Co-founders Larry Page, president of Products, and Sergey Brin, president of Technology, brought Google to life in September 1998. Since then, the company has grown to more than 10,000 employees worldwide, with a management team that represents some of the most experienced technology professionals in the industry. Eric Schmidt joined Google as chairman and chief executive officer in 2001.
Board of Directors
Eric Schmidt, Google Inc.
Sergey Brin, Google Inc.
Larry Page, Google Inc.
John Doerr, Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers
Ram Shriram, Sherpalo
John Hennessy, Stanford University
Arthur Levinson, Genentech
Paul Otellini, Intel
Shirley M. Tilghman, Princeton University
Ann Mather
Executive Management Group
Eric Schmidt, Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer
Larry Page, Co-Founder & President, Products
Sergey Brin, Co-Founder & President, Technology
Laszlo Bock, Vice President, People Operations
Shona Brown, Senior Vice President, Business Operations
W. M. Coughran, Jr., Senior Vice President, Engineering
David C. Drummond, Senior Vice President, Corporate Development and Chief Legal Officer
Alan Eustace, Senior Vice President, Engineering & Research
Urs Hölzle, Senior Vice President, Operations & Google Fellow
Jeff Huber, Senior Vice President, Engineering
Omid Kordestani, Senior Vice President, Global Sales & Business Development
Patrick Pichette, Senior Vice President & Chief Financial Officer
Jonathan Rosenberg, Senior Vice President, Product Management and Marketing
Rachel Whetstone, Vice President, Global Communications & Public Affairs
Key executives by function:
Engineering
Vinton G. Cerf, Vice President & Chief Internet Evangelist
Stuart Feldman, Vice President, Engineering
Ben Fried, Chief Information Officer
Vic Gundotra, Vice President, Engineering
Udi Manber, Vice President, Engineering
Nelson Mattos, Vice President, Engineering, EMEA
Shiva Shivakumar, Vice President and Distinguished Entrepreneur
Alfred Spector, VP of Research and Special Initiatives
Benjamin Sloss Treynor, Vice President, Engineering
Jeff Dean, Google Fellow
Sanjay Ghemawat, Google Fellow
Amit Singhal, Google Fellow
Products
Doug Garland, Vice President, Product Management
Bradley Horowitz, Vice President, Product Management
Salar Kamangar, Vice President, Product Management
Marissa Mayer, Vice President, Search Products & User Experience
Sundar Pichai, Vice President, Product Management
Mario Queiroz, Vice President, Product Management, EMEA & Latin America
Lorraine Twohill, Vice President, Marketing, EMEA
Susan Wojcicki, Vice President, Product Management
Sales
Daniel Alegre, Vice President, Asia Pacific Sales & Operations
Tim Armstrong, President, The Americas Operations & Senior Vice President, Google
Nikesh Arora, President, EMEA Operations & Senior Vice President, Google
Sukhinder Singh Cassidy, President, Asia Pacific and Latin America Operations
David Eun, Vice President, Content Partnerships
David Fischer, Vice President, Global Online Sales & Operations
Dave Girouard, President, Enterprise
John Herlihy, Vice President, Online Sales & Operations, EMEA
Kai-Fu Lee, Vice President, Google Inc.; President, Greater China
Dr John Liu, Vice President, Sales, Greater China
Norio Murakami, President & General Manager, Google Japan & Vice President, Google Inc.
Penry Price, VP, Advertising Sales, North America
David Rosenblatt, President, Global Display Advertising & Vice President, Google
Dennis Woodside, Vice President, UK, Benelux and Ireland
Legal
Kent Walker, Vice President & General Counsel
David Lawee, Vice President, Marketing
Megan Smith, Vice President, New Business Development
Finance
Brent Callinicos, Vice President & Treasurer
Francois Delepine, Vice President, Financial Planning and Analysis
Mark Fuchs, Vice President of Finance and Chief Accountant
Julio Pekarovic, Vice President, Global Sales Finance
David Radcliffe, Vice President, Real Estate
Business Operations
Francoise Brougher, Vice President, Business Operations
Google.org
Dr. Larry Brilliant, Executive Director, Google.org
Wednesday, January 28, 2009
What's a Google? ......
Company Overview
Google's mission is to organise the world's information and make it universally accessible and useful.
