Bush should resign???

The New York Times' Gail Collins wrote a column this past weekend arguing that President Bush should resign immediately in order to allow Barack Obama to deal with the financial crisis immediately rather than wait until January 20. Specifically, her proposal calls for both Bush and Vice President Cheney to resign, which would make House Speaker Nancy Pelosi president until January 20. Collins assumes that Pelosi would serve basically as a puppet for Barack Obama between now and Inauguration Day.

I considered blogging about this idea several weeks ago when a similar proposal was advanced before the election by a pair of op-ed writers in the Boston Globe. If memory serves, I didn't think it deserved the attention at that time. It's still a bad idea, but the attention Collins' piece has drawn to it makes it worth discussing.

Collins' column evinces not the slightest appreciation for the radical nature of her proposal. It is radical in three ways. First, it would set a precedent for making presidential terms of office contingent on outside events. Presidents would be urged to resign whenever it appeared (or was argued) they could no longer be effective during their remaining days in office. This would introduce an element of unpredictability to our system of government that we have wisely avoided up to this point.

Second, Collins' proposal would introduce a new feature into our constitutional scheme: the "caretaker president." According to Collins, Nancy Pelosi would assume the White House for the sole purpose of governing in accordance with the wishes of Barack Obama. This innovation would be truly obnoxious to the concept of an independent executive as enshrined in Article II of the Constitution.

Third, if adopted, Collins' proposal would invite future leaders to use the Constitution's rules regarding presidential succession -- which were intended only to provide continuity of government in cases of unexpected vacancies -- to install virtually anyone they wanted as president. Let's say the powers that be in Washington wished to make Ryan Seacrest president without bothering to have an election. All it would take is for the current vice president to resign and for the president to appoint Seacrest to fill that vacancy. Pursuant to the 25th Amendment, Congress would have to confirm the appointment by a simple majority vote of both houses. Once confirmed, the president would resign, making Ryan Seacrest president. The only thing truly far-fetched in this scenario is using Ryan Seacrest as the hypothetical subject. One could substitute Barack Obama's name for Seacrest's and suddenly it's no more crazy that what Gail Collins is proposing. Arguably, it's a more conservative scheme than that which Collins is advocating, since it completely avoids the "caretaker president" problem. Either way it would be a decision by a relative handful of people in Washington to install a new president without bothering with an election or waiting for the current presidential term to expire.

One would think that a proponent of such a radical proposal would attempt to make a fairly compelling case for its necessity. In the case of Gail Collins, such an expectation would be sorely misplaced. Her main "argument" (if it can be called that) is that Bush should resign in order to avoid being regarded as the worst president in U.S. history (behind James Buchanan), rather than merely one of the worst. In other words, she thinks Bush should resign because resigning would be a good thing for him to do. If it sounds circular, it's because it is.

Collins' other rationale for a Bush resignation -- or perhaps it's the same rationale stated in different words -- is her assertion that the economic crisis requires it. How it requires it is not really clear. Collins seems to believe there are things that Barack Obama could do to help rescue the economy between now and January 20 that can't be done unless Nancy Pelosi is president. Of course, Speaker Pelosi can't become president uner Collins' scenario unless President Bush resigns, which almost certainly won't happen unless he agrees that the policies Obama would seek to implement would in fact be good for the country. In that case, however, he could just begin to implement those policies himself rather than turn over his $400,000-per-year job to Nancy Pelosi for two months. All of this might seem less silly if there were any specifics under discussion as to the "immediate" steps the Obama/Pelosi cabal had in mind for saving the economy. Collins fails to explain what those specific steps are, leading me to wonder if her proposal has any serious purpose other than to provide her with something to write about.

In Collins' defense, there is actually some historical precedent for the idea of a sitting president resigning in order to allow the incoming president to take office prior to Inauguration Day. FDR evidently considered trying to somehow ease Hoover out of office following the 1932 election. Perhaps more significantly, Woodrow Wilson secretly intended to resign in order to allow his opponent, Charles Evans Hughes, to assume the White House if Wilson had lost the 1916 election. I believe Wilson's plan was to appoint Hughes secretary of state, which at that time would have made him third in line for the presidency. Of course, the fact that Wilson considered such a move in 1916 doesn't mean it was a good idea then, let alone that it would be a good idea now. At least in 1916, however, the idea had the backing of the sitting president, and therefore had a chance to be put into practice. In the present instance, all the proposal has going for it is Gail Collins' snarky assertion that Bush needs to resign in order to lock up the number two spot on the list of all-time worst presidents. Presumably, Bush would need to hear a much stronger case for his resignation than Collins has been able to marshal.

