Will the Blagojevich scandal affect Obama?

In most US States when a Senate seat becomes empty (for cause of death, resignation or election to another office), the governor gets to appoint someone to fill in until the next election.

By now I suppose every one has heard of the  ugly scandal that is currently unfolding in Illinois. The Democratic goveror Rod Blagojevich was caught talking about exchanging the Senate seat vacated by Obama for something (preferably involving money for him, his wife or his campaign) on a wire-tap. This is referred to as the "pay to play" scheme.

 Rod Blagojevich : quel toupet !

What is most surprising is not that the governor should try to "trade" the Senate seat for fundraising (obviously that must be a common practice, how could it not be?) but that he should be so open about the personal benefits that he could obtain but most mind-boggling is the fact that he had the cheek to do this over the phone. He should have known better, all the more so since he knew he was under investigation byPatrick J Fitzgerald a federal prosecutor for other allegations of corruption ! 

A little time watching HBO's extraordinary TV series The Wire ( Sur Ecoute, in France) would have prevented great harm to the governor and his reputation. Bagojevich is constantly compared to Tony Soprano by the media, although the mobster was probably a bit more FBI wary than the politician. 

Now how does all this affect President-elect Obama? 

Although personally, there is no love lost between the two men and Obama would certainly not want to be involved in this corrupt business, there are several reasons to suspect that the President-elect (and/or his staff) might have known more than he claimed in recent declarations. 

1. It is the Senate seat that he has just vacated : so although he has denied any wrongdoing and even any direct or staff-channelled contact with the governor or his staff, it seems a bit unlikely that Obama would know nothing at all about who was being considered to replace him and that he

2. Several of the candidates considered were close Obama aides or advisors. And Jesse Jackson Jr. formerly responsible for Obama's fundraising operation (remember how he repudiated his father's rude gaffe) was actually referred to as "candidate number 5" in telephone conversations and one of his aides had been approached with the deal. The content of these phonecalls seem to indicate that the congressman agreed to help with the governor's fundraising in exchange for the Senate position. 

In the left leaning blog The Nation, John Nichols makes the case to defend Jesse Jackson Jr by arguing that the congressman has a history of defending reform and refusing to compromise politically, making him thus unlikely of trying to accept the governor's pay to play game. I can see the point but wonder whether it is really convincing : does being honest and ready to risk politial capital in many circumstances prove that you would never accept to raise money in exchange for a position to which  you are unlikely of getting elected. 

3. In some of the governor's dreamland scenarii, he would get appointed in the Obama administration in exchange for the Senate seat. How could Obama's staff be completely ignorant of this? Or we could also imagine and some have argued that the Obama staff may be the ones who blew the whistle on the governor's wheelings and dealings and warned the federal prosecutor of what was going on. In that case, they should have come clean about it as soon as possible. 

4. The fourth and strongest connection between the Obama administration and Rod Blagojevich is the future chief of staff, Rahm Emmanuel who worked very closely with the governor in the past. These two know each other very well and Emmanuel is certainly the person with whom the governor or his staff would have got in touch if they wanted to exchange favors. Click here for more on this : to read an article reporting that sources confirmed that Emmanuel had spoken to Blagojevich's chief of staff. 

I don't want to argue that Obama and his staff knew about this but rather more modestly that it seems a bit unlikely that no one on the President elect's team knew anything about the governor's shennenigans.  

the future of the GOP

A quick reminder, worth mentionning even if it is obvious to most of you.

In analytical terms the Republican base is composed of several different groups and thus the party is highly dependent the existence of this coalition, for no single group has the clout to make the GOP a viable party by itself ( of course some people adhere to all of these ideas)

The strength of the GOP in the past has relied on holding together (in no particular order) :

1. the deficit hawks or fiscal conservatives, these are often proponents of small government, eager to let the States, local governement and, even better, individuals themselves take control of their destinies ( they resemble a mild strain of libertarians).

2. the foreign policy hawks (aka "neocons" or neoconservatives), who were advocates of American intervention in foreign countries, as a way of maintaining American interests and domination in world affairs. Their position in the GOP is considerably less dominant than it was at the beginning of George W Bush's term. 

3. the social conservatives, who promote traditional values; they will fight for the institution of mariage, against abortion.

All three groups were dissapointed by the Bush administration and it's proving harder than ever to hold them together in a coalition.  The fiscal conservatives have gone ballistic over the cost of the Bush wars and over the biggest government expansion ever experienced under a Republican President (with the exception of Lincoln, perhaps...  if you remember the exam  I set in January 2008). The social conservatives are upset that Bush didn't/couldn't do more to implement their agenda on marriage and abortion. Each group accuses the others of having cost them the election : group 1 and 2 think that the Palin selection (which enthused group 3) is to blame for alienating independents voters. Group 1 and 3 feel that the war in Irak burnt up the party's capital and betrayed the Republican values. Group 1 resents group 2 and the national security wizz team of having endangered American liberties (Patriot Act, wiretapping...) And so forth...