As a first step to fulfilling that mission, Google's founders Larry Page and Sergey Brin developed a new approach to online search that took root in a Stanford University dorm room and quickly spread to information seekers around the globe. Google is now widely recognised as the world's largest search engine -- an easy-to-use free service that usually returns relevant results in a fraction of a second.
When you visit www.google.com or one of the dozens of other Google domains, you'll be able to find information in many different languages; check stock quotes, maps and news headlines; look up phonebook listings for every city in the United States; search billions of images and peruse the world's largest archive of Usenet messages -- more than 1 billion posts dating back to 1981.
We also provide ways to access all this information without making a special trip to the Google home page. The Google Toolbar enables you to conduct a Google search from anywhere on the web. And for those times when you're away from your PC altogether, Google can be used from a number of wireless platforms including WAP and i-mode phones.
Google's utility and ease of use have made it one of the world's best known brands almost entirely through word of mouth from satisfied users. As a business, Google generates revenue by providing advertisers with the opportunity to deliver measurable, cost-effective online advertising that is relevant to the information displayed on any given page. This makes the advertising useful to you as well as to the advertiser placing it. We believe you should know when someone has paid to put a message in front of you, so we always distinguish ads from the search results or other content on a page. We don't sell placement in the search results themselves or allow people to pay for a higher ranking there.
Thousands of advertisers use our Google AdWords program to promote their products and services on the web with targeted advertising, and we believe AdWords is the largest program of its kind. In addition, thousands of web site managers take advantage of our Google AdSense program to deliver ads relevant to the content on their sites, improving their ability to generate revenue and enhancing the experience for their users.
To learn more about Google, click the link at the left for the area that interests you most. Or type what you want to find into our search box and hit enter. Once you do, you'll be on your way to understanding why others say, "Google is the closest thing the Web has to an ultimate answer machine".
What's a Google?
"Googol" is the mathematical term for a 1 followed by 100 zeros. The term was coined by Milton Sirotta, nephew of American mathematician Edward Kasner, and was popularised in the book, "Mathematics and the Imagination", by Kasner and James Newman. Google's play on the term reflects the company's mission to organise the immense amount of information available on the web.
Tuesday, January 27, 2009
Tamils for Obama - 2008.
We progressive Tamil Americans expect that Senator Obama will become the next president of the US. We hope that when he becomes president next January, he will be supportive of our concerns, especially of the continuing suffering of our friends and families in Sri Lanka. We are dismayed by the continuing genocide of Tamils there. We are sure that he is as concerned as we are about the destruction of the Tamil people and culture in Sri Lanka.
Senator Patrick Leahy of Vermont is a very senior member of the Senate (first elected in 1974) and is a long-time supporter of Senator Obama. Senator Leahy, while formerly supportive of the Sri Lankan national government in Colombo, says “We have been increasingly concerned with reports of abuses by Sri Lankan government forces.” He emphasizes that these reports are not “misinformation” or “disinformation,” but “documented, consistent information indicating a steady increase in serious human rights violations by the Sri Lankan government forces.” Mr. Obama, who has spoken of the “vicious civil war in Sri Lanka,” will certainly be influenced by Senator Leahy’s opinions, which we think are shared by most of the Democratic Party.
Senator Leahy introduced a resolution that would end US military assistance to the Colombo government. The staff director for the Senate Foreign Aid Subcommittee chaired by Leahy, Tim Rieser, said that "Sri Lanka has been utterly unwilling to take responsibility for its actions." The resolution passed, and became law when President Bush signed it. Senator Leahy has refused to meet with the Sri Lankan foreign minister, and we surmise that his low regard for the Sri Lankan government is clear.
Rush Holt, a Democratic congressman from New Jersey, led a group of 38 legislators who wrote to President Bush and Secretary of State Rice urging them to appoint or delegate “a high-level official with access to Bush and the secretary of state, Condoleezza Rice, and a ‘clear’ mandate to increase monitoring of human rights violations.” Rush Holt is a long-time Obama supporter, and we are confident that his concerns about Sri Lanka will be communicated to the 44th president, Mr. Obama.European diplomats have also spoken about the impossibility of getting Colombo’s help in reaching a peaceful solution.
Tamils are weary of waiting for a reasonable devolution from Sri Lanka. German Ambassador to Sri Lanka Jürgen Weerth in August 2008 said that he has also given up the hope of finding any solution for Tamils that involved the Colombo government. Germany, he said, did not believe in allowing the majority community to rule over minorities. “A country should have a give-and-take policy when ruling. Each community should be given preference, instead of supporting one community,” he said.