Is picking Hillary a hedge strategy?

It looks like Hillary is definitely coming on board as Obama's Secretary of State. I think it's a dumb move on his part, although I'm not personally disappointed because I regard Hillary as somewhat hawkish at least in comparison to other Democrats.

It occurs to me that Hillary could represent something of a hedge strategy for Obama if, as some speculate, he is truly worried about a challenge from her in 2012. Obama may figure that if disaster strikes during his first term, it will be on account of a foreign policy crisis. If so, then putting Hillary in charge of Foggy Bottom would at least ensure that she couldn't capitalize on such a misfortune.

Gay marriage moving at the speed of light

Mort Kondracke: "In recent years, Republicans have let right-wing talk show hosts whip the GOP base into frenzies -- over immigration, brain-damage victim Terry Schiavo and same-sex marriage -- that have branded the party as troglodyte."

This is amazing. Ten years ago, same-sex marriage was unthinkable. Now, to oppose it makes you a troglodyte. Does public opinion really move that fast?

The politics of bailouts

The proposed bailout of the (formerly-)Big Three appears to be in trouble. The simple reason for that is that nobody can keep a straight face while saying the words, "This money will make Detroit competitive again." At most, the bailout would stave off a collapse for several months while not addressing the structural problems that are causing Ford, GM, and Chrysler to lose money on every car they sell.

From a partisan political standpoint, it's hard to see how this issue doesn't end up hurting Democrats. Although those with a direct stake in the health of the auto industry would likely disagree, the public as a whole is clearly skeptical about the wisdom of bailouts in general and of a bailout of Detroit in particular. Importantly, part of the reason for that skepticism is that the Democrats have spent much of the last two years bemoaning all the money we have spent in Iraq and the overall precarious state of the economy. Now that the Dems are on the brink of controlling both political branches of government, they find themselves in the position of backing another huge commitment of funds toward a project that seemingly offers no long-term prospects for success. Moreover, whether or not the bailout occurs, the Dems are still expected to solve the larger financial mess. Thus, it seems to be a no-win situation for Obama, Pelosi, and Reid. They must either support an unpopular measure that's not likely to work, or not do it and be perceived as having no answers.

Of course, this is really just a function of the overall challenge facing the Democrats: Although they're being asked to fix the economy, it's unlikely there's any "fix" that does not entail a painful and protracted recession. Blaming Bush simply won't make that challenge go away. Declaring that there's nothing to be done won't work either, not after an election in which the American were told they needed the Democrats in power in order to clean up the country's economic mess. The country was promised results and the Democrats need to deliver.

Another problem the bailout presents for the Democrats is that it undermines one of their core political principles: the notion that Washington should stop using fiscal policy to pad the coffers of Big Business. Barack Obama used this theme against McCain when he accused his rival of supporting billions of dollars in tax breaks to corporations. But if you think it's bad to give corporations a tax break, how can you justify giving corporations a direct subsidy in the form of a bailout? Suddenly the whole world is upside down: the Democrats are the party of Big Business and the Republicans are telling the corporations to stuff it!

Hopefully the economy will rebound sooner rather than later, whether because of or in spite of the Democrats' actions. I'd much rather see the country get back on its feet economically than see the Democrats suffer because it didn't.

Campaign flashback: "Palling around with terrorists"

Associated Press "News Analysis", Oct. 5, headlined "Palin's words carry a racial tinge":

"Her reference to Obama's relationship with William Ayers, a member of the Vietnam-era Weather Underground, was exaggerated at best if not outright false. No evidence shows they were 'pals' or even close when they worked on community boards years ago and Ayers hosted a political event for Obama early in his career." (Emphasis added.)

Bill Ayers, discussing his relationship with Obama in a forward to his book:

"[W]e had served together on the board of a foundation, knew one another as neighbors and family friends, held an initial fund-raiser at my house, where I'd made a small donation to his earliest political campaign." (Emphasis added.)

