Looking around at other blogs there is a noticeable lack of discussion of the bailout assistance that GM, Chrysler, and Ford are seeking on the Hill. I think for many Democrats this is a tenuous position that was always headed toward this point. The auto industry, and its labor representation, have long been supporters and in turn protected by policies of labor friendly Democrats. It’s impossible for us to not consider that labor contracts do need to be reviewed there are clauses in there that would crush any normal business. This isn’t to say that the Big 3 should drop employee protection and health benefits, but the CBA, like all aspects of the auto-industry, should be reviewed.

I should pause here though, and point out that some of the claims being repeated by the auto-industry with regard to how much they need to pay employees because of the labor contract are mislead. Repeated in the media is the claim of $70 an hour, the UAW website refutes those figures. However, I have yet to see an independent analysis of total cost of employment combining real wages and benefits, if you’ve seen it please drop it in the comments.

With prospects looking dim for any kind of vote happening in November, now is the time to evaluate a proper course of action for Government to take. There are only two options, government helps the auto industry, or it allows it to go bankrupt, fall into liquidation, adapt and survive, or languish and fail. The option of bankruptcy would be devastating to an already suffering American economy, but allowing the auto industry to continue business as usual is amoral. We can’t be expected to bail the industry out, just because of our support for labor.

As for issuing a bailout, if done under the currently proposed terms it amounts to nothing more than corporate welfare, and once that tap is turned on, it will never be shut off. Each year, Detroit will return to Congress asking for additional assistance, citing labor and competition as red-herrings. This is unacceptable.

As I and others see it, this is an opportunity for radical reform. And just at this hour with Representative Waxman taking control of the Energy and Commerce Committee we have the legislator to do it, and evidently the Congressional support. If Detroit really wants our help then they need to change the way they do business. Management restructuring must begin immediately, people need to be fired, they need to open their books up to the government, engineers and innovators need to replace advertisers and marketing gurus as the heads of company divisions.

Congress could pass legislation to create a a bailout fund for the domestic auto-industry, that they would need to apply for. The conditions for acceptance would include what has been mentioned above, but also the acceptance and pursuit of strict environmental standards. The money needs to be used for increasing production of money and energy saving vehicles. As condition of acceptance, they will need to make reports to agencies to be designated in both the legislative and executive branches. President-Elect Obama should be given the direction and statute to create an executive level position to oversee the companies that elect to draw from the fund.

If the industry finds an arrangement like this unacceptable, then short of nationalization of the industry, we need to call their bluff, and let them fail.

Times of tragedy and crisis are the times when big change happens most often. President Bush used tragedy and crisis to subvert our Constitution and laws, we as Democrats have a chance to use crisis to create a new industry of energy efficient vehicles, and accomplish meaningful reform that has languished for 20 years.

Just off the wire:

WASHINGTON, Nov 20 (Reuters) – Rep. Henry Waxman unseated fellow veteran Democratic lawmaker John Dingell on Thursday to become chairman of the U.S. House of Representatives powerful Energy and Commerce Committee.

The 255-House Democratic conference voted 137 to 122 to accept the recommendation of its steering committee and agreed to replace Dingell, 82, a long-time friend of the U.S. auto industry, with Waxman, a 69-year-old Californian anxious to ease global warming, a top concern of U.S. President-elect Barack Obama.

Henry Waxman is fighting to take over he chairmanship of the Energy and Commerce Committee from John Dingell. Dingell has been pretty pitiful over the last years, especially when he cut the fuel efficiency standards out of a 2007 energy bill. He’s also quite old, having been elected to the house before my father was born, but Waxman isn’t too new on the scene either. This affairs bothers me because although I disagree heartily with Dingell on a lot of envirioment issues, and he too often sides with his hometown Detroit, what does it say that we let Lieberman keep his chairmanship after what he did and might boot Dingell.

Either way, Waxman needed to get 14 out of 46 votes to be nominated for the position in front of the entire Caucus. Waxman won the vote today 25-22! Dingell was expected to get a majority if not stop Waxman from even getting the requisite 14, but it looks like his days as Chairman might be numbered.

Just to agree with the blogsphere writ large, I think is is outrageous that Lieberman has been able to retain his chairmanship. If we are a party at all then loyalty must be prized. In this sense, I’m not a pragmatist. I would give up 60, let him go to republicans and explain that to his constituents. Loyalty is the only currency I care about. We don’t need him and he should be tossed out. I don’t care if he rendered service to the caucus for a lifetime, when you stab the party’s candidate in the back you don’t get a chairmanship.

I find it highly unlikely that Liebs will be reelected, which means that he has 4 years to find a new job. Let him angrily caucus with the GOP. At least he has friends there. He’s spewing bs now. He says that keeping him is in Obama’s spirit of bipartisanship. But if he has never said a kind word about Obama and now just wants his job, is he someone to keep?

I might agree with Nate Silver that Obama is likely to blame, but when he says:

So how you feel about Lieberman should ultimately hinge on how you feel about Obama, and how you feel about Obama should ultimately hinge on your opinion about whether he is liable to put that political capital to good use. If you believe Dean’s implication that Obama is going to use that political capital to pass both significant climate change reform and significant health care reform within the first two years of his presidency, you probably ought to give him the benefit of the doubt. If, on the other hand, you see Obama as someone more concerned with the accumulation of power toward ambiguous, uncertain, or incorrect ends, this is liable to be the first of a long line of displeasing decisions, and you had better get used to pushing back against the White House.

I disagree. I disagree with Obama on Lieberman because I think that allowing flagrant disloyalty to go unpunished is a dangerous precedent to set. I think you send a message, maybe for a generation of senators, that you can’t do what he did and then stay in the caucus you attack. Might it have been a distraction, sure? But would distraction have scuttled the Obama ship or does my opposition to Obama on this point mean that I will disagree with how Obama uses his political capital generally? No.

Ted Stevens conceded earlier today. Good to know that although the people of Alaska are foolish enough to elect a governor who can’t speak in complete (or coherent) sentences, they won’t (barely) elected a criminal. In some ways I feel bad for Ted Stevens, not because he lost his election but because through careless arrogance he has destroyed a lifetime of service.

On a similar vein, despite routing for, voting for and fighting for Obama, I feel bad for McCain. Similarly to above, I don’t feel bad that he lost, but that he gave up so much of his reputation in the process. He’ll go down in history, if senators ever really go down in history at all, as a man who lost almost everything in the race. His actions, rhetoric, tone, and sudden policy switches will overshadow his genuine and often brave service to country. I can’t say that I agree with him on much of anything, but he’ll never be thought of as a above-the-fray politician again.

The recount started in Minnesota today. All I know is that December 5 is a long time a way, and we might get daily stories about 28 vote increases.

I want surprises. I want innovation. I want change. I voted for change. Many American voted for change, but it seems so far that we’re going to get a cabinet of the usual players. Now, Gary has pointed out to me that if you look at FDR’s cabinet you had a lot of insiders, but obviously that cabinet brought about a lot of change.

But Roosevelt had the brain trust–an unlikely cadre of advisers who thought of some of the most innovative solutions to the nation’s problems that we have ever seen. They turned upside down the expectations for government. Who is the Loius Howe? The F. Palmer Weber? Maybe these figures, a modern day brain trust will appear, but so far what I’m seeing is exactly what we’d expect: old names, old faces, old ideas. Tom Daschle? Hillary Clinton? Rahm Emmanuel? Eric Holder? All fine choices, and I will likely in the coming days, weeks, and months will accept, indeed praise, their appointments, but today, this hour I just want to know when we’re going to see some change.

Marty Lederman’s answer: Almost assuredly not. You likely know that already. But let me quote the level of detail the campaigns are now getting into:

As of right now, Obama has 63 “pledged” delegates, to 48 for Clinton and 26 for John Edwards. On February 5th, 1688 further pledged delegates will be chosen, from 22 states, American Samoa, and Democrats abroad. Of those 1688 delegates, 1096 will be allocated on a congressional-district-level basis. And, as the New York Times reports today, the allocation rules are such that, where a particular district has an even number of delegates, they are likely to be split evenly between Clinton and Obama, except in those rare districts where one of those candidates fails to secure 30 percent of the vote. Therefore, the candidates are aiming their focus on those districts that have an odd number of delegates (e.g., one or three), in hopes that in those particular districts they will gain a one-delegate advantage over the other candidate!

I highly recommend that you read the whole article on Balikination here.

Caroline Kennedy was big, but I think the fact that Ted Kennedy endorsed him also is huge. Ted almost never endorses someone in the primary. The theme of Ted Kennedy’s speech at American University, and of Caroline Kennedy’s Times op-ed, is that Obama is John F. Kennedy’s political heir. It is pretty easy to see Ted’s attacks on 42 with lines like: we have to “to turn the page on the old politics of misrepresentation and distortion.” I was personally more moved by Caroline:

OVER the years, I’ve been deeply moved by the people who’ve told me they wished they could feel inspired and hopeful about America the way people did when my father was president. This sense is even more profound today. That is why I am supporting a presidential candidate in the Democratic primaries, Barack Obama.

Toni Morrison has added her endorsement to Obama’s collection as well. The Nobel Prize-winning author and Princeton professor wrote a letter to Obama explaining her decision, saying that “in addition to keen intelligence, integrity and a rare authenticity, you exhibit something that has nothing to do with age, experience, race or gender and something I don’t see in other candidates. That something is a creative imagination which coupled with brilliance equals wisdom.”

And, since it matters to me, “Gov. Kathleen Sebelius (D-KS) will deliver the Democratic response to the State of the Union on Monday. And then Tuesday or Wednesday, she plans to endorse Barack Obama, numerous Democratic sources said.”

But as I will be the first to admit, the big question is whether Obama can have a large enough showing in NY, NJ and CA. If not none of this will matter.

I have decided to blog a little bit in the run up to Feb 5th and then see where we are. Gary is a pretty ardent Hillary Supporter, I am a pretty ardent Obama supporter. So, things might be interested.

I would like to start with a quotation from The Super Tuesday Strategy Guide by Christopher Beam and Chadwick Matlin:

Hillary Clinton: The proportional-delegate system doesn’t help the national front-runner because she can’t rack up a commanding delegate lead. So, for Clinton, Feb. 5 is about maximizing her advantage in states that already favor her. She owns the tristate delegate behemoth of New York, New Jersey, and Connecticut (468 delegates total). Plus, Arkansas (47) still remembers her as their First Lady before she became the country’s. She polls favorably ”and Obama polls poorly ”among Latinos, which means that Arizona and New Mexico (105 delegates total) are friendly states thanks to their 25 percent-plus Hispanic population, but Obama won’t cede those votes. The Latino-factor also helps her in California (441) where she already polls well, but she’ll need to spend considerable time there to fight back against Obama’s made-for-Hollywood life story.

States to tackle: Arizona, California, Colorado, Kansas, Missouri, New Mexico, Massachusetts
States to ignore: Arkansas, Connecticut, Illinois, New Jersey, New York

Barack Obama: Nationwide, Obama hopes to combat Hillary’s name-recognition with his own star power. Besides blitzing the national media, he’ll probably start with his home base, Illinois (185 delegates), and focus on states with caucuses like Kansas (41) and Minnesota (88), where he might repeat his Iowa victory, and open primaries in which Independents and Republicans can vote as well. Obama should also tackle purple states in which Democrats normally fare poorly, such as Colorado (71) and Missouri (88), to draw out Hillary-hating indies. Independents can also vote in the day’s biggest prize, California (441), although Hillary has an edge in Golden State polls. The other grand prize, New York (281), is also Clinton country, but Obama will likely try to foment an uprising in the Big Apple ”a victory there would make for giddy headlines ”and leave the boonies to Hillary.  

