By The Prowler on 7.6.06 @ 12:08AM
No special perks for Henry Paulson. Also: MoveOn's "net neutrality" fiasco. Supreme readiness.
NO "I" IN THIS TEAM
When Henry Paulson left the lofty and highly
profitable heights of Goldman Sachs to serve as President Bush's
third Treasury Secretary, there was much talk among the financial
lobbying community in Washington that Paulson has elicited a number
of concessions from the White House in return for taking the
job.
Paulson was thought to have turned down White House offers to
fill the Treasury post at least two times before accepting it.
"Here in Washington and up in New York the word was that Paulson
was pressing for a very different role as Treasury Secretary than
[John] Snow or
[Paul] O'Neill had," says a
lobbyist in Washington for a large financial services firm.
In fact there were rumors that Paulson had received promises
from the Administration that it would re-open policy discussions on
global warming and U.S. environmental policy and allow Paulson a
role in those discussions. Other rumors had Paulson requesting that
he be allowed to chair the President's Council of Economic
Advisers.
But none of this talk has been borne out, and in fact Paulson
appears to have the same standing as just about every other Bush
Cabinet official. Exhibit A: his chief of staff. A number of folks
assumed that Paulson would bring in his own people, but like
previous high profile corporate types who have taken jobs with this
Administration, Paulson is said to be getting a Bush insider for
his top manager, this time, former White House and State Department
senior communications aide staffer Jim
Wilkinson.
Many eyebrows were raised when former Kellogg CEO Carlos
Gutierrez came on board as Commerce Secretary and wasn't
allowed to bring in his own chief of staff. Instead he picked up
outgoing Commerce Secretary Don Evans' chief of staff and
then was handed Clare Buchan as the replacement.
Buchan had served a chief communications staffer in the White House
before heading over to Commerce.
"It's not a coincidence that the White House places
communications people in those positions. Gutierrez has been a good
messenger for the Administration," says a former Bush
Administration official. "Wilkinson especially is one of the best
communications guys this Administration has. He'll help Paulson
immeasurably."
MOVEON TO ANOTHER DEFEAT
Another issue, another loss for MoveOn.org. Last week, the Senate
Commerce Committee cleared major telecom reform legislation that
included a consumer focused approach to so-called "net neutrality,"
an issue being pushed by big high-tech and Internet companies like
Google, Microsoft, Yahoo and e-Bay.
Those companies had funneled through their lobbyists and
consultants hundreds of thousands to dollars to groups like MoveOn
to press Congress for the first real government regulation of the
Internet.
Had MoveOn had its way, Google et al. would have had government
regulations put in place that would have made it impossible for new
competitors to compete against them online.
Like good little soldiers MoveOn and backers of "net neutrality"
such as Matt Stoller of "My DD" made "net
neutrality" a rallying cry for their followers and placed a
political stake in the ground for Sens. Olympia
Snowe, Barbara Boxer and John
Kerry to grasp.
In the end, the Snowe-Dorgan "net neutrality" amendment lost in
committee on an 11-11 vote, while the overall bill cleared it on a
15-7 vote. The marked-up bill included rules widely supported by
the telecom and cable companies that gave consumers the right to an
open Internet and the ability to file complaints with the FCC about
network operator malfeasance online and to have those companies
fined $500,000 per confirmed complaint.
Like just about every political fight MoveOn and its ilk have
waged, they came up on the short end of the vote, once again
raising questions inside the Democrat party and the liberal
community whether the so-called "net roots" can muster the kind of
broad-based support needed for a major political victory.
"You look at what MoveOn has done and you have to wonder.
Claiming a victory like putting Howard Dean in charge of the party
isn't going to take you very far," says a Washington lobbyist who
has dealt with organized labor and MoveOn at times in the past
three years. "They claim they got Barack Obama
elected to the Senate, but Obama was going to be elected no matter
what. Beyond him, who do they have to show for their efforts?
They've had some close races, and maybe they can take credit for
[Sen. Rick] Santorum if
[Bob] Casey wins in Pennsylvania,
but as organizations that can help get out a sustainable vote to
win races and policy discussion in Congress, I'm not sold yet."
Part of the problem, say other Democratic consultants, is the
elitist tone some MoveOn types take, while others just use hate and
profanity to lash out at those they disagree with. "The language on
their sites and the hate are just palpable," says another lobbyist.
"We don't want to be associated with those types of people. That's
the kind of language and talk that comes back to bite you during
public debates, when you're asked whether that kind of talk and
those views are representative of your own positions. Look,
Cindy Sheehan is probably a nice person. I feel
sorry for her, but no one who wants to win elective office wants to
be publicly associated with her views. The same goes for a lot of
these people on the far left."
That, and the fact that a number of these groups now appear to
be working not only with longstanding Democrat supporters like
organized labor, but also large corporations.
"To my way of thinking, there's just no way that groups like
MoveOn should've been doing the bidding of Microsoft or Google,"
says another Democrat-leaning lobbyist. "By taking their money,
they are turning a grassroots organization and making it an
Astroturf organization with less and less credibility. This 'net
neutrality' fight was just a bad thing to be getting involved
in."
READY TO POUNCE
With the end of the Supreme Court session, rumors continue to float
through Washington that yet another judicial retirement is
imminent. About two weeks ago, the rumors began to quietly
percolate that one of two liberal judges was looking to exit.
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg is thought to be in
weakened health and Justice John Paul Stevens,
while believed to be in good health, is said to be growing
weary.
Some people weren't buying it, at least for Stevens. "He's a
horse. He has clerks that do much of the heavy lifting, and he
still has good focus and energy despite his years for what he has
to do," says a knowledgeable SCOTUS observer. Stevens is 86.
Regardless of the rumors, we hear the White House has not been
idle on the Supreme Court front. The White House Counsel's office
has been vetting potential nominees for almost six months, and
according to White House insiders is prepared to move quickly with
a nominee should something take place over the next couple of
months of down time for the court.
topics:
Barack Obama, Environment, Global Warming, Supreme Court, Energy