- The show seems to be set up for an overarching narrative, what with the leaking memories, and FBI agent on the agencies tail. Oh, and the naked dude at the end. This all seems to entail some kind of endpoint, like Lost or Prison Break, and that puts the show on shaky ground. Either the show reaches it's conclusion, and then can't end and sputters out, or the show continuously puts off it's conclusion, diluting the narrative. Does Whedon have a set number of years in mind. Does have an idea what cna happen after those years are done? Then again, maybe Whedon is just throwing in enough steps that he can pull the show towards a first-season conclusion, if it gets cancelled (a likely possibility). And he's good enough with U-turns that he can keep this thing going for longer than he originally planned. that FBI agent is as likely to get shot in the head as bust open the Dollhouse. Actually, probably more likely.
- It's great to see Eliza Dushku in something again. And Amy Acker. In fact, the cast in general seems really strong. I really like Olivia Williams, who seems to have found her character the fastest.
- The writing still seems a little off. Way to much vague ruminations concerning the show's themes. Let that stuff rise up naturally. Also, not enough quips. Although "Dude, it's like Five!" was pretty good.
- I am glad they didn't have echo kill someone in the first episode. They need to milk that when it happens.
- Long term questions: What is the deal with the scars on Acker's face, and does it have anything to do with the tech guy? What's the deal with the naked guy? Was that Echo's family? What did she join the Dollhouse to avoid? Will the FBI agent find them (yeah, probably)? How soon, and what happens when he does? Where will the flashes of memories come into play? Are they unique to Echo, or the result of a glitch in their system? If the FBI guy gets shot, will Echo be the one who does it?
Saturday, February 14, 2009
Dollhouse
So, I just watched the first episode on Hulu. It was quite good. Bullet points!
Faces of Government
You know what's something that I find interesting? Over the last few years, I had next to no idea who was in the Bush Administration. I knew that Rice was at state, but I probably couldn't have told you who Robert Gates was, and I didn't know who Hank Paulson was until the crisis hit. I knew that Gonzales made a mockery of justice, but who was the guy after him? He fainted once, didn't he? Card was CoS, John Yoo was some evil Justice flunky. Bolton was briefly at the UN. Scooter Libby, Paul Wolfowitz, David Addington, Doug Feith. I remember the names but not the jobs. Ari, Scott, Tony (RIP), and Dana were the press secretaries. Scott fucking hated his job and the people he worked with. Oh! And Karl Rove! How could I forget Rove. Maybe I just wanted to.
That's a lot of names, now that I look at it, but most of them are vile flunkies, I have next to no idea who was running any of the agencies.
Now I know that Clinton, Gates, and Geithner are at the Big Three. Arne Duncan at HUD. Sen. Salazar at Interior. Peter Orzag at OMB. Eric Holder is finally Attorney General. Steven Chu is at Energy. Shinseki at Veteran affairs, with Tammy Duckworth as his deputy. Jim Jones is NSA. Leon Panetta is head of the CIA. Susan Rice is Ambassodor to the UN. HHS is empty, but it was going to be Daschle. Commerce was supposed to be Richardson, then Gregg (guess we'll never know if my theory was correct). Ray LaHood is at Transportation, and is Republican. Hilda Solis is finally on track to be Labor Secretary. Gibbs is our lone press secretary, though Bill Burton is his deputy. The advisors are Sam Power, Larry Summers, Axelrod, Valerie Jarret, Jared Bernstein at the VPs office. Melody Barnes coordinates domestic policy. Cass Sunnstein is working at some shadowy shit I can't remember. Volcker is overseeing the economic advisory board. Ray Lynch is or will be deputy to Gates. Rahmbo is CoS. Reggie Love is still the man's personal assistent. The hotspot envoys are George Mitchell and Richard Holbrooke. That's off the top of my head.