Weerth further said that Sri Lanka should establish the rule of law and eliminate human rights violations in the country. He says Sri Lanka has an admirable constitution, but the Colombo government does not follow its laws.
An outgoing British High Commissioner in Sri Lanka, Dominic Chilcott, gave a speech on the Sri Lankan national question, in which he referred to other matters like “the lack of good governance, transparency, law and order, and the presence of institutional racism, racist stereotyping, demonizing of the UN agencies, discrimination, sense of impunity,” etc. He also drove home the blatant truth about the deplorable condition of the veritable jungle of corruption, nepotism, dire human rights violations, conflicts of interest, and hypocrisy that Sri Lanka is.
We support Senator Obama in his pursuit of the presidency because we agree with him that the Sri Lankan civil war should be resolved. We are confident that President Obama will use the influence of the US to achieve a political settlement that will end the civil war and allow all Sri Lankans to live in peace.
We urge the 44th president of the Unite States, Mr. Obama, to take a strong hand in resolving this civil war. Perhaps he could bring the Tamils and Singhalese to Canton, Ohio, like President Bill Clinton did with the former Yugoslavians, and force a solution to the Sri Lankan war. The Colombo government has not taken any action to resolve this vicious civil war for the last six decades, and we believe they will take no action unless they are forced to do so.
The solution to the Sri Lankan problem could be based on the Bosnian model or on one of the many others like Montenegro, East Timor, Quebec, Slovakia, or Kosovo. We might be able to utilize Ambassador Richard Holbrooke’s expertise to bring peace to Sri Lanka.
There are many more potential peace envoys or mediators we can find in the U.S., including Bill Clinton, George Mitchell, James Baker, Jim Leach, Colin Powell, and doubtless many others.
When Mr. Obama is president, of course he will use his own judgment as to how this goal can best be reached.
There are many problems in the world that will demand President Obama’s attention. We progressive Tamils are looking forward to the day when he turns his hand to solving them. We trust that Sri Lanka’s civil war will be among them. We offer him our wholehearted support and look forward to seeing his foreign policy develop when he is president.
We emphasize that peace in Sri Lanka would give both ethnic groups (Singhalese and Tamils) a better chance to improve their lives in a stable environment.
We feel that this is one important change that we can believe in.
Tamils for Obama - 2008.
Senator Patrick Leahy of Vermont is a very senior member of the Senate (first elected in 1974) and is a long-time supporter of Senator Obama. Senator Leahy, while formerly supportive of the Sri Lankan national government in Colombo, says “We have been increasingly concerned with reports of abuses by Sri Lankan government forces.” He emphasizes that these reports are not “misinformation” or “disinformation,” but “documented, consistent information indicating a steady increase in serious human rights violations by the Sri Lankan government forces.” Mr. Obama, who has spoken of the “vicious civil war in Sri Lanka,” will certainly be influenced by Senator Leahy’s opinions, which we think are shared by most of the Democratic Party.
Senator Leahy introduced a resolution that would end US military assistance to the Colombo government. The staff director for the Senate Foreign Aid Subcommittee chaired by Leahy, Tim Rieser, said that "Sri Lanka has been utterly unwilling to take responsibility for its actions." The resolution passed, and became law when President Bush signed it. Senator Leahy has refused to meet with the Sri Lankan foreign minister, and we surmise that his low regard for the Sri Lankan government is clear.
Rush Holt, a Democratic congressman from New Jersey, led a group of 38 legislators who wrote to President Bush and Secretary of State Rice urging them to appoint or delegate “a high-level official with access to Bush and the secretary of state, Condoleezza Rice, and a ‘clear’ mandate to increase monitoring of human rights violations.” Rush Holt is a long-time Obama supporter, and we are confident that his concerns about Sri Lanka will be communicated to the 44th president, Mr. Obama.European diplomats have also spoken about the impossibility of getting Colombo’s help in reaching a peaceful solution.
Tamils are weary of waiting for a reasonable devolution from Sri Lanka. German Ambassador to Sri Lanka Jürgen Weerth in August 2008 said that he has also given up the hope of finding any solution for Tamils that involved the Colombo government. Germany, he said, did not believe in allowing the majority community to rule over minorities. “A country should have a give-and-take policy when ruling. Each community should be given preference, instead of supporting one community,” he said.
