I wish for somebody merely to observe that Abramoff was not, in fact, following the rules; that senators, congresspeople, and aides are being investigated for not following the rules; that these people are, to my knowledge, exclusively Republican; and that several of these people are in danger of going to jail for not following the rules.

In short, the main problem is that the people in charge are not following the rules that we've already got, such as they are, and it doesn't seem likely that the people who are not following the rules that we've already got will start following a new and improved set of rules.

Obama's a nice guy but he gets way too much attention. If they stop fawning over him and asking him on all the shows it might go to his head and we'll see another good senator ruined: blined by the lights and lost in the illusion of his own celebrity status. Already it appears Obama don't have enough sense to turn down the invitation to be on Tv...wasn't he on a show just last week?

What I heard Obama say was that he didn't know if he was the unnamed senator in the quote or not, but that Reid knew what his position was on bi-partisan reform. I know lots of progressives are put out by what Obama said but he is, after all, from Chicago where the Daley administration has been rocked with corruption scandals. It seems to me Obama blocks accusations of hypocricy by refusing to hammer on Republican scandals without pointing out that Dems aren't "without sin".

Besides, as long as I've been reading about Obama he's been making it clear that his vision is to bringing together voters who have long seen their interests as opposed rather than shared. This is a historic reality that has prevented advancement of social equality, economic opportunity and progressive politics in America for as long as it has existed -- the old divide and conquer thing.

Maybe he's wrong to believe this can be accomplished; maybe he's going about it the wrong way. But the trying, at least, is -- in my estimation -- an admirable thing.
cs | Email |

Ah, I see, the Dems need to put in place the same sort of credible ethics reforms that the Reps did in 1995 which lead to the current situation. How bipartisan of you.

"appeal to the sensibilities of well-meaning Republicans" ~ S Clemons

Yeah like Snow and Collins who are about to put a nut job on the Supreme Court....Yeah right.

A typical short-view v. long-view controversy: What will the Dems get by drawing a line in the sand - a wedge between the Straussians-dash-Trotskyites and the rest of the Republican party? A sharp scalpel with which to excise the NeoCon tumor?

Or do you believe in forcing their hands?

The problem is not a lack of consensus between Senators Obama and Reid. The problem is the continued lack of leadership in the Democratic party.

Just differentiating yourself from war criminals doesn't make you electable. At least not in America.

Another example of Harry Reid's inability to say or do anything.

I dont think the man is stupid, but boy does he look befuddled at times.

"appeal to the sensibilities of well-meaning Republicans."

Sorry, Mr. Clemons, but there just aren't any. They've proven to be party-first, country-second. Time and time again. Blue-state senators voting for tax cuts, Alito, Pat. Act, etc. Republicans no longer represent the will of their constituents. They DO represent the will of Karl Rove. It's way beyond time to attempt a bipartisan anything, really, b/c if it works, the Republicans will take al the credit (as the media will fail to acknowledge), and when it doesn't, the Dems will be blamed. Watch the Dems get blamed for "blocking/gutting/changing/altering the Patriot Act" the next time we're hit...

Steve,

I agree with ploeg and Punchy. I assume that you, having worked with some Republicans, are projecting on to them your persona of being well-meaning. I have not seen actions from any Republicans that suggest they can be trusted to place country/morals/conviction/what-have-you above their party. Sure a lot of them talk a good game, but honestly, look at the whole unitary executive issue and then look at who they're ONE HUNDRED PERCENT on board with for the next SC Justice.

Krugman was right. It is very difficult for people in the system or those who work or associate with people in the system to understand revolutionary change in action. I suspect that even several of your so-called "well-meaning Republicans" don't see it.

Regardless of what they say, or how they may really feel, they just cannot seem to quite go against the administration in the end. Given this, why bother with the "appeal to the sensibilities of well-meaning Republicans"? It's not going to move your ball down the field. It's just not.

Ever since Reagan (when I started following politics) I have found Republicans---esp. conservative ones---extremely mean, condescending, closed-minded and with no sense of balance between self-interest and the common good. These people say their philosophy is that society functions best when people are motivated by greed, but what they really mean is that they want free rein to cheat and steal their way into the Republican American dream.

As far as Obama goes, I don't trust him at all. I think he is the charismatic representative of the moneyed classes, a smarter, more facile George Bush, but still a man intended to be a good servant. I don't see anything beyond simple self-serving in his politics to date. I expect little more from Congressman in ordinary times, but the bar is higher now.

