Democrats' Top 3 Resolutions for 2009

1. Expel the Crooks - why is this so difficult for them? Between Blagojevich and Rangel there's enough impropriety for a few episodes of Law and Order. Time to purge the scum.

2. Stop the Class Warfare - when will Democrats stop waging war on anyone who works hard? Pitting the middle class against the rich isn't helping advance anyone, except the Democratic Party.

3. Lose the Santa Claus role - we know you'll never be able to fix all that ails the nation. Please, please stop pretending you can and promising things you can't deliver.

Republicans Top 3 Resolutions for 2009

1. Shake the Bush Legacy - does this one really need an explanation?

2. Diversify - the party of the old, white man is over. So over. We need a modern twist on some new and crucial issues from energy to immigration to health care. The old ones aren't working.

3. Stop Acting Like Democrats - between bloated bailouts to deficit spending to big government it's time we got off the socialism train and returned to our free market, limited government mentality that is committed to personal responsibility. We also need to relearn how to connect and communicate with America. That means scrap the staid, stale talking points and speak from the heart.

What has she done in her career? Does she have the experience to govern? Isn’t she just a name and a pretty face in expensive clothes? All questions asked by Democrats (I’m being nice) regarding Sarah Palin as McCain’s pick for Vice President.

Republican vice presidential candidate Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin (AP) But Caroline Kennedy –similarly an intriguing, attractive outsider decked in designer duds and a thin resume — isn’t put under the same kind of scrutiny.

The left is just plain giddy with excitement over a return to Camelot and the New York press corps, the most selectively tough in the business, is following suit. One this is certain: if Kennedy’s last name were Palin she wouldn’t be anointed.

Hillary has been telling her supporters to stop trashing Kennedy, but not because she wants to do Caroline any favors. Caroline and her Uncle Judas Iscariot Kennedy turned on the former first lady in her hour of need, arguably a turning point in the Democratic primary. The last thing Hillary wants is a discussion and comparison to her lack of experience when she ran for the Senate in the Empire State almost a decade ago.

I’m curious if she’ll sit down with some prominent Big Apple media fixtures like Charlie Gibson and Katie Couric and subject herself to their murder boards.

Obama is certainly pushing for his ally, no doubt. It could only benefit him to have a high-profile advocate on the Hill and Kennedy will certainly be more malleable than Clinton.

And what about this concept of change? The Kennedy family is an institution. They’ve been around for decades and have been consistently plagued by scandal and drama. Hardly what I’d call a new viewpoint.

As Kennedy travels around the state of New York, not saying much and refusing to answer questions about her lack of experience, I’m curious if she’ll sit down with some prominent Big Apple media fixtures like ABC’s Charlie Gibson and CBS’s Katie Couric and subject herself to their murder boards. As a resident New Yorker I would like to hear Couric ask Kennedy about her feelings on the Peace Bridge in Western New York or Indian gaming in the Catskills. I suspect there would be some stuttering and stammering in her responses but she’d hardly be called a fool as Palin was.

We always knew the Democrats had a double standard. They nominated the most inexperienced candidate in nearly a century to run for president, while they sought to destroy the Republican nominee for vice president because she wasn’t elitist or experienced enough. What they need to learn is that stature is not a substitute for substance, even in New York. But apparently, qualifications don’t matter to the left as long as you don’t hunt moose.

As a female and taxpaying New York resident I want the best possible candidate to fill Senator Clinton’s shoes, whether they are high heels are not. Since when did we digress to decision making based on race or gender? Affirmative action was abolished a long time ago.

With a Democratic governor making the selection, I’ve got no choice but to hope for an honest, fair broker who will help get us out of the massive financial mess our state is facing and work to relieve the oppressive and onerous Empire State tax burden. It should be about excellence, not someone who looks like me.

This should be what all New Yorkers are advocating for but it isn’t the case. The discussion isn’t about experience, qualifications or what’s best for the future of New York. It’s about which restroom a candidate uses, an argument that does nothing to advance the many causes supported by women.

In fact, selecting a candidate for the U.S. Senate or any job based on sex reverses the past progress of females. Women who came before my generation fought for equality, even gave their lives, so we could be treated the same as men. Giving preferential treatment to a candidate based on gender is not equality. It only sows discord and doubt in their qualifications. Look at what Alaska Governor Sarah Palin endured when reports surfaced that she was only chosen to be John McCain’s running mate because of her gender and not because of her outsider, no nonsense persona. — She could never quite shake that stereotype. (She couldn’t shake it for other, more obvious reasons, but that’s a whole other column).

For the record, I am not hung up on a thick resume chock-full of political gravitas. I liked Palin for her record as a leader in Alaska and her smart approach to governing. She was self-made and never wavered on her positions, a rare attribute these days. I think many of the elected officials currently in office with a long list of accomplishments have failed us greatly and I embrace the idea of fresh faces, but not simply because these faces wear lipstick.

