See if You Can Guess Which Organization This Is

See if you can fill in the blank with the correct organization:

It’s inexcusable that we are still experiencing the ridiculous fiscal mismanagement that occurs within ____.  Repeated human error tells me that there’s a systemic problem in the organization. It seems to me that this is not something they can continue to be responsible for. 

On first glance, you'd be forgiven for thinking that the organization being referred to here is "Congress."  Butyou'd be wrong.  In fact, it's a member of Congress that's doing the complaining, if you can believe it!  Politico reports that Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.) made the comments to the Capitol Police after they made a $5.5 million error.  If you think it's crazy that members of Congress would criticize anyone for "fiscal mismanagement," you'll love her proposed solution:

[Rep. Schultz], chairwoman of the House Appropriations Subcommittee on the Legislative Branch, told House Sergeant at Arms Bill Livingood Wednesday that she is ready to take action against Morse and his department – action that could include turning the department’s budget process back over to the legislative branch or to a government contractor that deals with federal budgets.

Now, that will fix things!

POLITICS: Digesting the Health Care Summit

President Obama certainly has the gift of speech.  But, when it comes to health care, it seems like every big gamble he takes results in a distraction that actually removes the focus from health care. First, there was the July press conference during which President Obama sought to "Reclaim the Debate on Health Care."  That resulted in a distraction as a result of the Presidents remark that a police officer had "acted stupidly" in arresting a friend of Mr. Obama's.  That controversy didn't die down until the Beer Summit nearly a week later.

Taking another stab at it, the President decided to address Congress, with some predicting that the "Obama speech may save health care reform."  This resulted in yet another distraction, the infamous (and ridiculous) "You Lie" outburst.  Of course, this wasn't the President's fault, but it just seemed like an instance of bad luck on his part.

That brings us to today's Health Care Summit.  The President's goal was to show the Republican Party as the Party of "No."  Most of this was inside baseball, and stuff that people don't really care about.  After all, if it's broadcast on C-Span, there's about a 99% chance that the average American doesn't really care.  Instead, we'll need to see how it played in the media.  After all, like it or not, the media sets the narrative.

Well, this can't be encouraging news for the President.  CNN has three stories about the event on its front page, all of which are links only (the photo stories are about the trainer who was killed by the killer whale and something known as a "biblioburro," the Colombian version of a bookmobile.  One of the headlines refers to the summit as a "spectacle," but the other one is more problematic: "Obama snaps at McCain."  MSNBC has a Chuck Todd video about the "icy" relationship between McCain and Obama.

Here's the point: Whether you think Obama was right or wrong in the slapdown (and, in an Opinion piece earlier today, OpinionPolitics took the position that it was not a good move), there's no way that anyone in the White House was hoping this would be the storyline this evening.

Yet another big health care moment squandered as a result of a distraction.  And this time, President Obama has no one to blame but himself.

UPDATED: Here's $10 . . .

. . . that Charlie Rangel remains the chair of the House Ways and Means Committee, no matter that Speaker Pelosi is reserving judgment for now because she's "received nothing from [the] ethics [committee]." Rangel acknowledged today that he will be admonished by the committee for some of his travel reimbursements.

UPDATE: Looks like you owe me $10. From Politico:

Speaker Nancy Pelosi – Rep. Charlie Rangel’s most prominent defender – backed the troubled Democrat again on Friday morning, the day after news broke that the House ethics committee was planning to admonish Rangel.


“I think that every member is entitled to have his day before the ethics committee," she said. "They have said he did not knowingly violate the rules. And, again, if this were the end of it, that would be one thing. But there’s obviously more to come and we’ll see what happens with that. But every member has that right.”

OPINION: Sore . . . Winner?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't it generally bad form for the winner to rub his or her victory in the face of the person who lost?




Transcript (from CNN):

Sen. John McCain slams the special deals inserted in the Senate health care bill, saying those should be removed so that the American people will know "that geography does not dictate what kind of health care they will receive."

Obama shoots back, "Let me just make this point, John, because we're not campaigning anymore. The election is over."

McCain interjects, "I'm reminded of that every day."

OPINION: Democrats and Domestic Violence

Perhaps now we understand why Sen. Reid has been obsessed with domestic violence lately. From The New York Times:

Last fall, a woman went to court in the Bronx to testify that she had been violently assaulted by a top aide to Gov. David A. Paterson, and to seek a protective order against the man.

. . .

[J]ust before she was due to return to court to seek a final protective order, the woman got a phone call from the governor, according to her lawyer. She failed to appear for her next hearing on Feb. 8, and as a result her case was dismissed.

Many details of the governor’s role in this episode are unclear, but the accounts presented in court and police records and interviews with the woman’s lawyer and others portray a brutal encounter, a frightened woman and an effort to make a potential political embarrassment go away.

Sen. Reid, get that jobs bill passed now, before another Democrat starts beating his wife!

OPINION: Phony Transparency

So, OpinionPolitics sat down at the computer tonight to write a little bit about the health care summit, and started looking for a news article about the summit and how it is the fulfillment of President Obama's promise to hold health care debates on C-Span. From the looks of it, though, even the MSM isn't buying it. MSNBC doesn't even have an article about the summit in the first screenfill, and CNN's only article is an opinion piece by David Gergen describing it as a gamble. The fact of the matter is, this is nothing more than political theater.

The Washington Post has a "Viewer's Guide." The New York Times headline is "Preparing in Great Detail for a Health Debate, and for its TV Audience."