Weerth further said that Sri Lanka should establish the rule of law and eliminate human rights violations in the country. He says Sri Lanka has an admirable constitution, but the Colombo government does not follow its laws.
An outgoing British High Commissioner in Sri Lanka, Dominic Chilcott, gave a speech on the Sri Lankan national question, in which he referred to other matters like “the lack of good governance, transparency, law and order, and the presence of institutional racism, racist stereotyping, demonizing of the UN agencies, discrimination, sense of impunity,” etc. He also drove home the blatant truth about the deplorable condition of the veritable jungle of corruption, nepotism, dire human rights violations, conflicts of interest, and hypocrisy that Sri Lanka is.
We support Senator Obama in his pursuit of the presidency because we agree with him that the Sri Lankan civil war should be resolved. We are confident that President Obama will use the influence of the US to achieve a political settlement that will end the civil war and allow all Sri Lankans to live in peace.
We urge the 44th president of the Unite States, Mr. Obama, to take a strong hand in resolving this civil war. Perhaps he could bring the Tamils and Singhalese to Canton, Ohio, like President Bill Clinton did with the former Yugoslavians, and force a solution to the Sri Lankan war. The Colombo government has not taken any action to resolve this vicious civil war for the last six decades, and we believe they will take no action unless they are forced to do so.
The solution to the Sri Lankan problem could be based on the Bosnian model or on one of the many others like Montenegro, East Timor, Quebec, Slovakia, or Kosovo. We might be able to utilize Ambassador Richard Holbrooke’s expertise to bring peace to Sri Lanka.
There are many more potential peace envoys or mediators we can find in the U.S., including Bill Clinton, George Mitchell, James Baker, Jim Leach, Colin Powell, and doubtless many others.
When Mr. Obama is president, of course he will use his own judgment as to how this goal can best be reached.
There are many problems in the world that will demand President Obama’s attention. We progressive Tamils are looking forward to the day when he turns his hand to solving them. We trust that Sri Lanka’s civil war will be among them. We offer him our wholehearted support and look forward to seeing his foreign policy develop when he is president.
We emphasize that peace in Sri Lanka would give both ethnic groups (Singhalese and Tamils) a better chance to improve their lives in a stable environment.
We feel that this is one important change that we can believe in.
Tamils for Obama - 2008.
Monday, January 12, 2009
Stratos Jet Charters, Inc. Announces Luxury Air Charter Destinations
Orlando, Florida; May19, 2008: Stratos Jet Charters, Inc. has announced this morning, that as a result growing demand from air charter clients, Stratos Jet Charters, Inc. has developed relationships with luxury villa providers and boutique luxury hotels around the world. Stratos Jet Charters, Inc. will begin offering all inclusive luxury vacation packages starting May 19, 2008.
Stratos Jet Charters, Inc is excited about the opportunity to offer a wide range of luxury services for their air charter clients. Stratos Jets is recognized for providing excellent service and has teamed up with a select group of luxury resort, villa and boutique hotels throughout the world. Joel A. Thomas; President of Stratos Jets commented “Air charter clients choose Stratos Jets over alternatives because we provide excellent service; this goes beyond selecting the finest aircrafts and ensuring seamless ground transportation. It is our job to completely arrange client travels so that they are free to do as they please.” Mr. Thomas went on to say “having formed relationships with luxury hotels and villas allows us to take control of a wider range of services for our air charter clients.”
The air charter vacation packages that Stratos Jet Charters, now offers will be available through the website at www.stratosjets.com. Each month Stratos Jets plans to “feature” a hotel or villa. These “featured air charter vacations” will include complimentary catering, along with a special gift for their clients. Stratos Jet Charters, Inc. believes that by taking responsibility for their clients entire travel plans, they will experience the best service in the private jet charter industry
Stratos Jet Charters, Inc is excited about the opportunity to offer a wide range of luxury services for their air charter clients. Stratos Jets is recognized for providing excellent service and has teamed up with a select group of luxury resort, villa and boutique hotels throughout the world. Joel A. Thomas; President of Stratos Jets commented “Air charter clients choose Stratos Jets over alternatives because we provide excellent service; this goes beyond selecting the finest aircrafts and ensuring seamless ground transportation. It is our job to completely arrange client travels so that they are free to do as they please.” Mr. Thomas went on to say “having formed relationships with luxury hotels and villas allows us to take control of a wider range of services for our air charter clients.”