Except for the important area of national security, I have not seen any area of Republican policy which is concerned with using the power of the federal government to pursue goals in the national self-interest, such as environmental improvement, energy independence, education, etc.
In the area of education, the Republicans have been incredibly cynical: Bush's NCLB has the goal of showing that public schools are failures, and to what end?... so that private schools, esp. religious schools can get federal money. And to what end private schools? The reason is that there is more freedom to indoctrinate children to become Republicans. There is no sense of the value to society in a well-educated populace. On the contrary, Republicans want dumber voters---the better to fool, and the better to recruit for their wars.

"Republicans---esp. conservative ones---extremely mean, condescending, closed-minded and with no sense of balance between self-interest and the common good." and then

Marky goes right ahead and makes a personal attack on Obama "I think he is the charismatic representative of the moneyed classes . . . but still a man intended to be a good servant. . ."

The meanest comments I have seen are from the likes of you! Rabid comments by Pat Robertson (who Steve maybe saved) are at least criticized by the right. Even Republicans know that Ann Coulter is caustic to say the least. But the filth that exists on Kos or even this web site is quite personal in its attacks of viewpoints which are not "progressive."

Marky, I bet that your shit doesn't stink either!

Kettle,
How about NCLB? Great environmental policy the GOP has, eh? Nice energy policy too.
Good job elevating the level of discourse, you twit.

Funny you should compare me with Robertson. It just shows how unbalanced the right is. Robertson calls for murder, revels in Sharon's stroke, has called for a nuclear bomb to go off in the state department.. while I said that Republicans are mean and selfish, and Obama represents the moneyed classes.
Nice try.

Marky,
I described your comments as mean and infer that you are a hypocrite. The comments attributed to Robertson which I described as "rabid" were not intended to describe your verse. And sorry if you thought that I was comparing you to Robertson (who Steve saved by the way!).

Please reread my comments, as we all can write caustic comments from time to time. I wan't trying to defend NCLB, environmental policy, energy policy . . . but just trying to elevate the banter.

The correct answer for Dems when asked about reform proposals is: How can we propose solutions when we don't know how deep the rot goes?

Although it may seem obvious to those who follow the news that this is a Republican scandal, I don't think the general public realizes it yet. Think of how many people thought Saddam caused 9/11. Until the corruption is seen as a Republican failing, I don't think the Dems should offer a bipartisan cover for reform efforts.

Steve:

I asked the question of Reid that drew the answer that you focused on.

I think the problem Reid is worried about is much more serious than the one you and Obama are worried about.

Especially this year, Sen. Obama has shown a surprisingly large level of fool in him.

I think he is a rock star, but he needs to get shrewder.

Armando -- It was a great question -- and just so folks know, I never said Reid's response was wrong. I simply put forward the proposition that it's an interesting debate to have, i.e. whether to embrace the parts of the Bush administration or Republican Party that have a conscience and soul about these matters -- or to draw a line in the sand and contrast Dems and Republicans. Your question was very apt -- and Reid's response was honest.

I took some heat from other bloggers for reporting that discussion the way I did -- but no one contests the reporting -- just the framing. I think that for blogging to mature, it has to be honest about responses and treat them as they are and were meant to be. I think I was true to Reid's statement -- and I think Obama has a different view. As a blogger and journalist commenting on this, it's not our job to reconcile those views -- but rather to give them an honest hearing.

Hope this makes some sense to you.

But thanks for prompting the interesting exchange.

best regards,

Steve Clemons

Steve:

Your reporting was certainly accurate. I hope no one foolishly doubted you on it. You are scrupulously accurate it seems to me. On everything that I have some knowledge that you write about (I read you religously by the way, commenting almost seems pointless, you cover your points so well I have nothing much to add), I have not been able to quibble even with interpretation of what occurred.

Obviously here I do differ with you in prescription to some degree and agreed with Reid's answer. Perhaps I am too cynical, but after the past 5 years, trusting Republicans on anything seems foolish to me.

I don't know if you feel this way, but Bush's ascension seems like as radical a break in governance (there is no commonweal anymore, just partisan interests) from anything before that it is just a whole new ballgame now.

That feeling undergirds my philsophy in dealing with Republicans now. The "moderate" ones have no say, and roll over anyway. Witness McCain.

Voinovich provided you a great victory on Bolton of course, so perhaps you view it differently.

Obama is, to my mind, looking for consensus bulding without real partners. And is quite naive about it. As I said, he is a rock star, but he is on dangerous ground in this in my view.

I'm with Harry Reid on this. There are no "well-meaning" Republicans in Congress. Trying to accommodate Republicans in this climate is an invitation to disaster and irrelevance. Obama, much as I like him, is being naive. Reid is right.