Unleash the dogs!

Back in the sixties, a political friend of mine – Irish-American Chicago politics background – told me that whenever you hear a politician worry in public about something happening, you can be certain that he is working his very heart out behind the scenes to make it happen.

Which brings me to Dick Cheney.

“Who will rid me of this meddlesome priest?” The question asked by England’s Henry II about Thomas a Becket almost a millennium ago comes to mind unbidden but irresistibly.

In case you missed it, Cheney gave an interview to Politico in which he said, essentially, that if the Obama administration didn’t conduct matters of security exactly the same way as Bush had, we would be struck again on our homeland by terrorists. He offered chemical, biological and/or nuclear attacks as possibilities.

What on earth could be the purpose in trying to scare us to death again? It’s a rhetorical tactic left over from the campaign of 2004, but why? Dick Cheney and his ideas were disavowed by his own party way before the recent election made it clear that it’s time to move on.

Who knows? Maybe he just wants to be loved.

For the good of the country, it’s time for Cheney to follow the example of his old boss and go quietly into that good night. Head back to the ranch in Wyoming, or Texas. Wherever.

With friends like him, the American people don’t need enemies.
* * *
In other developments, I am so furious with Tom Daschle that I can hardly see straight. How dared he be so cavalier as to think the errors of his judgment would be overlooked? And what on earth are accountants for, anyway?

His failure to act honorably helped deliver a humiliating blow to the Obama administration.

He knew last June that the unpaid tax matter could be a problem, and yes, there might be perfectly acceptable explanations for his situation. But he KNEW it was there when he was vetted by the Obama people and he didn’t tell them until last month.

Tom Daschle has been around long enough to know that unpaid taxes can be a problem for any potential cabinet member – heaven knows, we’ve seen enough go down in flames in the past. What was he thinking?

Add to that the extraordinary amount of income – almost $5 million -- he had received as a consultant since he left the Senate. “Consulting” is a more discreet form of lobbying than Jack Abramoff and friends practiced. It’s legal, but it raises questions and, to make matters worse, he received some of those consulting fees from companies in the medical community.

The dogs of war were let loose: Not just the usual puppies, like John Cornyn (R-TX) and John Ensign (R-NV), but then the pitbull Grover Norquist, the anti-tax guy, emerged from whatever kennel he has been hiding in since he and Abramoff fell out of favor a couple of years back.

(Norquist was a big player in the White House during the Republican years; most famously, he has said he wants to reduce taxes in order to shrink government to a size small enough to flush down the bathtub drain. D’you think he’d get rid of the White House, too?)

So here they were, yapping and snarling again – just like the good old days. As if they never had a scandal in the world . . .

Not only did Daschle embarrass the administration and Obama personally, but in the matter of choosing a Secretary of Health and Human Services he consumed precious time and perhaps even damaged the chances of success for health care reform.

Thanks, Tom.
* * *
Finally, while we’re talking about such things, remember the old adage mentioned here before: the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again expecting a different result.

Along those lines, President Obama’s repeated efforts to work with the Republicans in Congress — traveling up to the Capitol to meet with the Republican caucus, meeting with individual Republican leaders, inviting them for cocktails at the White House, or to watch the Super Bowl game; yielding on one point after another in the stimulus package only to have them reject it again and again — all came to naught.

Toward the end of last week, though, he proved he hasn’t lost his mind. Describing the Republican opposition, he said, “Then you get the argument, well, this is not a stimulus bill, this is a spending bill. What do you think a stimulus is? That’s the whole point. No, seriously. That’s the point!”

So here we are, after years of Republican tax cuts that helped get us into this mess, with the Republican leadership in both houses now insisting that only tax cuts will get us out of it. They have claimed they want bipartisanship in Washington, and yet to date only three Republicans — none in the House, all in the Senate — are willing to support the legislation that even most of them acknowledge will provide jobs and tax relief to the American people and small businesses.

Another bit of psychology comes to mind: How many psychiatrists does it take to change a light bulb? Only one, but the light bulb has to really want to change.

Early Thanksgiving!

