Call it a rescue plan, call it a loan, call it a bailout: can we call it a done deal?

Democratic leaders in Congress and the White House will meet again on Saturday to negotiate a rescue plan to help U.S. automakers, a congressional source told Reuters on Friday.

Nancy Pelosi abandoned her objection to using an existing $25 billion advanced technology fund to help pay for the bailout rescue plan loan. She conditioned her compromise on "a guarantee that those funds will be replenished in a matter of weeks” to avoid delaying the development of more fuel-efficient vehicles.

Congress needs to provide oversight and assure accountability, but do we really need a car czar? Can we at least get rid of the drug czar to preserve a proper balance of czardoms? [more ...]

Expected bad news:

With the economy deteriorating rapidly, the nation’s employers shed 533,000 jobs in November, the 11th consecutive monthly decline, the government reported Friday morning, and the unemployment rate rose to 6.7 percent. The decline, the largest since December 1974, was fresh evidence that the economic contraction accelerated in November, promising to make the current recession, already 12 months old, the longest since the Great Depression. The previous record was 16 months, in the severe recessions of the mid-1970s and early 1980s.

“We have recorded the largest decline in consumer confidence in our history,” said Richard T. Curtin, director of the Reuters/University of Michigan Survey of Consumers, which started its polling in the 1950s. “It is being driven down by a host of factors: falling home and stock prices, fewer work hours, smaller bonuses, less overtime and disappearing jobs.”

Ugh.

I have always called my self a "Centrist." What does that mean actually? Well nothing really. But it is valuable politically.

Pew recently releases a much-discussed survey arguing that, despite massive partisan gains for Democrats, the ideological balance of the country has not shifted much. . . . This finding needs to be disputed . . .

I disagree. This finding needs to be embraced. I think we should argue that the country chose "Centrism" when it chose the Democratic agenda. More . . .

One of the major concerns I had about now President-Elect Barack Obama (when he was candidate Obama) was his then apparent adherence to a theory of transformative change that would be post partisan. I think post-Democratic Convention Obama utterly abandoned that approach and as President-Elect, his rhetoric has been bold and progressive. No doubt some of this is attributable to the incredible challenges the country faces. But perhaps this has been his plan all along - the Mark Schmitt Theory of Change. At any rate, President-Elect Obama is a far cry from the Post Partisan Unity Schtick candidate we saw before.

In that sense, he appears to have rejected the Third Way vision of his University of Chicago Law School colleague Cass Sunstein (who I have criticized quite a lot). Rick Pildes writes a very good article on Sunstein's views on public policy and the law. Here is a telling excerpt:

You have all heard this story by now:

"I agree with you, I want to do it, now make me do it.

-Franklin D. Roosevelt
Comment to a group of reformers. His point: Until they lead the way, they shouldn't expect leaders to follow.

Is the story true? Who knows. But here is a real life example - Oscar DePriest's Amendment to FDR's Civilian Conservation Corps:

You knew it had to be too good to be true. It was.

The Texas indictments against Dick Cheney and Alberto Gonzales have been dismissed.

The teeth gnashing about Obama (and I am all for it, we need a Left Flank) continues - this time from Paul Rosenberg:

Nate [Silver]'s general point that Obama's agenda is more liberal than centrist is certainly true. This is hardly surprising in light of Obama's record in the Senate, where he and Clinton had virtually identical records, both as moderate liberals. Given that both are Democrats from solid blue states, there is nothing surprising about this at all. . . . [The Obama] agenda is top-heavy with playing catch-up. For the most part, it's all about enacting ideas that have been around for a long, long time. It's not much about new ideas.

Indeed. I am quite pleased with this. I remember the 90s. With a Democratic/Obama mandate for Bill Clinton's more ambitious agenda (and with a Depression looming, Obama can do as he pleases), we have a great opportunity. This is good news from where I sit - the "Center-Right" (this is meant as a joke, though some may think it is a fair description.)

Speaking for me only

So says Poblano:

According to multiple sources, who confirmed the Tip O'Neill staffer-cum-MSNBC host has negotiated with veteran Obama staffers to enlist in his campaign, Chris Matthews is likely to run for United States Senate in Pennsylvania in 2010. Matthews, 62, would run as a Democrat.

I would strongly oppose a Tweety candidacy for ANY office, including, but not limited to, dog catcher. The man is an embarrassment.

Speaking for me only

Everyone knows you need connections to get a pardon from the President. When I first wrote up President Bush's pardons, the two that stood out to me were the commutations to time served for two drug offenders.

The mystery as to one of these two, the commutation of John Forte, has been solved. It's Carly Simon, who appealed to Orrin Hatch, who owed her for having recorded one of his songs. Gawker has the details.

Step One: John Forte goes to Exeter, makes friends with Carly Simon's kid, then makes friends with Carly Simon.
Step Two: John Forte goes to jail.
Step Three: Carly Simon records one of Orrin Hatch's soulful ballads and then is like "Okay now you owe me, old man."

Here's Carly in her own words pleading Fort's case. [More...]

It is a bit of an obsession for me, but the mischaracterization of Bill Clinton's Presidency and the views of Senator Hillary Clinton still bothers me a great deal. Here is Poblano:

Likewise, as David Sirota notes, one can co-opt leftist rhetoric, enthusiasm and mindshare and implement a centrist agenda, as Bill Clinton arguably did.

Well make the argument then, as opposed to just spouting the line. Consider how Poblano defines Obama as a progressive:

Reports say:

Defense Secretary Robert Gates has agreed to stay on under President-elect Barack Obama, according to officials in both parties. Obama plans to announce a national-security team early next week that includes Gates at the Pentagon and Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) as secretary of state, officials said. Retired Marine Gen. James Jones, former Marine commandant and commander of U.S. and NATO forces in Europe, will be named national security adviser, the officials said.

Unlike a lot of folks, I respect Bush 41ers like Gates. My one problem with this is that it sends the message that Dems can't do Defense. I would prefer General Wes Clark at Defense, but Congress would have to do a fix for that to happen (as a retired military officer, Clark is ineligible for the Defense post for 10 years after retirement. He retired in 2000.) I have no obvious eligible candidates for the job.

Speaking for me only

See also Greenwald, a true champion here, who took up the struggle in the face of STFUism. Brennan out:

John Brennan, President-elect Barack Obama's top adviser on intelligence, has taken his name out of the running for any intelligence position in the new administration. In a letter Tuesday, Brennan wrote letter to Obama that he did not want to be a distraction. His potential appointment has raised a firestorm in liberal blogs who associate him with the Bush administration's interrogation, detention and rendition policies.

In case people were wondering, THIS is why you do not wait to express your "concern" about issues and personnel.

Speaking for me only