On Congress' lame duck session, which began today, I was going to write a gigantic screed. But now I'm too tired. So just a few thoughts:
Will Lieberman keep his chairmanship? Will the Dems vote him off the island? It's anybody's guess at this point. I think that whatever happens, his credibility at this point is about the same as John McCain's. Lieberman is a has-been, and a truly disappointing one at that. It's one thing to disagree on the choice of nominee for your party; it's one thing to support the nominee for the other party; but it's entirely another thing to speak at the convention of that party and make statements that imply the Dem candidate does not love America and is to be treated with suspicion. Lieberman bet on the wrong horse, and a very large part of me wants him to be summarily dismissed from the Dem caucus for his beyond-the-pale remarks about Obama. Another part of me wants him to live in this purgatory of his own creation, where the Republicans don't want him and the Dems don't need him. It would be a fitting end for a truly disappointing Senator.
On the potential auto industry bailout. How can I say this diplomatically? Hells Naw!! Where are all those conservative principles of thrift and self-reliance when it comes to corporate America needing the handouts? Let's be honest. This is not an "auto industry" bailout. It's a GM and Ford bailout. Why? Because they did not take seriously the notion of Innovate or Die. Is that my problem? That, my friends, is called capitalism, right? The best flourish (hello, Saturn and Honda who apparently seem to be doing just fine in other regions of the country), while those who refuse to change (hybrids, fuel efficiency, updated designs that never saw the light of day in Detroit) end up--as they should--in the dustbin of history. Let's just take our medicine, shall we? What's the alternative?--rewarding these Welfare Queens? Or is it only welfare queendom when it's not a major corporation looking for a handout? I say nay on that mess.
On HRC, SoS: Hmmmm. Intriguing, no? HRC out of the Senate is HRC without a power base from which to cause agita for PBO. HRC in at State brings international name recognition, which creates momentum. From HRC's perspective, it might be wise, since two more terms in the Senate will simply create more votes she'll have to explain if she runs in 2016. On the other hand, isn't HRC more of a hawk than PEBO? How is that going to work if they have fundamentally different visions for how State work should be executed? By which I mean, would HRC gaily consent to carrying out the marching orders of the PBO administration? Furthermore, what would be the role/complicating factor of the Clinton Global Initiative, which kind of acts sometimes as a diplomat without portfolio? It will be interesting to see what happens. I'm liking Hagel for it, and hating Kerry. Your thoughts?
THIS JUST IN: According to the UK Guardian, HRC WILL ACCEPT THE JOB. Sorry Chuck Hagel; I totally had your back!