So apparently they weren't "pals," just "friends." The distinction certainly warrants the AP's calling Sarah Palin a racist liar.

Obama's "Team of Rivals"?

Apparently some people are treating Obama's reported interest in Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State as an act of political genius similar to Lincoln's deft assembly of a "Team of Rivals" to comprise his cabinet. I think this meme gives much too much credit to both Lincoln and Obama.

Lincoln didn't exactly invent the idea of naming strong leaders from a president's own party to cabinet positions. And few if any members of Lincoln's cabinet needed his close supervision to deter them from conspiring to unseat him. Seward was disappointed at losing the nomination in 1860 but had no difficulty accepting Lincoln as his party's leader. Stanton may have been a Lincoln skeptic, but he was wasn't even a candidate in '60, let alone a political force Lincoln needed to worry about. Edward Bates clearly lacked the ambition to intrigue against Lincoln. If memory serves, he could barely be troubled to move to Washington to join the cabinet. In fact, the only cabinet official deserving of a short leash was Salmon Chase, and it's far from clear that Lincoln spared himself any heartache by putting him at Treasury.

As for Obama and Hillary, for reasons discussed in my previous post, appointing her as Secretary of State does virtually nothing to neutralize her as a potential rival. Obama's energies should be focused on performing well as president, not worrying about what Hillary does.

Hillary for Secretary of State?

I'm not sure how seriously to take this, but the name Hillary Rodham Clinton is being floated as a possible Secretary of State in the Obama Administration.

I don't think Hillary would necessarily be a disaster in this role, but it's not a pick that would inspire confidence.

First, her singular focus in the public arena has been on domestic policy. Assuming it would take a top-level cabinet post to entice her to leave the Senate, she would be best suited for Attorney General.

Apart from her lack of expertise in foreign policy, Hillary seems ill fit for Foggy Bottom for reasons of personality and temperament. If the last 16 years have taught us anything about Hillary, it's that she's a fighter, rather than a diplomat, a hard-nosed tactician rather than a grand strategist. It's hard to imagine her thriving in the genteel, nuanced world of international diplomacy.

So if this pick isn't motivated by the desire to find the best person to lead America's diplomatic corps, what is it about?

From Obama's perspective, there may be a couple of reasons why picking Hillary for State reasons may seem like a good idea. For one, it advances his goal of assembling an "all star" cabinet. As I've written before, however, I think a cabinet of "all-stars" needlessly raises expectations he will be hard-pressed to fulfill.

Another motive for Obama to pick Hillary may be to neutralize her as a potential rival in 2012. If that's his rational, however, it is incredibly craven. Surely, if Obama could outwit Hillary for the nomination when he was just an untested freshman senator, he would have no difficulty staving off an intra-party challenge from her as the incumbent president. If Obama is that worried about Hillary in 2012, he should do whatever he can to have a successful first term, including getting the best Secretary of State he can find.

Possibly, Obama's real worry in regard to Hillary is not that she will try to unseat him in 2012, but that she'll undermine his administration in other ways. In that case, he might imagine that involving Hillary in the arcane machinations of foreign affairs will prevent her from engaging in acts of domestic political sabotage. But of course it wouldn't. If anything, the State Department would provide Hillary with plausible cover to engage in whatever nefarious intrigues she could devise.

Truthfully, I can't think of any good reason Obama would want Hillary as Secretary of State.

From Hillary's perspective, it's possible she would envision a stint as Secretary of State as something that would enhance her future presidential prospects. Undoubtedly, it would, assuming she didn't make a botch of it. As a practical matter, however, she probably doesn't need to punch up her resume in order to get back into presidential contention.

The best reason I can think of Hillary to accept this appointment is ambivalence about Obama's prospects for a successful first term. The Secretary of State tends to operate semi-autonomously and, of course, within an area of responsibility many voters studiously ignore. If Obama stumbles badly in the Oval Office, and particularly if the country is mired in deep economic troubles, a Secretary of State Hillary Clinton would likely avoid any responsibility for the mess. Even as senator her reputation would be at risk, since she would presumably have to support Obama's domestic agenda. The State Department offers Hillary the best of all worlds: a powerful, high-visibility position in the new administration, further enhancement of her presidential qualifications, and insurance against the risk that Obama will fall flat on his face.