Moreover, each section seems to be tugging in opposite directions and reconciliation of all these conflicting interests appears virtually impossible now.

Two main questions :

What direction will the party take and what will be the policy priorities of the GOP? 

- Will the party focus back on small government, fiscal restraint and individual liberties. Is such a shift politically desirable in the context of an economic meltdown? 

- How important will social issues be in the future of the GOP? The social conservatives themselves are starting to splinter : the younger generation is becoming more involved in environmental protection and less in fighting against gay marriage. Some evangelicals are willing to team with Obama to reduce the number of abortions and to tackle the challenges raised by climate change. 

-  Can a new GOP emerge with a platform more finely atunned to the challenges America is faced with : immigration and integration; financial turmoil due in part to reduced regulation; healthcare... For now the Democrats' answers to these questions have appealed to the voters, but the onus is now on the GOP to come up with viable policies that provide long term solutions that are congruent with the Republican ideals and values. Whether these values need to be refashioned is another question the party will have to grapple with. 

I believe that there's nothing like a stint in the opposition to stimulate policy makers and political thinkers. 

 

The subsidiary question which is related to the first is : Who will lead the Republican Party? To name but a few: Sarah Palin, Mitt Romney (remember how he dropped out of the primary race for the good of party and country !), Newt Gingrich ( who led the opposition to President Clinton in Congress). But there are many others out there waiting for the chance to become the GOP standard bearer in 2012. Who do you think could take up the mantle of the party? What would it mean for the GOP? 

filibustering, Georgia and a majority of 60 in the Senate

After a long thanksgiving leave, during which, among other important things,  a boysterous Sarah Palin was interviewed "while turkeys were slaughtered in the background", I'm back to tackle the best I can a momentous topic : what now for the GOP? 

But before that I'd like to answer the question asked by one of you : what's with Georgia? And why the hype about the 60 strong Democratic majority in the Senate? 

Remember that the US Constitution lets each State make provisions for the electoral rules they wish to apply, which made it possible for some States to disenfranchise certain citizens in the past.  

A runoff is organised when no candidate has reached the 50% +1 vote margin required in certain  States which have a two round system (as we do in France for most of our elections; the word runoff is thus translated into "deuxième tour"). In most States, a plurality system voting is the rule ( also called "first past the post" as it is referred to in England, for instance) and so there can be no runoffs.
In Georgia, the vote was split between three candidates (Rep; Dem and Libertarian), neither of which won a majority, hence the runoff election between the incumbent Saxby Chambliss (R) and Jim Martin (D). The runoff was won by the Republican candidate, as expected (NYT article). The GOP base was very excited about the runoff, much more than the Democratic base, and Chambliss described this election as the last ligne of defence protecting the US from Democratic Party tyranny. 

Why ? Because if the Democrats have a majority of 60 in the Senate they will be able prevent an opposition Senator from filibustering. 

Filibustering is a practice of legislative obstruction by which a Senator takes the floor during a debate on a bill and does not stop talking untill the session is adjourned, the practice is commonly started before a Congressional recess ( Christmas/Summer break). A successful filibuster thus prevents a bill from being voted. 

For a fictional rendition of this practice watch in The West Wing, season 2, episode 17. There is also a great scene of filibustering in the classic Mr Smith goes to Washington (1939). 

Filibustering is often used to block appointments to Cabinet positions than require Senatorial confirmation (Secretary of State, Secretary of the Treasury, Attorney General...).

The only way to stop a filibuster is for a majority of 60 senators to cast a vote (called "cloture") ending a floor debate and thus precipitating the vote on the bill. If the Democrats had such a majority, the Republicans fear that they would rubberstamp any Obama appointments and crush all opposition. And obviously, a bigger the majority the easier it will be for the Dems to pass legislation. 

I recommend a short a NYTimes video presenting the results of the runoff and its impact on US politics. 

How close are/were the Democrats to the magic number of 60 Senators? If we have a glance at the electoral map and the result of the 2008 election, what we see is that the Democrats have 56 seats, the Republicans 41 and there are 2 independent Senators,  including the very controversial figure of Joe Lieberman, a former Democrat who vocally supported McCain during the campaign and criticized Obama, for an up-date on his position in the Democratic caucus and his ability to keep his comittee chairmanship : read this. 

Basically 3 seats were left undecided after the election and were proving critical for the Democrats to establish a complete hegemony in the Senate : Georgia (no longer an issue now), Alaska and Minnesota. 

Alaska's incumbent Senator Ted Stevens (convicted on several counts of felony, days before the election) lost to his Democratic opponents by a very narow margin and the result was finally known on the 18th of November. 

Whereas in Minnesota, the election was so close that an automatic recount  was ordered, in compliance with the State electoral laws. The feud oppose former comedian Al Franken (D) to incumbent Norm Coleman (R), each has won 42% of the vote, with 15% going to Independent Dean Barkley. As I write the gap between the two candidates is about 225 votes! The election could really go either way; read about projection models in the NYTimes. The final results will be in around the 19th of December. 

I'm creating a new post to talk about the future of the GOP, this one is long enough already.