Now, maybe I am just more involved in paying attention to who's running what, but I think that it might actually be due to the way Obama is running things. In two ways. First, we hear about these people because they have actual responsbilities. They are trying to accomplish things. With Bush it didn't matter; none of them were meant to do their jobs anyways. Government doesn't work; why try. Who cares who they are, if they are just seat warmers? Now, these people have jobs to do, and if they are doing things, we hear about them.
Second, this is also part of Obama's promise to make government more open to the people. In order for it to be open, the people have to know who is running things. We should know who is running our government, and so there are press conferences to announce people. They are sworn in in public, with a nice speech to be with it (Favreau is head speechwriter!). They talk to the press and let people know what they are doing. In order for the people to be engaged, they need to be engaged. There needs to be faces to match with what is happening, or else government just becomes cold and distant. Faces give you someone to talk to, someone to follow, someone to get angry at, to write letters to. Maybe it gives you a team to root for. However it works, you can't have an active citizenry with an shadowy government, and you can't have a shadowy government if you know everyone's. Maybe it's just a product of the media environment, or maybe this is what change looks like.
Update: Shit, how did I forget Napolitano at Homeland Security?
That's a lot of names, now that I look at it, but most of them are vile flunkies, I have next to no idea who was running any of the agencies.
Now I know that Clinton, Gates, and Geithner are at the Big Three. Arne Duncan at HUD. Sen. Salazar at Interior. Peter Orzag at OMB. Eric Holder is finally Attorney General. Steven Chu is at Energy. Shinseki at Veteran affairs, with Tammy Duckworth as his deputy. Jim Jones is NSA. Leon Panetta is head of the CIA. Susan Rice is Ambassodor to the UN. HHS is empty, but it was going to be Daschle. Commerce was supposed to be Richardson, then Gregg (guess we'll never know if my theory was correct). Ray LaHood is at Transportation, and is Republican. Hilda Solis is finally on track to be Labor Secretary. Gibbs is our lone press secretary, though Bill Burton is his deputy. The advisors are Sam Power, Larry Summers, Axelrod, Valerie Jarret, Jared Bernstein at the VPs office. Melody Barnes coordinates domestic policy. Cass Sunnstein is working at some shadowy shit I can't remember. Volcker is overseeing the economic advisory board. Ray Lynch is or will be deputy to Gates. Rahmbo is CoS. Reggie Love is still the man's personal assistent. The hotspot envoys are George Mitchell and Richard Holbrooke. That's off the top of my head.
Now, maybe I am just more involved in paying attention to who's running what, but I think that it might actually be due to the way Obama is running things. In two ways. First, we hear about these people because they have actual responsbilities. They are trying to accomplish things. With Bush it didn't matter; none of them were meant to do their jobs anyways. Government doesn't work; why try. Who cares who they are, if they are just seat warmers? Now, these people have jobs to do, and if they are doing things, we hear about them.
Second, this is also part of Obama's promise to make government more open to the people. In order for it to be open, the people have to know who is running things. We should know who is running our government, and so there are press conferences to announce people. They are sworn in in public, with a nice speech to be with it (Favreau is head speechwriter!). They talk to the press and let people know what they are doing. In order for the people to be engaged, they need to be engaged. There needs to be faces to match with what is happening, or else government just becomes cold and distant. Faces give you someone to talk to, someone to follow, someone to get angry at, to write letters to. Maybe it gives you a team to root for. However it works, you can't have an active citizenry with an shadowy government, and you can't have a shadowy government if you know everyone's. Maybe it's just a product of the media environment, or maybe this is what change looks like.
Update: Shit, how did I forget Napolitano at Homeland Security?
For Today
So, a little over a year ago, I was in Rome with my family, and as part of our sight-seeing, we were visiting a church*. It was a church mostly famous for the large, first-or-second century drain along the wall of the entranceway, carved into a slightly Celtic-influenced, stylized representation of a man's face. Imagine an image of the Green Man, but without the leaves. The opened mouth was the actual drain part of the face, and there was an old folk tale that if you stuck your hand in the drain, and you were being untruthful in your life, the mouth would bite it off. The drain's notoriety is due mostly to its appearance in Roman Holiday, though Only You did a riff on it.
