just so it will be more like the governments of other nations that are weaker than ours. All we need to do is enforce our existing restrictive laws to make America functional again. Then we need to start eliminating the more restrictive and archaic of our laws. Yes, we do live in a different world that's the same as it was 250 years ago. The basics haven't changed. There's still greed, avarice, thirst for power, thirst for wealth, deceit, and a struggle between politicians for control of the people. I for one refuse to be a pawn. I value personal freedom head and shoulders above reliance on any government entitlement. I have no interest in being enslaved by entitlements or being reduced to just part the crowd. I believe the government's primary role is to protect us from our enemies, from those who would harm us from within and from afar. I believe it's double dumb for the government to do everything possible to discourage individual success and competition for the prizes success brings. The lure of wealth built this country. It's the basis of free enterprise. Only those who achieve deserve the best. I further believe the present administration is biting the only hand that feeds our government, private business, the job providers, as they tax and spend the wealth our ancestors worked so hard to build. Redistribution is not the answer to our problems. Redistribution is the end of incentive to produce. In America everyone has the same opportunity to succeed. Some will, some won't. Bottom line is nobody appreciates gifts. They only appreciate what they earn and pay for in dollars, in sweat, in obstacles overcome, in ingenuity, in time invested, in lives invested. Success isn't instant for most. It's the end result of long term concerted effort. That's the lesson our young people need to learn. They can have it all now and lose it all later or patiently and deliberately work for whatever life has to offer them, which is directly proportional to what they are willing to give up, not what they're ready to take.

Posted by: mmonroeliveson | Jul 14, 2009 12:52:13 PM

#1. If we get healthcare - then the government people (House - Senate - President, etc) needs to have to partake of it also. We need to limit terms for our Congressmen and they all need to get our Social Security.... That makes sense.

#2. I think it was a grand idea to send someone out to kill al Queda leaders. To bad they didn't get the job done. and it's nobodies business what these people do...Congress.. HAW! lets not do jokes.

Posted by: artinthewild | Jul 14, 2009 1:34:02 PM

Of course giving things to people withouut their working for them is unproductive. I don't see where Obama is doing any such thing. Nothing you say is based on facts, its all ideas you have in your head. Sotomayer has worked her way to the top, educating herself and working very hard, the child of immigrants, where is your approval for her for succeeding through hard work and dedication?

Posted by: Amy B Maine | Jul 14, 2009 2:29:51 PM

When Obama was pushing the recovery and reinvestment plan,it was all about 4 million jobs in the private sector. He said only government can break the cycle.

Where are the 4 million jobs?

Posted by: R and R | Jul 14, 2009 3:36:47 PM

Amy B; I didn't say I don't admire Sotomayor for her success. In fact I most certainly do! All I'm saying is prejudice does enter into decision making considerations. I'm further saying her prejudices, should she be confirmed, and she will be, will become a part of the laws of our land, a land where everyone is to be counted equal under the law but some will have her sympathy, her empathy in their favor, as her prejudices are applied to her decisions. Therefore and thusly, she is unsuited for a job that requires she be blind, show no favoritism for any race, religion, color, national origin, sexual orientation, political persuasion. Everyone knows though most won't say it, she was nominated solely for the purpose of securing the allegiance of Spanish-American sympathizers, a special interest group with its own particular set of prejudices. Her prejudice will be a handy tool for the liberals when it's time to decide whether our Spanish origin illegal immigrants should be granted citizenship.

Posted by: mmonroeliveson | Jul 14, 2009 3:57:01 PM

Post a comment