The Truth about the Election

November 30, 2008 3:49 PM

NYRB-filter: The Truth About The Election by Elizabeth Drew
posted by wittgenstein (33 comments total)

Noooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!!!111!!!!
posted by ZenMasterThis at 3:58 PM on November 30, 2008

The amateurishness of the change.gov videos is making me very excited that we are going to see a populist who is intimate with people rather than playing to Big Media. The thinking and planning that clearly goes into every move Obama makes relieves my one remaining fear that he'll be an ineffectual idealist.
posted by DU at 4:14 PM on November 30, 2008

Is that pronounced more like "nurb" or more like "neerb"?
posted by Faint of Butt at 4:22 PM on November 30, 2008

But he won't do many of the things that Democrats usually call for: the reform of health care will be less sweeping than what's been proposed in the past; labor won't get everything on its agenda; and there won't be dramatic cuts in defense spending.

It's interesting that even someone writing for the NYRB can't see that 'health care' in the US is in as much a crisis as 'credit.' It's just that people with 401K's notice the 'bleeding' in the market first. Nor, does she seem to have anything to say about how you are supposed to have a life in the U.S. without a college education: the only path so far has been through unions and union negotiated contracts. And how are you going to pay for an ambitious energy/jobs program if you don't cut the budget somewhere?

I'm not exactly reassured... that the political class in the this country understand just what a crisis we actually face. I think Obama will have to govern from crisis if any real change is going to happen...
posted by geos at 4:33 PM on November 30, 2008

New York Red Bulls?
posted by stargell at 4:58 PM on November 30, 2008

Volume 55, Number 20 · December 18, 2008

Holy crap I need to start shopping!
posted by rokusan at 5:30 PM on November 30, 2008 [2 favorites]

He'll probably have to fix the financial bailout, about which the Bush Treasury Department blundered badly, and will try to get help to the automobile industry while pushing it in a new direction.

Yes that's a good idea- fix the bailout and help the automobile industry. i'll be happy if NYC isn't bankrupt and we still have food by the end of the year. I agree with geos she doesn't seem to realize we are in a crisis, but other than that a enjoyable read.

(what's with the dumb comments? zemaster, stargell, rokusan...)
posted by bhnyc at 5:43 PM on November 30, 2008

I don't mean to be cynical, but this reads like a fawning puff piece.
posted by plexi at 5:47 PM on November 30, 2008 [2 favorites]

My comment basically meant: FOR CHRISSAKES THE ELECTION IS OVER ALREADY. WE JUST ENDURED NEARLY TWO YEARS OF ELECTORAL NAVEL-GAZING. PLEASE LET IT STAY DEAD. PLEASE.

PLEASE.
posted by ZenMasterThis at 5:54 PM on November 30, 2008 [2 favorites]

Is that pronounced more like "nurb" or more like "neerb"?

It's two syllables -- "Nee-urb," I think.
posted by Devils Rancher at 6:04 PM on November 30, 2008

I don't mean to be cynical, but this reads like a fawning puff piece.

One needn't be cynical to observe the puffery. It's the face of the thing.
posted by Devils Rancher at 6:06 PM on November 30, 2008

Faint of Butt: Is that pronounced more like "nurb" or more like "neerb"?

I think of it more like something going by, sort of Doppler-y. Like so: neeeeeeeeeeeeeeeRRRRRRRRRRRRRRrrrrb.
posted by heeeraldo at 6:06 PM on November 30, 2008 [1 favorite]

(what's with the dumb comments? zemaster, stargell, rokusan...)

I dunno about the others, but I get a nickel per dumb comment. Ten cents for extra-dumb.

In other words: ching!
posted by rokusan at 6:52 PM on November 30, 2008

It's over, we won, can we cut back on the Obama newsfilter stuff unless something actually, like, happens?
posted by empath at 7:04 PM on November 30, 2008 [1 favorite]

But he won't do many of the things that Democrats usually call for: the reform of health care will be less sweeping than what's been proposed in the past; labor won't get everything on its agenda; and there won't be dramatic cuts in defense spending.