After waiting in line and getting our pictures taken with our hands in the drain, suffering no injuries, we went inside the church, just to have a look around. It was a very pretty church, by American standards, although it paled beside some of the other churches; it didn't have the mind-boggling frescoes, or luminescent stained glass windows, or detailed statues, or magnificent architectural craftsmanship of other churches we had seen. It was mostly just small and dim. As my family stopped to looked at something I had no interest in, I wandered off the the left (as I am prone to do) and came upon a glassed-off alcove, with a velvet rope in front of it. Behind the glass, an ancient skull was sitting atop a large velvet cushion. Beside it was a sign noting that this was a sign in Italian, noting that this was a reliquary for "Santo Valentino."
"Hmm, Santo Valentino!" I thought. "I wonder who he was!" I walked over to my younger sister, who had recently spent a semester in Rome studying abroad, and had before that "converted" to Catholicism, and thus knew quite a bit about saints. "Hey, Anne," I said. "Have you ever heard of a Saint Valentino?"
Anne looked at me funny. "You mean Saint Valentine? As in Valentine's Day?"
"Ohhhh!" I said, and felt very silly. Then, recovering, I said with relish, "You want to see his skull?"
And we all went over and looked at St. Valentine's skull. There might have been a finger bone was well. Mom and Mary took pictures.
I just thought it interesting to note, on this February 14, on St. Valentine's Day, that the skull of the man whose feast day this is lies, at this very moment, upon a velvet cushion, in a church in Rome that owes it's fame to an entirely different and unrelated reason. A part of me is tickled pink, but another part of me finds it kind of sad.
*It was one among many.
After waiting in line and getting our pictures taken with our hands in the drain, suffering no injuries, we went inside the church, just to have a look around. It was a very pretty church, by American standards, although it paled beside some of the other churches; it didn't have the mind-boggling frescoes, or luminescent stained glass windows, or detailed statues, or magnificent architectural craftsmanship of other churches we had seen. It was mostly just small and dim. As my family stopped to looked at something I had no interest in, I wandered off the the left (as I am prone to do) and came upon a glassed-off alcove, with a velvet rope in front of it. Behind the glass, an ancient skull was sitting atop a large velvet cushion. Beside it was a sign noting that this was a sign in Italian, noting that this was a reliquary for "Santo Valentino."
"Hmm, Santo Valentino!" I thought. "I wonder who he was!" I walked over to my younger sister, who had recently spent a semester in Rome studying abroad, and had before that "converted" to Catholicism, and thus knew quite a bit about saints. "Hey, Anne," I said. "Have you ever heard of a Saint Valentino?"
Anne looked at me funny. "You mean Saint Valentine? As in Valentine's Day?"
"Ohhhh!" I said, and felt very silly. Then, recovering, I said with relish, "You want to see his skull?"
And we all went over and looked at St. Valentine's skull. There might have been a finger bone was well. Mom and Mary took pictures.
I just thought it interesting to note, on this February 14, on St. Valentine's Day, that the skull of the man whose feast day this is lies, at this very moment, upon a velvet cushion, in a church in Rome that owes it's fame to an entirely different and unrelated reason. A part of me is tickled pink, but another part of me finds it kind of sad.
*It was one among many.
Thursday, February 12, 2009
Tuesday, February 10, 2009
I never even made it all the way through Despair
So, there is a commenter at Booman Tribune with the same pseudonym as me. Stranger still, the weird concern for etymology, random pronouncements of agnosticism, and tendency to end comments with bizarre metaphors or analogies seems an awfully lot like my commenting style. But it's not me. Either someone is parodying me*, or the universe is a small, strange place.
*Why the fuck would anybody be doing that?!