States to tackle: Illinois, Colorado, Kansas, Minnesota, California, New York
States to ignore: Arkansas, Connecticut, Oklahoma, Delaware  

John Edwards: Assuming John Edwards stays in the race through Feb. 5, he’ll have to find a way to play kingmaker with his delegates. That means concentrating on states where he can pull in at least 15 percent of the vote, which is the Democrats’ threshold to receive delegates. He should concentrate on the South to capture the white vote that Obama doesn’t grab and Clinton doesn’t compete for. He already has roots in Georgia and could do well in Alabama and Tennessee (248 delegates total). From there, he can look to his strong second-place finishes in 2004 for inspiration. Missouri, Oklahoma, and Utah (164 delegates total) all leaned toward Edwards in 2004, and could do so again. There probably won’t be room for him in California or New York (722 delegates total), but squeezing any delegates out of those two would add a few jewels to the crown.

States to tackle: Alabama, California, Georgia, Missouri, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Utah
States to ignore: Arkansas, Colorado, Illinois, New York, New Jersey

The smaller paper format of the New York Times is an affront to every long time reader of the print edition. As though less space for the news was bad enough, fewer letters and less Op-ED space lowers the discourse in the newspaper. Many read the Times because of their dedication to principles beyond petty economics. Not the men who add to the quality of their own living or that of their shareholders, but the men who deepen the quality of our living, are the real benefactors of the news. Arthur Ochs Sulzberger, Jr. was no friend of the news today.

Just how much has economic liberalization moved China toward democracy?

Seymour Martin Lipset famously wrote:

[T]he more well-to-do a nation, the greater the chances that it will sustain democracy. From Aristotle down to the present, men have argued that only in a wealthy society in which relatively few citizens lived in real poverty could a situation exist in which the mass of the population could intelligently participate in politics and could develop the self-restraint necessary to avoid succumbing to the appeals of irresponsible demagogues.

Much of the democratic world’s relations with China is driven by Lipset’s notion that economic growth will provide the conditions under which democracy is most likely to occur. I’d like to briefly examine two cases of recent noteworthiness that point out the weaknesses in Lipset’s theory.

The first ”the Chinese government’s reaction to the scandal involving the exportation of pet food, medicine, and toothpaste tainted by counterfeited chemicals reveals a great deal. China’s decision to make global its rampant food and drug tainting problems after it was discovered to be the source of the tainted products reveals that unlike its handling of the SARS incident a couple years ago, the Chinese government, finally realizes that a measure of transparency is required in dealing with its trading partners (many of which are democratic and expect transparency). In a way, then, though the ordered executions of several of its top food and drug safety officials does not seem very democratic, the Chinese government has been compelled, through outside economic incentives provided by global trading, to be a little more transparent, and people within China’s borders more or less benefit from that increased transparency and information.

But lest optimists carry on with glowing predictions of a democratic China, a recent incident ”one in which economic stakes were present ”indicates that China, bound by capitalist motives, still tightly controls the levels of political dissidence it will allow. The Financial Times reports that China’s push to strip away online anonymity and require the authors of web posts to be identified by their real names is an effort to quell the political protests that have been organized through online activism. The article suggests that the Chinese government is putting a lid on political expression because it feels that economic growth is being undermined by political dissidence.

China’s normalization toward international democratic standards of disseminating information to the outside world or creating safe and marketable products to the outside world certainly benefit the people that are not living in China but may benefit the Chinese people very little. If China steps up food and drug regulations to make sure its products are safe, most likely, in an effort to maximize economic growth with the least effort and resources diverted to the task of revamping food and drug safety protocols, China will only make sure that products marketed to the outside world are safe. Products made by Chinese factories for Chinese-only consumption will slip through the cracks of inadequate safety regulations and ineffective enforcement mechanisms.

And the goal of economic dominance, itself, is beginning to be used with more and more frequency to justify the government’s attempts to curb free speech and peaceful protests. Capitalism and economic growth may indeed, as Lipset theorized, bring about the wealth a country needs in order for its citizens to be educated and informed, but in China, the fact remains that informed and active citizens still will not get anywhere so long as certain measures are taken to prevent citizens from affecting political outcomes.