I don't understand why politicians are so timid about health care. It's really bizarre. Other countries have universal health care and they've gotten along just fine.
posted by delmoi at 8:03 PM on November 30, 2008

Also, in what sense is this the "truth"? It reads like like someone took a bunch of conventional wisdom and and then wrote out each idea as a declarative sentence, completely devoid of style.
posted by delmoi at 8:05 PM on November 30, 2008 [1 favorite]

Hence, the new President-elect is better prepared to take office than any other newly elected chief executive in the history of the modern presidency.

So if he's so well prepared, why is he about to nominate someone for Secretary of State who is constitutionally inelegible to hold the office?
posted by Class Goat at 8:48 PM on November 30, 2008

When I saw the article really was titled "The Truth About The Election", I was ready for something insightful, if not outright damning. Instead, I see that Elizabeth Drew is reaching for a Stephen Colbert-esque quality in her piece, which should have been sub-titled: "awesome president-elect, or awesomest president-elect". This isn't even puffery, it's uninspired gloating from first to last.

People, I know, I know. We are all excited. It will be so awesome. Now back off, and let the man work.
posted by boo_radley at 9:25 PM on November 30, 2008 [1 favorite]

I'll be glad when we're all done lining up to give the dude a blow job and some thoughtful, critical reporting emerges about him. The left(ish) portion of the press is so excited by their belief that they've just gotten someone elected that they'd applaud like seals even if he appointed Rove as his personal assistant.
posted by serazin at 9:36 PM on November 30, 2008

I'll be glad when we're all done lining up to give the dude a blow job and some thoughtful, critical reporting emerges about him.

Don't hold your breath.
posted by Class Goat at 10:27 PM on November 30, 2008

The Anxiety!
posted by Flex1970 at 10:32 PM on November 30, 2008

I'll be glad when we're all done lining up to give the dude a blow job and some thoughtful, critical reporting emerges about him. The left(ish) portion of the press is so excited by their belief that they've just gotten someone elected

So far he's exceeded my expectations.
posted by delmoi at 11:13 PM on November 30, 2008

So if he's so well prepared, why is he about to nominate someone for Secretary of State who is constitutionally inelegible to hold the office?

From the link in this comment:

I wouldn't bet on this actually preventing the appointment, however. It didn't stop Lloyd Bentsen from becoming Secretary of State. But it does make an interesting first test of how serious Barack Obama will be about taking the Constitution's actual words seriously. We know he thinks the Constitution should be viewed as authorizing judicial redistribution of wealth.

It's hard to take right-wing loons whining about the Constitution seriously, given the last eight years of Dubya Bush treating the Constitution like "just a goddamned piece of paper".

That said, Lloyd Bentsen was never appointed Secretary of State, so given that glaring error, it seems difficult to take the rest of the right's newly-found expertise on Clinton's credentials seriously, either.

It's harded to believe Republicans could be so bitter about not being able to appoint any more of their cronies and other family members to cabinet positions after January, that they would intend to bring the country down to their level, despite all the important stuff the US and Obama will need to deal with after he's inaugurated. All this effort by the right to break the United States, even before the guy has had a chance to lead the country.

The right-wing has made a joke out of the United States. They have demonstrated criminal incompetence in handling domestic and international affairs the last eight years. At this juncture, the right has nothing insightful or cogent to say about their vaunted Constitution, which they have gone to such lengths to destroy. Republicans need to shut up, sit down, and either get out of the way and let intelligent and capable people do the necessary cleanup work, or get involved in a constructive, helpful manner.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 1:02 AM on December 1, 2008 [1 favorite]

this reads like a fawning puff piece

I was ready for something insightful, if not outright damning

She's usually fairly insightful, but she exemplifies conventional wisdom. I think in the 24/7 media world it's harder to come up with amazingly new stuff for this sort of piece, which is in many ways just magazine-feature-length "background". TIME et al. are in the same boat.
posted by dhartung at 3:40 AM on December 1, 2008