The air charter vacation packages that Stratos Jet Charters, now offers will be available through the website at www.stratosjets.com. Each month Stratos Jets plans to “feature” a hotel or villa. These “featured air charter vacations” will include complimentary catering, along with a special gift for their clients. Stratos Jet Charters, Inc. believes that by taking responsibility for their clients entire travel plans, they will experience the best service in the private jet charter industry
New Orleans Vacation Packages and Hotel Deals
Featured specials - January 12, 2009
New Orleans Hotels
www.BookIt.com $79 French Quarter - Save 50% Off Plus Hotels From $49. Book It.
Bourbon Street Hotels
booking.com/bourbon-street-Hotels Book hotels near Bourbon Street No reservation costs. Great rates!
Holiday Inn New Orleans
www.HolidayInn.com Book your hotel accommodations in Louisiana. Official Site.
Holiday Inn Express Hotel
www.hiexpress.com Official Site - New Orleans Hotels. Free Internet and Breakfast Bar.
Discount Hotels
www.Hotels-And-Discounts.com Save on Hotels, Motels & Resorts Call 1-800-276-7415 Or Book Online
Cheap Orleans Hotels
CheapEurope.com/Orleans Compare Hotels In Orleans. Find The Cheapest Hotels Online.
Orleans France Hotels
www.europe-hotelrooms.com Get Discounts on Orleans hotels! Compare Photos, Hotel Info & Rates.
New Orleans Hotels
www.compareonlinehotels.com Up to 70% on New Orleans LA Hotels Compare & Save on Worldwide Hotels
New Orleans Suites
www.LQ.com Official Site for La Quinta Inns. Book Rooms Starting at $49/night!
New Orleans Hotels
HotelsCombined.com/New_Orleans Compare 160 New Orleans Hotels HotelsCombined.com – Save More
Sponsored links *
Hotels (137)
B&Bs / Inns (34)
Other lodging (3)
Sorted by
popularity
hotel name
Drury Inn & Suites New Orleans, New Orleans
Popularity index: #1 in New Orleans based on 134 sources
Drury Inn & Suites New Orleans: Hot Deals
HotelClub.com Book worldwide hotel reservations online.
Country Inn & Suites New Orleans, New Orleans
Popularity index: #2 in New Orleans based on 180 sources
Country Inn & Suites New Orleans: Save up to 75% on your booking
Booking.com Low rates, no booking fees ! Special internet offers
Country Inn & Suites New Orleans: Great Deals Available Now!
Hotels.com Asia Trust the Hotels Experts. 24 hour Customer Care
Country Inn & Suites New Orleans: Book Now - Pay Later!
Venere.com Best Prices & No Cancellation Fees! Hotels, Apartments, B&Bs and More!
Country Inn & Suites New Orleans: Ideal stay. Fantastic rates.
Otel.com Don't waste time searching the best deal. What you’re looking for is here.
Country Inn & Suites New Orleans: Book Online & Save!
Gtahotels.com Official Site-Low Rate & No Extras Save up to 70% on hotel reservation
Country Inn & Suites New Orleans: Save on Hotel + Flight Packages
Expedia Book with Best Price Guarantee. Click or call now: 1-800-240-3403
Country Inn & Suites New Orleans: Great rooms, Great rates
Expedia.com Get the lowest price on hotels with our Best Price Guarantee
Le Pavillon Hotel, New Orleans
Popularity index: #3 in New Orleans based on 429 sources
Le Pavillon Hotel: Photos and direct prices!
Splendia.com Luxury and character hotels. Direct prices from the hotel. Book online!
Le Pavillon Hotel: Save up to 75% on your booking
Booking.com Low rates, no booking fees ! Special internet offers
Le Pavillon Hotel: Hot Deals
HotelClub.com Book worldwide hotel reservations online.
Le Pavillon Hotel: Great Deals Available Now!
Hotels.com Asia Trust the Hotels Experts. 24 hour Customer Care
Le Pavillon Hotel: Experience Luxury Accommodations
LHW.com Leading Hotels of the World -- Every Quest has a Beginning.