*Why the fuck would anybody be doing that?!
Monday, February 9, 2009
Stimulus: not the be-all end-all
Lots and lots of people are complaining about how Obama has handled the negotiations over the Stimulus Package. Should he have started higher? Should he have been less accommodating of Republican concerns?
Hypothesis: Obama is using the Stimulus Package as a sort of test drive of sorts, about how to deal with negotiations with Republicans. I think the Stimulus Bill, in the long term, is not necessarily as central to his plans as one might be led to believe. It is not the sum total of the economic recovery project, but the first step. There is still healthcare. There is still Energy. There is EFCA. Hell, there are still the budgets for this year and last, where filibustering is much harder, and at some steps not even allowed. The second round of TARP hasn't even come out yet. There are a lot of opportunities for Obama to take action on the economy, and opportunities to use the economy to completely refashion the American political landscape. Now he knows how much good faith he can expect from Republicans (zero) and can make further moves with that in mind. How he makes use of that information, I have no idea. Well, it probably involves lots of speeches and organizing, more politesse than rancor, more mocking than demonizing. But those are scrap pieces, not an engine. I am curious how he plans to drive this thing.
Hypothesis: Obama is using the Stimulus Package as a sort of test drive of sorts, about how to deal with negotiations with Republicans. I think the Stimulus Bill, in the long term, is not necessarily as central to his plans as one might be led to believe. It is not the sum total of the economic recovery project, but the first step. There is still healthcare. There is still Energy. There is EFCA. Hell, there are still the budgets for this year and last, where filibustering is much harder, and at some steps not even allowed. The second round of TARP hasn't even come out yet. There are a lot of opportunities for Obama to take action on the economy, and opportunities to use the economy to completely refashion the American political landscape. Now he knows how much good faith he can expect from Republicans (zero) and can make further moves with that in mind. How he makes use of that information, I have no idea. Well, it probably involves lots of speeches and organizing, more politesse than rancor, more mocking than demonizing. But those are scrap pieces, not an engine. I am curious how he plans to drive this thing.
He will let you down
It's really sad, and not a little bit irksome, to see Sullivan cling to some sympathetic murmurings from a chat with the Washington Post two or three weeks ago. Obama used to support Single Payer. At the New Hampshire debate, he said, roughly, that if he had his way, he would install a Single Payer system, but the politcal environment made that impossible, so best to work towards something else. Either he was lying wholecloth as an Illinois state pol about his values and policy predilections, holding his hidden conservatism in secret until he could strike out against the hostile forces that he chose as his home, or he has adapted his policy avocation towards more pragmatic—that is, achievable—goals as he has moved up the political ladder. Obviously I think the latter is the much more likely option, as in the first one, Obama is basically just a snake. Neither Sullivan nor I believe that, so thinking Obama didn't actually mean what he has said about Health Care in the past is silly.
Besides, it's quite obvious that what he has said in the past about entitlement reform was just laying the groundwork on a technocratic argument on Healthcare Reform. The present entitlement system is unsustainable; so is the private sector; so we need a massive overhaul. It's simply a way of sidestepping the ideological issues—concerns about left wing/right wing identity—that get in the way of making a Universal Healthcare System politically feasible. Making the issue technocratic and values based (no one should have to be fighting for claims while dying of cancer) is a way of circumventing those roadblocks. That Sullivan doesn't see this is kind of pathetic.
Besides, Obama is just not going to cut benefits. People won't want to lose what their parents already got. People who labor for a living, and don't just sitting around typing and reading, can not work much longer than they already having to. You can't work construction into your sixties. And hey! Look at all this populist anger lying around! Cutting benefits will just not sell. Obama knows this. He knows people are unhappy with the system even as it is now. He put a man having to work at Wal-Mart to pay his wife's medical bills in his infomercial.
I know its pleasant in some circles, to pretend that Obama is really some type of conservative, centrist, but that really isn't the case.