I think in the 24/7 media world it's harder to come up with amazingly new stuff for this sort of piece

Here's one: Barack Obama Inc. : The birth of a Washington machine
posted by plexi at 9:01 AM on December 1, 2008

why is he about to nominate someone for Secretary of State who is constitutionally inelegible to hold the office?

because she KILLED VINCE FOSTER, dun-dun-dun!!!!!
posted by scody at 10:38 AM on December 1, 2008

I don't understand why politicians are so timid about health care. It's really bizarre. Other countries have universal health care and they've gotten along just fine.

COMMUNISS!
posted by Devils Rancher at 10:59 AM on December 1, 2008

Blazecock Pileon: Eugene Volokh is a professor of constitutional law at the UCLA School of Law.
posted by Class Goat at 1:08 PM on December 1, 2008

We know he thinks the Constitution should be viewed as authorizing judicial redistribution of wealth.

It's hard to take right-wing loons whining about the Constitution seriously, given the last eight years of Dubya Bush treating the Constitution like "just a goddamned piece of paper".

What about those of us who complained about Bush's abuse and expansion of executive authority, and general ignorance of and contempt for the Constitution, evidenced by attempts (many successful) to ignore or castrate it? Are we allowed to complain if and when Obama exceeds his Constitutional authority?

I hope you're addressing arguments on their merits, rather than lumping anyone who disagrees with the New New Deal into the right-wing loon category. The last time anyone claimed a mandate there was a little bit of resentment, don't forget. Luckily for our country and the state of politics, Obama seems more reasonable and tactful at addressing criticism and debate than many of his followers.
posted by vsync at 4:48 PM on December 1, 2008

Eugene Volokh is a professor of constitutional law at the UCLA School of Law.

And Lloyd Bentsen was still never a Secretary of State.

Are we allowed to complain if and when Obama exceeds his Constitutional authority?

Obama voted for telecom immunity. That boat sailed long ago.

But as far as the Clinton pick goes, the right can't even get Lloyd Bentsen's career history right. They have harassed the Clintons with ever career move they make. The right have also spent the last eight years destroying civil rights and pillaging this country.

I hope you're addressing arguments on their merits

The merits of any counter-argument can easily start with that Republicans don't know what they're talking about, and that their complaints about Hillary Clinton are ideologically and politically motivated. Their astounding track record of criminally deliberate idiocy has lost them their right to mouth off about the Constitution.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 5:57 PM on December 1, 2008 [1 favorite]

Class Goat, this seems to be very much a small issue, even if it is constitutional in nature. It deals with increases in salary, and I think you have to look at the intent. This is arcane, and I think it's possible that anyone, even a constitutional lawyer, might have missed Bush's executive order, raising the salary of Sec of State. I'm not so sure that the Saxbe Fix won't work. In any event, it's such a very minor issue compared to the policy of the Bush administration to flat out ignore any law or constitutional clause which they didn't like, until they got backed into a corner a few times. I don't see this as preceding any sort of crisis. The worst outcome for Obama is that he has to appoint someone else, which I don't think would be a big deal. It's certainly not on the level of committing war crimes and admitting it.

Volokh is confusing with his terms. The Emoluments Clause generally refers to Art. 1, Sec. 9. He's referring to what's known as The Incompatibility Clause. Small issue, but Volokh is making a lot of a small issue.
posted by krinklyfig at 7:22 PM on December 1, 2008

Art. 1, Sec. 9, Cl. 8, to be precise ...
posted by krinklyfig at 7:25 PM on December 1, 2008

Stupid question:

No Senator or Representative shall, during the Time for which he was elected...

Does this apply only to those people who are currently Senators or Representatives? Because that seems a plausible parsing, so if Senator Clinton were to resign, she would no longer be a Senator, thus no longer bound by the clause?
posted by Lemurrhea at 8:09 PM on December 1, 2008