Two things about the attempted car bombings and the airport attack in Great Britain.

First, a lot of attention is being paid to the fact that “All eight people arrested in the aftermath of two bungled car bombings here last week are from the medical profession.” The tendency for the past few years (both in the media and within academia) has been to assume that religious violence is an outgrowth of other social factors. The assumption is that it’s a function of feeling oppressed, or of having limited opportunities, or of being in a low socio-economic bracket. While these no doubt contribute to the motivation to perpetrate violence, they do not trump what I think is the fundamental aspect of the violence: its grounding in religious belief.

There is something particular about the terrorist acts committed by Islamic extremists and this particularity is the religious dimension of the violence. I tend to agree with scholars like Mark Juergensmeyer that view religious terrorism as a symbolic and performative act. It is not meant to accomplish a strategic goal but rather meant to announce that those committing the violent act will not tolerate the way things are in a particular country, or in the world.

Of course, despite the discussion of how surprising it is that the suspects are all in the medical profession, there is no speculation on religious motivation, only bewilderment. “Even if I were to come across my enemy, my duty is to heal the sick…How could I remotely plan to kill and maim innocent people? I have no words to describe this,” said the chairman of the British International Doctors Association in the Times article cited above. The Washington Post takes a similar angle:

Mohammed Shafiq, 28, spokesman for the Ramadhan Foundation, a leading Muslim youth organization, said it was “absolutely baffling” that doctors — professionals with good jobs and income — would be involved in violent extremism. He said Muslim leaders have been most concerned about the radicalization of disaffected and unemployed youth, and they have been urging the government to help them find jobs.

Religious belief runs deeper than socio-economic factors, and while being poor may drive someone to religion, so might a whole host of other factors. Now the second point: what does this mean for terrorism in the United States?

Op-Ed columnist for the Washington Post Eugene Robinson, posits two possible reasons why we haven’t seen a U.S. attack in almost six years. First, al-Qaeda is planning something bigger, and not wasting its time with smaller operations. Second, the U.S. does a better job of integrating its Muslim citizens than Europe.

While the second point may be true, the suspects in the Great Britain plot/attack were foreign born. Furthermore, what does “well integrated” in the U.S. mean? Granted, the Pew Forum report specifically addresses American Muslims’ feelings about extremism, but still when we think of the difference between U.S. and European Muslim populations it comes down to socio-economic status. U.S. Muslims are middle class families. European Muslims are “disaffected and unemployed” young adults. But when we see doctors perpetrating the terrorism, where does this leave our analysis? We can’t pigeonhole suspects into a particular social class or as coming from a particular educational background. This seems to be a lesson we are having a difficult time learning.

Regarding the first point, that perhaps al-Qaeda is plotting something larger, I doubt that is the case. The Post also reports that:

The next terrorist assault on the United States is likely to come through relatively unsophisticated, near-simultaneous attacks — similar to those attempted in Britain over the weekend — designed more to provoke widespread fear and panic than to cause major losses of life, U.S. intelligence and counterterrorism officials believe.

This would be the type of symbolic violence that Juergensmeyer talks about. From the same article:

Although British investigators have not claimed al-Qaeda involvement in the latest incidents, officials here said they may constitute a “hybrid” phenomenon, in which al-Qaeda inspires and guides local groups from afar but establishes no visible operational or logistical links.

My feeling is that this accurately characterizes what happened in Great Britain and, moreover, the future of Islamic terrorism. The 9/11/06 issue of The New Yorker ran a story by Lawrence Wright titled “The Master Plan: What will the next stage of jihad be?” The article described Abu Musab al-Suri, a Syrian theorist of jihad whose goal was to “codify the doctrines that animated Islamist jihad, so that Muslim youths of the future could discover the cause and begin their own, spontaneous religious war.” In other words, the more organized breed of terrorist organization is now defunct, and the future is terrorist attacks initiated by individuals or autonomous groups. Suri’s teachings were published on the internet in December of 2004, perhaps the theory is finally becoming practice.