All of this misses the real point. During the campaign, we were promised a transparent process. And not just during the general election. In fact, one of President Obama's greatest criticisms of Candidate Hillary Clinton was the secrecy surrounding her health care initiative in the early 1990s. Here is what he promised:

I'm going to have all the negotiations around a big table. We'll have doctors and nurses and hospital administrators. Insurance companies, drug companies -- they'll get a seat at the table, they just won't be able to buy every chair. But what we will do is, we'll have the negotiations televised on C-SPAN, so that people can see who is making arguments on behalf of their constituents, and who are making arguments on behalf of the drug companies or the insurance companies. And so, that approach, I think is what is going to allow people to stay involved in this process.

Now, look at who would be at these televised debates? Anyone see Republicans on the list?

There's a reason for that. No one has very been worried about President Obama striking a backdoor deal with Republicans. No one spends their days fretting that there'll be a "Boehner Boondoggle" or a "McConnel Money-Grub." Instead, people (rightfully) worry about secret negotiations that resulted in the "Louisiana Purchase" and the "Cornhusker Kickback."

True transparency would result in televising the negotiations among those who are trying to get the healthcare plan through, not result in what is nothing more than a preplanned debate on the topic of healthcare.

True transparency would have given voters a chance to learn more about Sen. Nelson's sweetheart deal for his home state of Nebraska well before the Senate voted on the bill.

True transparency would have resulted in a Senate vote sometime other than Christmas Eve night, when Democrats knew that most Americans had focused their attention on other matters.

True transparency would have occurred before the first bill was introduced in the House, not after a House bill and a Senate bill had passed.

In short, true transparency doesn't require a viewer's guide. Phoniness does.

OPINION: Alexander Haig -- Misquoted Again

The "template" mindset of journalists was perhaps most noticeable during the 2000 campaign. It was during that election that any verbal gaffe by Governor Bush, which fit into the media's "'W' is dumb" template, was the focus of endless news stories, while a verbal slip-up by Vice President Gore was practically ignored. Alternatively, any time Mr. Gore misconstrued any detail of any story, which fit the media's "Gore is an exaggerator" template, that would get blown all out of proportion.

But template journalism has been around much longer than that. Consider Alexander Haig, who was Secretary of State under President Reagan and who passed away over the weekend. At that time, the media had a president who had been shot, and a vice president who was out of town. What better template to create than the third in line of succession trying to usurp power. And how easy, given Mr. Haig's "I'm in charge" comment. But besides the fact that that's not even what he said (he actually said "I'm in control," CNN's video caption notwithstanding), it's clear from even a cursory review of the video that that isn't what he meant at all.

Here's what he said:

Should the President decide he wants to transfer the helm to the Vice President, he will do so. As of now, I am in control here, in the White House, pending the return of the Vice President and in close touch with him. If something came up I would check with him of course.

Now, exactly what part of that should we interpret as meaning that Mr. Haig was attempting to usurp anyone's power? In response to a question on the matter (it's not like he just went out and decided to discuss the succession plan), he started by clearly acknowledging that the President himself was still at the "helm." Then, he indicated that, if the President transferred power, it would be to the Vice President. He then simply stated that he was in control "in the White House," and tapped his hands on the podium almost as if to indicate his control was limited to that building. In fact, for all we know, he could have been talking about being in control of the briefing room (after all, the press secretary was also seriously wounded in this attack).

What is clear is that, whatever Mr. Haig was talking about, he was not talking about being in charge of the country. And, if we do nothing else in his memory, the very least we could do is acknowledge that the view of Mr. Haig as someone who thought he was in control of the entire federal government is nothing more than a simplistic urban legend that was started by a bunch of journalists who can't think outside of their templates.

Not much has changed in the last quarter-century.

OPINION: Well, the Republicans are in Charge, And They've Screwed Everything Up

Why is it that when Republicans are in charge, they get blamed for everything that's wrong in Washington, and when they aren't in charge, they still get blamed for the Washington being "Frozen" and "Broken"?

The worst part is that CNN is giving Jack Cafferty a primetime special to do his Grumpy Old Men bit for an hour. I mean, liberal bias is one thing, but an hour of Jack Cafferty is just too much.

Obama Can't Get the Garbage Picked Up -- Literally

In local politics, you judge a politician by the basics, like whether they can get the garbage picked up. And while some folks (i.e., Drudge) have made a big deal about the fact that President Obama made the Dalai Lama walk by trash bags to get out of the White House, the bigger question for me is, why are the trash bags there to begin with. The Getty Images caption reads:

Exiled Tibetan spiritual leader the Dalai Lama (L) walks out the doors of the Palm Room of the White House by trash bags waiting to be picked up due to delays from the snow storms of last week in Washington, DC, February 18, 2010 after meeting with US President Barack Obama. The Dalai Lama appeared in public at the White House Thursday and said US President Barack Obama was 'supportive' in a meeting that drew angry protests from China.

Seriously? I'm no expert on garbage collection, but I would think if I were running a little behind, the first house I would visit once I was up and running would be the White House!

So, What Exactly Was Newsweek "Saying"?

Most of the OpinionPolitics readers have probably already seen this cover. It depicts Sarah Palin in a runner's outfit, just as the cover has depicted various male politicians in runner's outfits, right? Anyway, for those of you who claim that this is sexist, you can rest assured that the selection of this photo is not sexist. According to a release from Editor Jon Meacham:

We chose the most interesting image available to us to illustrate the theme of the cover, which is what we always try to do. We apply the same test to photographs of any public figure, male or female: does the image convey what we are saying? That is a gender-neutral standard.

So, just one question: What exactly is Newsweek "saying"?

TVNewser: CNN Alters Promo Audio to Make It Sound Less Left-Leaning

But don't worry, they haven't altered any actual programming to make it sound less liberal--it will continue to sound left-leaning.

via TVNewser.

The revised promo is below: