Tfgray’s Weblog

One:

Obama will have effective control of the government by the end of the year, possibly sooner. I’m not meaning this in a bad “he’s staged a coup” way, but in response to two facts: first, there happens to be a many-faceted diamond of a crisis going on right now, and second, the Bush Administration and it’s many minions aren’t doing anything about it. One might excuse this as evidence of their belief in the Libertarian throw-the-baby-in-the-creek-and-see-how-fast-he-can-learn-to-swim theory of economics, but I can’t help but notice that our current leadership is obsessed with wringing as much out of the situation for their own interests as possible (their own interests being that of the American corporate world.) While Wall Street burns through trillions of OPM, Bush focuses on executive orders that will gut the Endangered Species Act, give Big Oil more virgin acres to ravish, and put nukes next to the Grand Canyon….oh, and implant their Regent University grads in the federal bureaucracy so as to continue their obstruction of the work of numerous agencies. (Prediction 1-a: Look for lots of lateral transfers to basement offices after January 20 and the return of experienced hands who quit during the Bush years.) Oh, yeah, and Bush agreed to a truly bizarre treaty with Iraq so he could declare victory, which the grateful Iraqis celebrated by burning him in effigy. Priceless. Bush was always better at the “destruction” part of “Creative Destruction,” anyway.

I’ve got lefty friends wringing their hands over the notion that Gates will continue at Defense, but I see a strategy here. For example, Obama just picked Geithner to head Treasury. Not only is Geithner the person who publicly called foul on CDOs back in 2006, when everyone, including the sainted Alan Greenspan, were saying they were just peachy, he is also the President of the New York Federal Reserve Bank, which, in case you don’t spend your time boning up on the banking system, is the 800-pound gorilla on the Federal Reserve Board. He’s already in place, doesn’t need to take more than 5 minutes to dictate his letter of resignation, doesn’t need to finish grading term papers before starting his new job. He’s already doing it. He’s been working with Paulson for years, but in a subordinate position, 800-pound gorilla to Bernanke and Paulson’s half-tonners. Now he’s an equal.

I was in the cafeteria when Paulson gave his latest speech. I couldn’t hear what he was saying over the conversational hum, but I could see that every time his lips moved, the stock market ticker next to him on the screen trended downward.  Later I found out that the summary of his speech was, “I don’t have a clue, so I’m handing it off to the new guy.” Within 24 hours, there was the new guy, already standing at his elbow.  So the question is: Will Paulson obstruct, or will he work constructively with his successor? Assuming that Paulson’s calculus revolves around the equation, “What’s in it for me?” I’m thinking that he will listen and act. One, standing by clueless while the economy tanks doesn’t look good on your resume. Two, the political winds have shifted and he will set his sails accordingly. Prediction 1-b: Those toward the Left will squawk: “They call this change!? Where’s the new blood?”

In a similar fashion, I think that if Gates remains, and Bush continues to focus on the vital business of deciding how to write a pardon that will absolve everybody from everything back to the Beginning of Time, Gates may be amenable to proactively chatting with the incoming administration. (Maybe Bush should just take the entire White House staff and Cabinet down to the Potomac and dunk ‘em. Hallelujia!) With this paradigm in mind, It will be interesting to watch the unfolding saga of Obama’s picks.

Two:

The Republican Party is pretty much sorting itself out as I predicted in my previous post. Thanks, guys! The Rightosphere is planning to flex their muscles, now that they can point to the Obama campaign’s successful use of the internet. It won’t work, at least until they grapple with their underlying problems: a philosphical mindset that is opposed to what most people in this country want, a history of winning elections by misrepresenting their true goals (Compassionate Conservatives, anyone? How about a slice of humble foreign policy pie?) I lurk on several right-wing sites, and they are still focused on strategy, not on a deep examination of conscience, or even demographics. Right now, Huckabee seems to be the only one who is taking that tack. A second problem with the notion that the Internet will save the Conservative cause is that Conservatives tend to be reluctant to adopt the new, just by their nature. While the blogger I read used conservative leadership’s rejection of the Internet as a campaign tool as his example, it brought to mind a conversation I once had with a fellow who wouldn’t have a computer in his house because he didn’t want the government spying on him. Lots of luck reaching him with your enhance graphic capabilities and sophisticated database management, Sparky. Read an excellent analysis of the issue here.

 Three:

Tina Fey willing, Saturday Night Live will feature a “Palin” interview  in front of an outhouse, with sound effects. Or maybe in front of a mugging. Or a couple of guys field dressing a moose. Or World War III. Or a lumberjack pissing on a tree. Or all of the above. Prediction 3-a: She will never hold national office, but either she or a family member will eventually have their own reality show.