Le Pavillon Hotel: Great Deals on Luxury Hotels
PerfectEscapes.com Five-star luxury for less. Our experts review each and every hotel
Le Pavillon Hotel: Save on Hotel + Flight Packages
Expedia Book with Best Price Guarantee. Click or call now: 1-800-240-3403
Le Pavillon Hotel: Great rooms, Great rates
Expedia.com Get the lowest price on hotels with our Best Price Guarantee
Quality Inn & Suites Downtown, New Orleans
Popularity index: #4 in New Orleans based on 60 sources
Quality Inn & Suites Downtown: Save up to 75% on your booking
Booking.com Low rates, no booking fees ! Special internet offers
Quality Inn & Suites Downtown: Hot Deals
HotelClub.com Book worldwide hotel reservations online.
Quality Inn & Suites Downtown: Great Deals Available Now!
Hotels.com Asia Trust the Hotels Experts. 24 hour Customer Care
Quality Inn & Suites Downtown: Book Now - Pay Later!
Venere.com Best Prices & No Cancellation Fees! Hotels, Apartments, B&Bs and More!
Quality Inn & Suites Downtown: Save on Hotel + Flight Packages
Expedia Book with Best Price Guarantee. Click or call now: 1-800-240-3403
Quality Inn & Suites Downtown: Great rooms, Great rates
Expedia.com Get the lowest price on hotels with our Best Price Guarantee
Renaissance Arts Hotel, New Orleans
Popularity index: #5 in New Orleans based on 108 sources
Renaissance Arts Hotel: Great Deals Available Now!
Hotels.com Asia Trust the Hotels Experts. 24 hour Customer Care
Renaissance Arts Hotel: Book at Official Site
RenaissanceHotels.com Distinctive style & attentive service. Book direct & save.
Renaissance Arts Hotel: Ideal stay. Fantastic rates.
Otel.com Don't waste time searching the best deal. What you’re looking for is here.
Renaissance Arts Hotel: Great Deals on Luxury Hotels
PerfectEscapes.com Five-star luxury for less. Our experts review each and every hotel
Renaissance Arts Hotel: Book Online & Save!
Gtahotels.com Official Site-Low Rate & No Extras Save up to 70% on hotel reservation
Renaissance Arts Hotel: Save on Hotel + Flight Packages
Expedia Book with Best Price Guarantee. Click or call now: 1-800-240-3403
Renaissance Arts Hotel: Great rooms, Great rates
Expedia.com Get the lowest price on hotels with our Best Price Guarantee
Le Richelieu In the French Quarter, New Orleans
Popularity index: #6 in New Orleans based on 178 sources
Le Richelieu In the French Quarter: Save up to 75% on your booking, no reservation fee!
Booking.com Save money, buy direct at low prices.
Le Richelieu In the French Quarter: Great Deals Available Now!
Hotels.com Asia Trust the Hotels Experts. 24 hour Customer Care
Le Richelieu In the French Quarter: Book Now - Pay Later!
Venere.com Best Prices & No Cancellation Fees! Hotels, Apartments, B&Bs and More!
Le Richelieu In the French Quarter: Ideal stay. Fantastic rates.
Otel.com Don't waste time searching the best deal. What you’re looking for is here.
Le Richelieu In the French Quarter: Book Online & Save!
Gtahotels.com Official Site-Low Rate & No Extras Save up to 70% on hotel reservation
Le Richelieu In the French Quarter: Save on Hotel + Flight Packages
Expedia Book with Best Price Guarantee. Click or call now: 1-800-240-3403
Le Richelieu In the French Quarter: Great rooms, Great rates
Expedia.com Get the lowest price on hotels with our Best Price Guarantee
Loews New Orleans Hotel, New Orleans
Popularity index: #7 in New Orleans based on 118 sources
Loews New Orleans Hotel: Hot Deals
HotelClub.com Book worldwide hotel reservations online.
Loews New Orleans Hotel: Great Deals Available Now!
Hotels.com Asia Trust the Hotels Experts. 24 hour Customer Care
Loews New Orleans Hotel: Great Deals on Luxury Hotels
PerfectEscapes.com Five-star luxury for less. Our experts review each and every hotel
Loews New Orleans Hotel: Save on Hotel + Flight Packages
Expedia Book with Best Price Guarantee. Click or call now: 1-800-240-3403
Loews New Orleans Hotel: Great rooms, Great rates
Expedia.com Get the lowest price on hotels with our Best Price Guarantee
Prince Conti Hotel, New Orleans
Popularity index: #8 in New Orleans based on 260 sources
Prince Conti Hotel: Save up to 75% on your booking
Booking.com Low rates, no booking fees ! Special internet offers
Prince Conti Hotel: Hot Deals
HotelClub.com Book worldwide hotel reservations online.
