Transition Tidbits
A few miscellaneous pieces of transition news floating around today:
* The Obama camp confirms to The Huffington Post that he remains committed to the Employee Free Choice Act, a measure that would make it easier for unions to organize and will be at the center of a huge upcoming fight.
* Community organizers of the world, unite! The group -- much maligned by the GOP ticket during the campaign -- will get their face time with Obama tomorrow.
* A new war is brewing over a potential pick for the post of Obama drug czar.
* Bill Clinton says he's not expecting to play any role with the Obama administration, which will do absolutely nothing to put an end to the mindless speculation about this non-possibility.
* And though Obama made it official today that Bill Richardson is his choice for commerce secretary, this blog will not link to any reports about it, because they all contain jokes about Richardson's beard, a topic which has been banned from this site forever.
Little sensitive about the whole beard thing, aren't we?
: )
December 3, 2008 3:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
yep -- I hate the beard jokes, can't stand 'em
December 3, 2008 3:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
too funny
December 3, 2008 3:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
You hate beards? Jokes? Beard jokes?
I didn't notice any beard jokes. Just a lot of mourning over, well, never mind.
December 3, 2008 3:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Greg:
Getting paid for having fun, I envy your job.
I know you're not going anywhere and I don't think me either, but let me just say I thoroughly enjoyed the journey with TPM in the last year as Barack Obama became the 44th in an historic, epic fashion. THANK YOU.
You guys made it so much more fun.
December 3, 2008 3:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nuh uh!!!
December 3, 2008 3:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, dear... a controversy is brewing...
December 3, 2008 3:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why do we need a drug czar? Rhetorical question, cause the answer is: We don't. It's egregiously stupid.
*sigh*
Can't you grow a beard, Greg?
December 3, 2008 3:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
According to Nancy Reagan, all it takes is just saying "No".
December 3, 2008 3:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Apparently it didn't work with Tena. ;)
December 3, 2008 3:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
We finally agree, a drug czar is about as useful as a Secretary of Education...(well you may not agree with that part).
December 3, 2008 3:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's the law enforcement model of Drug Policy that's the problem, not the position of Drug Czar.
December 3, 2008 3:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
lol! Coming from you, it is actually funny.
December 3, 2008 3:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Dude, I'm a Federalist through and through.
December 3, 2008 3:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
I believe completely that drugs should be legal.
I also believe that the government shouldn't be trying to regulate people's self-destructive tendencies. I consider the right to go to hell in my own way one of my rights under the Right to Privacy.
December 3, 2008 3:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
As long as they don't operate heavy machinery or endanger the public at large, I'm right there with you. The war on drugs was invented so that more law enforcement goons could be hired to expand and maintain budgets. If you want to see the crime rate and taxes simultaneously plummet, legalize drugs.
December 3, 2008 3:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well the same common sense precautions that one is supposed to adhere to with regard to alcohol or even some prescription drugs.
There is no reason that it can't be regulated. I would really love to know the worth of the shadow economy in this country - the drug economy. It has to be enormous. The government is missing a bet and laying out huge stacks to try to fight something that it cannot fight. That war on a noun was lost before it began.
Cf: Prohibition
December 3, 2008 3:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, we don't need a drug czar. We don't need a war on drugs, either. I hope he abolishes that office.
December 3, 2008 3:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Couldn't agree more. Turn over the responsibilities to the surgeon general because drug use is a medical issue.
December 3, 2008 5:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Too bad Timothy Leary's dead.
December 3, 2008 3:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
{chuckle} - Timothy's not dead, he's just on the outside looking in.
December 3, 2008 3:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ha!
December 3, 2008 3:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
OOo - you got it. Hee!
December 3, 2008 3:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
He'll fly his astroplane
Take you trips around the bay
Bring you back the same day
Timothy Leary
Ray Thomas, Moody Blues, 1968 (I think -- struggling with an ageing memory here)
December 3, 2008 4:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
That'll be a fun one. It'll be absolutely hysterical to watch the Republicans become the champions of the right to privacy. (I'm basing this on all the anti-Franken ads that ran here in MN trying to use his support of it as a negative).
December 3, 2008 3:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
The proponents have to do a better job with respect to persuading people about this. If you didn't know any better, you'd think the entire issue was about secret ballots, and not about whether people should be allowed to vote to organize.
December 3, 2008 3:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yup. All I ever hear is about the secret ballot issue.
December 3, 2008 3:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
...that's because it does remove the secret ballot from the equation.
December 3, 2008 3:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Umm...no, it doesn't. Balloting is still available to those employees who wish to use that route and it toughens laws to help stop employer intimidation. It also provides for an easier way for them to form a union by signing a card expressing their intent. The only folks who oppose the act are anti-union to begin with.
December 3, 2008 4:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Like George McGovern...right?
December 3, 2008 4:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's right -- all it takes is 30 percent of the employees to have a secret ballot election.
But the issue does need some re-framing because the union busters of the world have hammered home the bogus "secret ballot" mantra over and over.
December 3, 2008 5:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
It needs significant reframing. I googled "Employee Free Choice Act" and wound up with a bunch of anti-union sites that published nothing but propaganda about the lack of a secret ballot.
It took me some time to realize that a lack of a secret ballot wasn't necessarily a new feature, and that the change was about the proportion of people needed to agree to organize. At least that's my understanding. I may still be confused.
December 3, 2008 6:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
The whole "secret ballot" thing is bogus, because the way things work now, management has mandatory "captive audience" meetings to spread anti-union propaganda, while unions get no comparable access to the workers. Plus, management routinely violates labor law in the run-up to elections, illegally firing union activists, knowing it will be years before they get some little slap on the wrist that's a minor cost of doing business. There is absolutely nothing free or fair about union elections as they are conducted today.