Election night was unbelievable. Literally. Down at Democratic Headquarters several dozen folks had gathered to watch the returns, yet the room was strangely quiet over an almost unbearable two hours, as the patient assembly tried to make sense out of the myriad maps and graphs displayed on TV news reports. Then, suddenly, the screen filled with the announcement that Barack Obama would be the 44th President of the United States.

The room erupted into noise and motion as people shouted and danced and hugged and cheered, the emotion of the moment even driving some of us to tears. How to believe that this moment in American history had arrived – and that we had been a part of it?

And yes, everything did change. The rest of the world celebrated right along with us; news flashed from all around the world, like the rolling reports of new years' celebrations, except it was all at once.

It was thrilling, no doubt about it. Especially for those of us who supported Barack Obama for the better part of two years, way too long by some standards, but that’s a problem for another time.

For those who are less than thrilled, but would welcome some good news, let me offer at least one thought.

The election is over.

And another: The winner was Obama, not Clinton.

And this: Rahm Emanuel, known as “Rahmbo,” is to be Chief of Staff at the White House. This appointment likely signals that the Obama administration will be disciplined, and that it will not be pulled to the left by the left-most members of the party. (That could be a whole separate column, so trust me for now.)

There was some collateral damage, too, in that the hapless campaign run by McCain and the Rove acolytes he listened to may have been the death of the Republican Party. And no, I don’t find that cause for celebration, because I believe in the usefulness of a loyal opposition.

But that opposition should be honorable and I think that the Republican Party, after it was hijacked by radicals, lost its moorings. Without those moorings, it will likely be a very, very long time before American politics regains its balance.

How is the Republican Party to become viable again? Certainly not by returning to the slash-and-burn tactics of Rove and Gingrich, now thoroughly discredited as party visionaries. These guys, along with Grover Norquist, are where the blame really should go once the dust settles.

How about revisiting the ideas of William F. Buckley, one of this country’s truly thoughtful intellectuals, about whom George W. Bush said, “Bill Buckley was one of the great founders of the modern conservative movement. He brought conservative thought into the political mainstream, and helped lay the intellectual foundation for America's victory in the Cold War and for the conservative movement that continues to this day.”

Buckley often spoke out strongly against the “neoconservative” approach to government. In a conversation with George Will (no slouch in the matter of conservatism), speaking about the Bush doctrine of spreading democracy abroad as foreign policy, he said:

It's anything but conservative. It's not conservative at all, inasmuch as conservatism doesn't invite unnecessary challenges. It insists on coming to terms with the world as it is, and the notion that merely by affirming these high ideals we can affect highly entrenched systems.

The thoughtful conservatism of Buckley was overrun by radicals like Grover Norquist, head of the euphemistically named Americans for Tax Reform; Norquist once told NPR, “I don't want to abolish government. I simply want to reduce it to the size where I can drag it into the bathroom and drown it in the bathtub.” Starve the government of revenue and you can do away with foolish things like, oh, national defense, public education, Medicare, Social Security, and FEMA.

Norquist was co-author of Newt Gingrich’s 1994 “Contract with America,” and had a long association with Karl Rove. He was instrumental in securing early conservative support for George W. Bush in the lead-up to the 2000 race for the presidency.

In 2003 Paul Krugman, who this year won the Nobel Prize for Economics, wrote:

Here's how the argument runs: to starve the beast, you must not only deny funds to the government; you must make voters hate the government. There's a danger that working-class families might see government as their friend: because their incomes are low, they don't pay much in taxes, while they benefit from public spending. So in starving the beast, you must take care not to cut taxes on these "lucky duckies." (Yes, that's what The Wall Street Journal called them in a famous editorial.) In fact, if possible, you must raise taxes on working-class Americans in order, as The Journal said, to get their "blood boiling with tax rage."

If I were trying to rebuild the Republican Party I’d get out a new broom and run these guys out of town.

The loveliness of the Obama victory is that it did not involve viciousness (pleas by some worried supporters notwithstanding) and remained calm and thoughtful throughout. And it paid off: Obama won in almost every identifiable constituency, including college graduates making more than $100,000.

Question for Karl Rove: Does this mean that to build a permanent Democratic majority all we have to do is provide college education for everyone that wants it?