Update: ...And now here's Sullivan proving my first point for me.
Besides, it's quite obvious that what he has said in the past about entitlement reform was just laying the groundwork on a technocratic argument on Healthcare Reform. The present entitlement system is unsustainable; so is the private sector; so we need a massive overhaul. It's simply a way of sidestepping the ideological issues—concerns about left wing/right wing identity—that get in the way of making a Universal Healthcare System politically feasible. Making the issue technocratic and values based (no one should have to be fighting for claims while dying of cancer) is a way of circumventing those roadblocks. That Sullivan doesn't see this is kind of pathetic.
Besides, Obama is just not going to cut benefits. People won't want to lose what their parents already got. People who labor for a living, and don't just sitting around typing and reading, can not work much longer than they already having to. You can't work construction into your sixties. And hey! Look at all this populist anger lying around! Cutting benefits will just not sell. Obama knows this. He knows people are unhappy with the system even as it is now. He put a man having to work at Wal-Mart to pay his wife's medical bills in his infomercial.
I know its pleasant in some circles, to pretend that Obama is really some type of conservative, centrist, but that really isn't the case.
Update: ...And now here's Sullivan proving my first point for me.
Sunday, February 8, 2009
I don't have the time to waste time like that
Well, this post really spoke to me. (Not for long though. It's quite short.) When I am sitting home, alone, I spend almost all my casual time surfing the net, and reading small things and avoiding long things and clicking on websites I just read to see if they have posted anything new. "They haven't! Well, let's see if someone responded to my comment!" The whole time, in the back of my head, there is a voice screaming to read a book, just sit down and read a book. Last week, I showed up for work six hours early, and, not wanting to go home, I went to Barnes and Noble. After browsing a bit, I settled down in a big comfy chair and read the first 180 pages of Edgar Rice Burrough's The Martian Tales Trilogy. It was awesome. For nearly six hours, I was immersed—immersed—on the moss-covered terrain of Mars, with a naked Confederate soldier, his naked Martian lady-love, and fifteen foot tall, eight-limbed, green aliens. Then I got up, bought the book, and it has sat atop a pile on my floor for nearly a week now, untouched. It just seems like so much effort! I would much rather read the same things over and over again! When not forced to by circumstances, reading long-form peices just seems like too much committment, too much effort, now. I need to be plugged in, man! Connected! Like a shark, always having to be moving. But sometimes I just want to be a moss-covered stone.
Saturday, February 7, 2009
More for Gore
Right now, it is 59 degrees outside. In the Midwest. In the first third of February. I just opened my door to let a breeze in.
Something ain't right, but it's also kind of awesome.
Something ain't right, but it's also kind of awesome.
Friday, February 6, 2009
Gregg, Commerce, and Healthcare Reform
There has been a lot of talk lately about why President Obama (neat) has decided to nominate Senator Gregg to be his Commerce Secretary, most of it somewhat confounded. The conventional wisdom at work seem to be that even though this will maybe make some votes easier in the Senate, since Gregg, a pretty reactionary Republican, will be replaced by a Republican moderate, maybe even a RINO, there is really no reason why Obama would want a Gregg at Commerce. Well, I think I have a answer, and the answer is healthcare.