Clinton won her New York Senate seat because she used her husband’s name recognition and his political machine. She also campaigned hard and brilliantly. Since winning the seat she has done very little for the state (where is the upstate “revival” and creation of 200,000 jobs she promised?) but she won fair and square and was not elected because she was a woman.Her successor shouldn’t be appointed for that reason either.

At a time when ethics and impropriety are at the root of many of our woes from Washington, D.C. to Wall Street to Springfield, Illinois, we should be searching for the best possible candidate who will be committed to the job at hand and to morality in governance, not because of their race, sex or location (upstate vs. downstate)—especially in the ethically challenged Empire State.

If there is one thing I do want to have in common with my representatives in government it’s the desire to advance in life fairly, as the best person for the job, not because of gender. There are no “white jobs”, “black jobs”, and “Hispanic jobs” just as there shouldn’t be “black Senate seats” and “female Senate seats.” Quality is paramount, especially when we’re faced with serious issues that are color and gender blind.

Rahm Emanuel, President-elect Barack Obama’s Chief of Staff , is known for a lot of things — sending a dead fish to a pollster who ticked him off, using profanity with foreign leaders (Tony Blair), strong arming anyone who gets in his way — but staying quiet isn’t one of them.

That’s why so many politicos are puzzled that a man known for his brazen bullying and forthright opinions is staying uncharacteristically quiet during the Blagojevich scandal, especially when he’s been fingered as someone who had contact with the Illinois governor. For this former ballet dancer, there is no way he can pirouette or demi plíe his way out of this one.

Obama, too, has appeared impotent when discussing the matter. He still speaks about arguably the most shameful display of pay-to-play politics–in his home state, with regard to his own Senate seat, no less–with little emotion.

Rahm owes it to his new boss to come clean. And Obama owes it to the public to encourage Emanuel to do so, especially when transparency and accountability were hallmarks of his campaign for the White House.

Here’s what we do know: that Emanuel had discussions with the disgraced Illinois governor (at Obama’s urging) regarding the vacant Senate seat. We’ve also learned that Emanuel relayed to Blagojevich a list of candidates deemed “acceptable” to the president-elect. While this isn’t illegal, it certainly warrants some answers, and fast.

Yesterday, Obama stressed that his internal investigation showed: “I had no contact with the governor’s office and I had no contact with anybody in the governor’s office.” He said the review showed the Blagojevich scandal “had nothing to do with my office.” Today, he told a reporter not to “waste his question” asking about the matter again.

We know Obama is smooth and a talented wordsmith, but if the reports are true that Obama tapped Emanuel to talk to the governor about his thoughts on a successor, then it’s true, Obama didn’t have direct contact with the governor. But he certainly used his top aide to act on his behalf.  Of course, that’s still not a crime if there was no quid pro quo.

The Obama camp claims they are staying silent because Fitzgerald's office has asked them to. But there is no impediment or injunction that prosecutors can put on them if they do address the public. Rahm and Obama aren't talking because they are choosing not to.

A new Rasmussen Reports survey conducted last Thursday and Friday finds that 45% of voters say it is “likely” Obama or one of his top campaign aides was involved in the unfolding Blagojevich scandal in Illinois. Twenty-three percent say it is “very likely.” –Just 11% say it is “not at all likely.” Not good numbers for an incoming chief executive.

Obama’s internal investigation could pose serious risks for the president-elect even if he insists there is no there there. My Greek father has a saying: if you’re going to air your laundry, you had better make sure you air your socks and your underwear.

When Obama releases his review he had better make sure that if he says there is no evidence of impropriety that no evidence surfaces at a later date. There has been speculation that there were confidential informants in Blago’s office and that the wire-tapping was present for longer than the nearly two months we already know about. — If that’s the case, it increases the likelihood that there could be more allegations involving someone close to Obama or political players from his past.

Time is of the essence. But just yesterday Obama said the report would not be made public until next week at the request of U.S. Attorney Patrick J. Fitzgerald, who is leading the Blagojevich investigation. That leaves several more news cycles of speculation. It can only exacerbate the situation for Obama.

For someone who is not only claiming innocence in this ordeal, but who was also hailed for running the best campaign in history — especially when it comes to rapid response –Obama has certainly made some grave PR errors and isn’t learning from his mistakes. He should empower Emanuel to tell us what he knew and explain his involvement. We’re waiting.

In perhaps his first major test before taking office President elect Barack Obama finds himself sucked into scandal. The Governor of Illinois, Rod Blagojevich, someone Obama has endorsed politically in the past, was caught on an FBI wire tap trying to sell Obama's vacant Senate seat in a staggering level of pay to play politics.
 
Let me make one thing clear: Obama has not been charged, nor is there any suspicion that he had any involvement. In fact, Governor Hot Rod was recorded grousing that Obama wouldn't be helpful to him. Even if the governor were to appoint a candidate favored by the Obama team, Blagojevich said, "They're not willing to give me anything except appreciation."
 
