Claire McCaskill - Impeachment Hearing - kudos

I've seen McCaskill often during the past two years and she represents exactly the kind of person one would want a Senator to be: principled, articulate, willing to compromise.

But one of her best characteristics is on view during this impeachment hearing. She is, in contrast to windbags Hatch and Whitehead, direct, no-nonsense, and to-the-point.

Cheers

Sen. Jim Bunning (Ky.) - Most Sexist Senator

OK, it's obvious from discussions of various pieces of legislation that a lot of Senators are sexist, esp. the older male Senators.

But I've noticed something "special" about Bunning. When he questions women who appear before committees on which he is a member, he addresses them by their first names, although he uses titles or full names for the men who appear before him.

Sheila Bair (FDIC) is, thus, "Sheila" (accompanied by a paternal smile). And in an Oct. panel of experts on Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and the mortgage industry, Prof. Susan Wachter (Wharton) became "Dr. Susan".

I'm not sure which is worse: that he does it without knowing he does it or that he does it on purpose to indicate his lack of respect for female professionals.

The Senate and Debates

In watching the endless opening statements of the Senate Health Committee (June 17, 2009) and the various speeches on the floor of the Senate, it is clear that the U.S. Senate is NOT a deliberative body. The Senators speak at each other. They never engage with each other.

The Republicans repeat the same phrases over and over (as do, of course, many Democrats). But they just spout, they don't argue or discuss. When a Republican talks about government bureaucrats interfering in the doctor-patient relationship, a Democrat can't ask that Republican about the interference of private insurance committees. Similarly, when Republicans deride Comparative Effectiveness, Democrats can't ask them about decisions made by clerks in insurance companies.

It may make these "debates" more civil, since we don't see the shouting matches all too common on TV, but it also makes them incredibly frustrating because there is no way for the observer to find out if there is any thought behind the boilerplate phrases.

Media Missing in Action: Dealer Closings/June 3, 2009 Senate Hearing

I've spent months watching a lot of frustrating Congressional hearings on various aspects of the financial crisis this past year, but one of the most frustrating was the June 3, 2009 Senate hearing into the closing of dealers due to the GM and Chrysler bankruptcies.

It was an illustration both of the limits of hearings and the wholesale failure of the media to act as news organizations.

The primary failure of the hearing was to get an answer to a central dispute: the dealers asserted that they were not cost centers, that they cost GM and Chrysler absolutely nothing, that they paid for everything they got (cars, signs, advertising, etc.) so, since the two dealers there were profitable, they didn't understand why they would be closed. GM and Chrysler asserted that they had to close dealerships to become profitable.

Now, this seems to me to be an issue of fact, not opinion. But, after listening to all the questions and the responses of GM and Chrysler, I still don't understand the issue. Isn't this something that CNBC or Fox Fin., at the very least, should have been reporting on and explaining?

Nor, during a week of endless commentary about right-wing-nut opposition to Sotomayor, did any of the major "news" networks think it might be interesting to, say, identify which Senators complaining about dealer closings opposed the bailouts, insisted that union employees had to "share" the burden, etc., argued that these companies should be allowed to go bankrupt (what did they think would happen to dealerships during a bankrupcy?). One would think that an hypocrisy watch would be at least as entertaining as debates over whether a Latina woman would be a better judge than a white man. But, of course, that would take research. They'd have to check the voting records, watch the hearing, match up questions with voting records. Gossiping with each other about "racist" statements is, after all, so much easier.

Roland Burris: Rachel Maddow is Shocked, Shocked, Shocked

After treating Mr. Burris for weeks as if he were a lovable but somewhat eccentric favorite uncle, Ms. Maddow is now shocked to learn that maybe, perhaps, he isn't quite as innocent as he had appeared. Not that it is Mr. Burris's fault, mind you. He was just caught in the corrupt aura that ex. Gov. Blogojavich spread wherever he went.

But, as I pointed out in January, Mr. Burris was suspect from the beginning. A man who would accept an appointment under the circumstances that existed had either to be corrupt himself, lacking in personal ethics, or so ambitious for the job (after multiple electoral rejections by Illinois voters) that he simply did not care. In short, under the best interpretation of his behavior, Mr. Burris came up lacking.

Harry Reid Explained

As I've said before, Harry Reid is quite possibly the weakest Majority Leader of either party in the last half century, at least.

Now I know why. He's not only a Conservative Democrat. He comes from a Republican state where his re-election is not guaranteed. In short, he has to be careful not to seem "too" Democratic if he wants to stay in office.

Fine. I can understand the instinct for self-preservation. But that does not explain why the Democratic Senate first elected him as Majority Leader and then re-elected him. Except, of course, that Senate Democrats (like the equally cowardly House Democrats) are so afraid of being labeled "partisan" or "liberal" by the media that they don't want a "real" Democrat in the position.

I, quite frankly, am not happy with a Democratic President who thinks that partisanship, action on behalf of a set of firm beliefs, is wrong. That both Pelosi* in the House and Reid in the Senate share this view does not bode well for Democrats like me who believe in traditional Democratic values.

*Pelosi's cowardice and weakness, even with a Democratic majority, has no similar excuse. She comes from a reliably liberal district in one of the most liberal cities in the country.

Bill as Senator?

One of the dumbest speculations, among the endless CDS speculations, is the current gossip about Bill's being appointed to fill out Hillary's term. Apparently, this would solve some political problems for the Governor of New York and keep Bill "out of trouble".

The precedent? Adams. Would he do it? They say "why not"?.

First, it's unlikely that two Presidents could be more different than Adams & Clinton. Second, I suspect that the Congress in Adams' time was a more interesting place to work than the Congress today.

Think about it (something none of the talking heads talking about this have done): Bill Clinton as a junior Senator, stuck on unimportant subcommittees where he will be given two minutes to ask a question?

And can one imagine Clinton in a Senate in which Reid is the Majority Leader? Bill, one of the best arm-twisters around?

It is ridiculous and illustrates nothing so much as the utter vacuousness that characterizes the media, even the "big" media, today.