In most of the civilized world, card check is all that's needed to gain union representation. It's simple democracy -- if a majority of workers want a union, they get it.
December 3, 2008 8:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
" Bill Clinton says he's not expecting to play any role with the Obama administration, which will do absolutely nothing to put an end to the mindless speculation about this non-possibility."
Maybe Bill C expecting not to play a part means that he actually will play a part. It's just a ploy to be assigned a Senate seat. Or maybe he'll go with Hillary when she visits other countries to raise money. Or maybe he'll take an official position as curling liaison to Canada....
December 3, 2008 3:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
covert operative
December 3, 2008 3:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
What an intriguing thought.
December 3, 2008 3:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
... Richardson's beard, a topic which has been banned from this site forever.
No fair! Greg, you are NO FUN!
December 3, 2008 3:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Given the new "report abuse" stuff going on, we need new de-facto curse words. In honor of Greg, I present to the group the term "Richardson's Beard!!"
December 3, 2008 3:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
LOL! I love it!
December 3, 2008 5:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes!
December 3, 2008 6:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Speaking of medical marajuana...
I was just in LA and was down on Venice Beach board walk. Well, there was a girl on the board walk with a sign yelling an advertisement close to "Medical Marajuana!!! Fill your prescriptions here!!!" at the top of her lungs. I was sitting on a bench waiting for my sis so I watched a bit. Even when the cops went cruising down the boardwalk at a snails pace with their windows open, she just continued screaming this at the top of her lungs, not even acknowloging them.
Everyone around laughed. It was pretty funny.
December 3, 2008 3:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
And I have glaucoma and everything - I don't even need a fake excuse.
Sheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeit -Texas is way backward on it drug laws.
December 3, 2008 3:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ahhh, California dreamin', on such a Winter's day....
December 3, 2008 3:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Speaking of Venice Beach....
December 3, 2008 4:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Seems like Drug Policy would be an area where Obama could make a major impact. We have been throwing away billions for years, and it has done little except fill our prisons with drug offenders. This is an important appointment, and not the time to find a place for a token Republican.
December 3, 2008 3:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Although I would be just as happy to abolish the position and institute sensible policies. I'm just not sure that will be possible without a point person close to the Prez.
December 3, 2008 3:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
I couldn't agree more and I also don't think he'd touch it until his second term.
I'm waiting for Barney Frank to introduce his bill to legalize marijuana. He's been talking about it for at least a year.
December 3, 2008 3:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree that he shouldn't do any of this until the 2nd term. We have big things afoot and this is a 2nd tier issue. Still, it would be nice to at least have sensible drug laws. When a person smoking pot gets a harsher sentence than a person beating his wife, then something is majorly f-n wrong.
December 3, 2008 3:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
O it's nuts. All I can say is that it used to be worse, but the cops used to be way more naive, too. The laws aren't quite as stringent as they once were, but you can't much past the cops these days.
Thank god I'm not 16 now - I can't imagine. The cops were so naive when I was 16 that they let unbelievable things pass then. Whew! God I have one hell of a guardian angel - I should have been dead or in jail hundreds of times by now -
December 3, 2008 3:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
...what about a guy who beats his wife cuz she smoked his last blunt?
December 3, 2008 3:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Boy, you do fail to see the obvious in almost everything, Wallace.
The "reason" is totally irrelevant because it's always a lie. The beating is what matters.
December 3, 2008 3:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
...and you never fail to catch on to my warped sense of humor.
December 3, 2008 3:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
touche.
December 3, 2008 4:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
heh heh,
I guess you're feeling pretty good today, eh? Maybe I shouldn't have wished you luck canvassing!
;)
December 3, 2008 4:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Curve balls are harder to catch....
December 3, 2008 4:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
But the information they provide should always be taken as gospel. ;-)
December 3, 2008 4:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, I think there are two things he can do now.
One would be to slash funding for the "War on Drugs" -- an easy place to cut the budget to help facilitate the stimulus spending that will be needed.
The second thing is that I believe the whole drug czar position is up for reauthorization in 2010. If so, that would be the logical time to get rid of it.
December 3, 2008 5:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama/Sen. Clinton better find Bill something to do, because part of the agreement for Hillary to become SOS was Bill giving up day-to-day running of his Charity and no more speeches outside of the US.
You don't want a bored Bill Clinton hanging around Washington...
December 3, 2008 3:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
While I agree with your idea I don't share your concern.
I'm tired of hearing the possible dangers of Bill Clinton. After everything is said and done Bill is still a huge asset.
I'm positive he will be used as a special envoy by Obama- it's killing two birds at once.
December 3, 2008 3:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's the perfect position for the Big Dawg. I can hear Warren Zevon running as the background music as Bill ambles through a bar somewhere.
December 3, 2008 3:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
In general I would prefer if we the new administration could stay away from words like war and czar. It's stupid.
Drama without danger and responsibility with out power.
December 3, 2008 4:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't know why people assume Bill has to get a job with the administration or something's amiss. The man can make six figures just from giving a pep talk at West Bumblefuck University. Why would you want to give up that job?
December 3, 2008 4:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's his problem -- his activities, speeches, etc. are now subject to review and transparency per Obama administration policy.
December 3, 2008 4:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
WBU, now that's an awesome name for an university!
December 3, 2008 4:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
War on Drugs... another stupid naming of a unending failed policy. It is another BIG joke that the taxpayers and american people have paid the price or.
I dated a brilliant guy in college that had spent 4 years in prison for having an ounce of pot in his car in Indiana some years ago.
I can't stand how much of the entire crime scene is taken up with the endless, useless war. Make drugs legal and regulate them.
They should not continue this war without an 'exit plan'.
December 3, 2008 5:56 PM | Reply | Permalink