If that's true why was Obama's initial response so muted? On Tuesday, following the reports that Blago had been arrested, Obama said he was "saddened and sobered" by the news. Saddened? Lifetime movies make people sad. This should make him furious. For someone who ran on the platforms of transparency, accountability and above-board behavior Obama is certainly sounding like Jimmy Carter 2.0.
 
O: Where's the outrage?? And the straight story?
 
Axelrod told FOX News Chicago on Nov. 23: "I know he's talked to the governor, and there are a whole range of names, many of which have surfaced, and I think he has a fondness for a lot of them." On Tuesday, Axelrod issued a statement saying: "I was mistaken. ... They did not then or at any time discuss the subject."

Then Obama added: "I had no contact with the governor or his office, and so I was not aware of what was happening."  

Talk about mixed messages.

The final flub was yesterday when Obama called for the Governor's resignation through a spokesperson, a weak play from the future leader of the free world.

It is evident that Obama hasn't learned the lessons of the Reverend Wright ordeal: denounce and distance early. For his own career and perception of his Administration he needed to take a zero tolerance policy on corruption and impropriety, particularly so close to home, by coming out swinging (though it's worth noting that Obama has long been silent on fraud in Illinois, perhaps trying to skirt the subject of his role with Tony Rezko). He should have been tough and clear that if anyone in his circle was implicated they would lose their jobs and that he would aid in the investigation whatever way he can. Sitting silent appears sketchy.

Here's some free PR advice: if you've got nothing to hide, don't hide. The media may have been in bed with the President elect but they're bored and desperate to increase sales with something sexy. Until Obama explains a cloud will hang over his head leaving the public to ask what he knew when and where else this drama will spray. 

Too bad the chances of this loan being paid back to the taxpayers should be categorized as "very unlikely."

There is talk of a "car czar" to monitor the auto giants to ensure compliance with the terms of the loan. If government's track record is any indication of keeping an eye on our money, we're in trouble. Washington recently allocated 700 billion to unfreeze the credit markets and the Government Accounting Office (GAO) last week cited in its report that we can't account for $500 billion of the money spent thus far. Further, the massive bailout hasn't helped as Congress predicted.

Can Pelosi and company assure us the auto makers still won't fail if we come to their rescue? And if it does, what then? Credit is still dried up and kitchen tables across America are struggling to pay monthly bills, let alone a new car. If consumers aren't buying cars then it's impossible for the industry to stay afloat. And last time I checked Pelosi wasn't an auto engineer. Her and Harry Reid's efforts to set standards for new cars offer no guarantees that these cars will be competitive.

Nobody wants to see folks lose their jobs, but with high pensions and wages, the crippling effect of unions and no signs of real reform, the loan will do little to help cure the industry's woes. At best the loan could be categorized as a band-aid on cancer.

Washington must just say no to Detroit. Continental Airlines found itself in bankruptcy court twice and was forced to adopt real change. The big three must do the same.

I suspect, lurking in the background of the Detroit automaker issue, is a burning desire by some to use bailout money as a means to reacquaint America with industrial policy.

Industrial policy is the belief that government officials are better equipped to direct business and consumer decisions than businesses and consumers.

The American public flirted briefly with industrial policy in the 1990’s when it considered adopting Hillary Clinton’s health care plan. Hillary wanted to give the government increased power over the health care industry, including the authority to limit the amount of health care that could be provided by doctors and consumed by patients.  For instance, her initial proposal restricted the availability of mammograms.  Such proposals were made in the name of fixing an ailing industry.

Industrial policy could come back to life during these bailout talks.  The Center for American Progress -- the think tank headed by Obama transition chief John Podesta  -- is already putting out paper endorsing a bailout, contingent of course on limitations to executive pay, and the creation of green automobiles.  In other words, it wants bailout money to come with a big string attached-- increased government participation in the Detroit manufacturing process.

I don’t like pollution any more than the other person, and I do not need a gas-guzzler.  In fact, I drive a tiny car with a manual transmission. This is my preference, and I have made market decision based on this preference.  The federal government should not make this decision for me.

Moreover, we should place little faith in the ability of lawyers, policy wonks and career politicians to build a better car, and there is no reason to think that people will rush to buy a Washington, D.C. mandate over an Asian or European competitor.  The fear should be that the government will spend billions to satisfy political constituencies at the cost of turning U.S. auto manufacturing into a truly uncompetitive enterprise.

Perhaps this Democratic Congress and The White House will resist the seductive powers of industrial policy.  After all, they claim they are for change (a word about which they often talk but seldom define).   If Democrats do remain committed to old ideas, we must remember that government meddling in housing finance remains a root cause of current financial crisis, and direct interference in the manufacturing process has the potential of delivering even more economic pain.