Prince Conti Hotel: Great Deals Available Now!
Hotels.com Asia Trust the Hotels Experts. 24 hour Customer Care
Prince Conti Hotel: Ideal stay. Fantastic rates.
Otel.com Don't waste time searching the best deal. What you’re looking for is here.
Prince Conti Hotel: Book Online & Save!
Gtahotels.com Official Site-Low Rate & No Extras Save up to 70% on hotel reservation
Prince Conti Hotel: Save on Hotel + Flight Packages
Expedia Book with Best Price Guarantee. Click or call now: 1-800-240-3403
Prince Conti Hotel: Great rooms, Great rates
Expedia.com Get the lowest price on hotels with our Best Price Guarantee
Homewood Suites New Orleans, New Orleans
Popularity index: #9 in New Orleans based on 100 sources
Homewood Suites New Orleans: Great Deals Available Now!
Hotels.com Asia Trust the Hotels Experts. 24 hour Customer Care
Homewood Suites New Orleans: Save on Hotel + Flight Packages
Expedia Book with Best Price Guarantee. Click or call now: 1-800-240-3403
Homewood Suites New Orleans: Great rooms, Great rates
Expedia.com Get the lowest price on hotels with our Best Price Guarantee
Wyndham Riverfront, New Orleans
Popularity index: #10 in New Orleans based on 66 sources
Wyndham Riverfront: Save up to 75% on your booking
Booking.com Low rates, no booking fees ! Special internet offers
Wyndham Riverfront: Great Deals Available Now!
Hotels.com Asia Trust the Hotels Experts. 24 hour Customer Care
Wyndham Riverfront: Book Now - Pay Later!
Venere.com Best Prices & No Cancellation Fees! Hotels, Apartments, B&Bs and More!
Wyndham Riverfront: Ideal stay. Fantastic rates.
Otel.com Don't waste time searching the best deal. What you’re looking for is here.
Wyndham Riverfront: Book Online & Save!
Gtahotels.com Official Site-Low Rate & No Extras Save up to 70% on hotel reservation
Wyndham Riverfront: Great rooms, Great rates
Expedia.com Get the lowest price on hotels with our Best Price Guarantee
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Read more about New Orleans travel!
TripAdvisor SmartDeals are the best deals on the best hotels in New Orleans. Visit our SmartDeals page.
TripAdvisor's Tourism page has the web's best articles on New Orleans travel.
Our New Orleans hotels page presents hotels ranked by popularity - read traveler reviews and guidebooks.
Looking for things to do in New Orleans? Try our Attractions page!
TripAdvisor's New Orleans restaurants page shows you the best local places to dine.
Visit our New Orleans forum page to ask questions and get advice about New Orleans travel. TripAdvisor forums let you ask questions and get advice - post in our New Orleans forum.
Our Maps, etc. page has maps and other travel information.
Visit our New Orleans discount hotels page for great savings on New Orleans hotels.
Looking for vacation packages to New Orleans? We've got deals including hotel and airfare.
Book a flight to New Orleans on our Flights page.
New Orleans Hotels
www.BookIt.com $79 French Quarter - Save 50% Off Plus Hotels From $49. Book It.
Bourbon Street Hotels
booking.com/bourbon-street-Hotels Book hotels near Bourbon Street No reservation costs. Great rates!
Holiday Inn New Orleans
www.HolidayInn.com Book your hotel accommodations in Louisiana. Official Site.
Holiday Inn Express Hotel
www.hiexpress.com Official Site - New Orleans Hotels. Free Internet and Breakfast Bar.
Discount Hotels
www.Hotels-And-Discounts.com Save on Hotels, Motels & Resorts Call 1-800-276-7415 Or Book Online
Cheap Orleans Hotels
CheapEurope.com/Orleans Compare Hotels In Orleans. Find The Cheapest Hotels Online.
Orleans France Hotels
www.europe-hotelrooms.com Get Discounts on Orleans hotels! Compare Photos, Hotel Info & Rates.