As is being illustrated right now with the Stimulus Bill, and which was obvious during Bush's attempt to destroy—er, reform—Social Security, any big governmental change, politically, requires bipartisan support. This isn't just necessary to spread the blame around, although that is a factor, but also to make any change look moderate and essential. If people from both parties support a change, it must just be an obvious and necessary change in course, not a sharp turn into uncharted territory. As Neil will tell you, when Pelosi shut the House Dems out of any negotiations, refusing to give a counter-offer to the ideas Bush was floating around, the Republicans backed off and didn't move towards privatization. It was too risky an endeavor for a party to take on their own. The Wall Street Bailout wouldn't pass the House without bipartisan support; no party wanted to own a very unpopular move to give $700 billion to the people that had gotten us into the mess in the first place, even if inaction might have lead to a credit freeze that would have actually thrown us into a Great Depression. Now, Obama wants bipartisan support for his smuttily tagged Stimulus Package, since he doesn't want to spend another $700 to 800 Billion ($900 billion?) without some of that sweet, sweet bipartisan support. He won't get it; he might just get some votes for cloture and no votes for the actual bill. But the Stimulus Package is such a no-brainer necessity at this point that it doesn't really matter what votes they get, the Dems need to go through with it regardless. Still, that hurts Obama's bipartisan clout, and on something less one-time, more long-term change, like health care, bipartisan support will be even more necessary.
So, if Obama can't get bipartisan cover, he can just make some. Make it in-house. With Gregg at Commerce, he can talk about how his bipartisan administration is working on correcting the massive issue of healthcare, and he is including both sides of the aisle in the planning. And since Gregg is part of the administration, that means he de facto supports it, for the administration supports it, and is he not part of the administration? Healthcare reform immediately looks less radical. And it's pretty easy to include Gregg in this project. Commerce, I understand, has some vague responsibilities in terms of promoting business, and Obama for a long time has been talking about the negative effects of the healthcare crisis on businesses; small ones can't supply it and it's bankrupting big ones. If he can be persuaded to, Gregg could end up playing some kind of liaison role, talking up the benefits of supporting health care reform to businesses, pointing out how it will ease their bottom line, especially in tough times like these.
Will Gregg go along with this? The way I see it, once confirmed as Commerce Secretary, Gregg has basically three options: 1) be a kind of loyal opposition/opposing viewpoint within the administration, offering counterpoint to ideas put forth by the more liberal (read:all) members, while performing the tasks President Obama assigns him, 2) Not do his job, disobey orders, attempt to sabotage the effort and get fired, or 3) resign in principled opposition, in order to show how far left this healthcare project is.
If he goes with either of latter two, it's no biggie. This is the benefit of Gregg actually being fairly conservative. If he leaves, it's not exactly a canary-in-a-coalmine type moment. It's quite easy for the Obama administration to spin that as just principled opposition from the far-right, wish Gregg the best on his endeavors, blah blah blah. It's not like they have been rejected by a Snowe, Collins, or Specter here. And they still got a hard-right Republican out of office and leveled the playing field for the seat in 2010.
But I think Gregg will take the first option. Commerce is it for him. This is the last stop of his career, and he knows it. The Republicans will be pissed at him behind closed doors for diluting their brand and making his seat more vulnerable. New Hampshire is pretty blue now, and they will probably lose the seat in 2010, since it's questionable whether Gregg would even be able to hold it then, even with the weight of incumbency. So he probably can't rely on too much Republican largess after he leaves public service. Gregg wants a job that has a good chance of going past 2010, and he wants a nice capstone to his career, and that doesn't mean resigning when healthcare comes up. Healthcare is coming this year; Gregg isn't going to resign before he might have lost his seat in the Senate. He may try to follow option 2, and if he does it is up to Obama to put his foot down, which, given his last couple of speeches on the Stimulus, I think it can be assumed he will.
After that, I bet Gregg with settle into his role as counterpoint, and comfort himself for the little checks or advice he gives, and the influence and closeness to the halls of power that he has. And Obama will talk about his bipartisan effort to reform healthcare, and Gregg will stand behind him at speeches and clap, or sit at photo-op meetings with Summers and Biden and the Secretaries of Labor and HHS and Treasury and OMB, and smile.
As is being illustrated right now with the Stimulus Bill, and which was obvious during Bush's attempt to destroy—er, reform—Social Security, any big governmental change, politically, requires bipartisan support. This isn't just necessary to spread the blame around, although that is a factor, but also to make any change look moderate and essential. If people from both parties support a change, it must just be an obvious and necessary change in course, not a sharp turn into uncharted territory. As Neil will tell you, when Pelosi shut the House Dems out of any negotiations, refusing to give a counter-offer to the ideas Bush was floating around, the Republicans backed off and didn't move towards privatization. It was too risky an endeavor for a party to take on their own. The Wall Street Bailout wouldn't pass the House without bipartisan support; no party wanted to own a very unpopular move to give $700 billion to the people that had gotten us into the mess in the first place, even if inaction might have lead to a credit freeze that would have actually thrown us into a Great Depression. Now, Obama wants bipartisan support for his smuttily tagged Stimulus Package, since he doesn't want to spend another $700 to 800 Billion ($900 billion?) without some of that sweet, sweet bipartisan support. He won't get it; he might just get some votes for cloture and no votes for the actual bill. But the Stimulus Package is such a no-brainer necessity at this point that it doesn't really matter what votes they get, the Dems need to go through with it regardless. Still, that hurts Obama's bipartisan clout, and on something less one-time, more long-term change, like health care, bipartisan support will be even more necessary.
So, if Obama can't get bipartisan cover, he can just make some. Make it in-house. With Gregg at Commerce, he can talk about how his bipartisan administration is working on correcting the massive issue of healthcare, and he is including both sides of the aisle in the planning. And since Gregg is part of the administration, that means he de facto supports it, for the administration supports it, and is he not part of the administration? Healthcare reform immediately looks less radical. And it's pretty easy to include Gregg in this project. Commerce, I understand, has some vague responsibilities in terms of promoting business, and Obama for a long time has been talking about the negative effects of the healthcare crisis on businesses; small ones can't supply it and it's bankrupting big ones. If he can be persuaded to, Gregg could end up playing some kind of liaison role, talking up the benefits of supporting health care reform to businesses, pointing out how it will ease their bottom line, especially in tough times like these.
Will Gregg go along with this? The way I see it, once confirmed as Commerce Secretary, Gregg has basically three options: 1) be a kind of loyal opposition/opposing viewpoint within the administration, offering counterpoint to ideas put forth by the more liberal (read:all) members, while performing the tasks President Obama assigns him, 2) Not do his job, disobey orders, attempt to sabotage the effort and get fired, or 3) resign in principled opposition, in order to show how far left this healthcare project is.
If he goes with either of latter two, it's no biggie. This is the benefit of Gregg actually being fairly conservative. If he leaves, it's not exactly a canary-in-a-coalmine type moment. It's quite easy for the Obama administration to spin that as just principled opposition from the far-right, wish Gregg the best on his endeavors, blah blah blah. It's not like they have been rejected by a Snowe, Collins, or Specter here. And they still got a hard-right Republican out of office and leveled the playing field for the seat in 2010.
But I think Gregg will take the first option. Commerce is it for him. This is the last stop of his career, and he knows it. The Republicans will be pissed at him behind closed doors for diluting their brand and making his seat more vulnerable. New Hampshire is pretty blue now, and they will probably lose the seat in 2010, since it's questionable whether Gregg would even be able to hold it then, even with the weight of incumbency. So he probably can't rely on too much Republican largess after he leaves public service. Gregg wants a job that has a good chance of going past 2010, and he wants a nice capstone to his career, and that doesn't mean resigning when healthcare comes up. Healthcare is coming this year; Gregg isn't going to resign before he might have lost his seat in the Senate. He may try to follow option 2, and if he does it is up to Obama to put his foot down, which, given his last couple of speeches on the Stimulus, I think it can be assumed he will.
After that, I bet Gregg with settle into his role as counterpoint, and comfort himself for the little checks or advice he gives, and the influence and closeness to the halls of power that he has. And Obama will talk about his bipartisan effort to reform healthcare, and Gregg will stand behind him at speeches and clap, or sit at photo-op meetings with Summers and Biden and the Secretaries of Labor and HHS and Treasury and OMB, and smile.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)