New Orleans Hotels
www.compareonlinehotels.com Up to 70% on New Orleans LA Hotels Compare & Save on Worldwide Hotels
New Orleans Suites
www.LQ.com Official Site for La Quinta Inns. Book Rooms Starting at $49/night!
New Orleans Hotels
HotelsCombined.com/New_Orleans Compare 160 New Orleans Hotels HotelsCombined.com – Save More
Sponsored links *
Hotels (137)
B&Bs / Inns (34)
Other lodging (3)
Sorted by
popularity
hotel name
Drury Inn & Suites New Orleans, New Orleans
Popularity index: #1 in New Orleans based on 134 sources
Drury Inn & Suites New Orleans: Hot Deals
HotelClub.com Book worldwide hotel reservations online.
Country Inn & Suites New Orleans, New Orleans
Popularity index: #2 in New Orleans based on 180 sources
Country Inn & Suites New Orleans: Save up to 75% on your booking
Booking.com Low rates, no booking fees ! Special internet offers
Country Inn & Suites New Orleans: Great Deals Available Now!
Hotels.com Asia Trust the Hotels Experts. 24 hour Customer Care
Country Inn & Suites New Orleans: Book Now - Pay Later!
Venere.com Best Prices & No Cancellation Fees! Hotels, Apartments, B&Bs and More!
Country Inn & Suites New Orleans: Ideal stay. Fantastic rates.
Otel.com Don't waste time searching the best deal. What you’re looking for is here.
Country Inn & Suites New Orleans: Book Online & Save!
Gtahotels.com Official Site-Low Rate & No Extras Save up to 70% on hotel reservation
Country Inn & Suites New Orleans: Save on Hotel + Flight Packages
Expedia Book with Best Price Guarantee. Click or call now: 1-800-240-3403
Country Inn & Suites New Orleans: Great rooms, Great rates
Expedia.com Get the lowest price on hotels with our Best Price Guarantee
Le Pavillon Hotel, New Orleans
Popularity index: #3 in New Orleans based on 429 sources
Le Pavillon Hotel: Photos and direct prices!
Splendia.com Luxury and character hotels. Direct prices from the hotel. Book online!
Le Pavillon Hotel: Save up to 75% on your booking
Booking.com Low rates, no booking fees ! Special internet offers
Le Pavillon Hotel: Hot Deals
HotelClub.com Book worldwide hotel reservations online.
Le Pavillon Hotel: Great Deals Available Now!
Hotels.com Asia Trust the Hotels Experts. 24 hour Customer Care
Le Pavillon Hotel: Experience Luxury Accommodations
LHW.com Leading Hotels of the World -- Every Quest has a Beginning.
Le Pavillon Hotel: Great Deals on Luxury Hotels
PerfectEscapes.com Five-star luxury for less. Our experts review each and every hotel
Le Pavillon Hotel: Save on Hotel + Flight Packages
Expedia Book with Best Price Guarantee. Click or call now: 1-800-240-3403
Le Pavillon Hotel: Great rooms, Great rates
Expedia.com Get the lowest price on hotels with our Best Price Guarantee
Quality Inn & Suites Downtown, New Orleans
Popularity index: #4 in New Orleans based on 60 sources
Quality Inn & Suites Downtown: Save up to 75% on your booking
Booking.com Low rates, no booking fees ! Special internet offers
Quality Inn & Suites Downtown: Hot Deals
HotelClub.com Book worldwide hotel reservations online.
Quality Inn & Suites Downtown: Great Deals Available Now!
Hotels.com Asia Trust the Hotels Experts. 24 hour Customer Care
Quality Inn & Suites Downtown: Book Now - Pay Later!
Venere.com Best Prices & No Cancellation Fees! Hotels, Apartments, B&Bs and More!
Quality Inn & Suites Downtown: Save on Hotel + Flight Packages
Expedia Book with Best Price Guarantee. Click or call now: 1-800-240-3403
Quality Inn & Suites Downtown: Great rooms, Great rates
Expedia.com Get the lowest price on hotels with our Best Price Guarantee
Renaissance Arts Hotel, New Orleans
Popularity index: #5 in New Orleans based on 108 sources
Renaissance Arts Hotel: Great Deals Available Now!
Hotels.com Asia Trust the Hotels Experts. 24 hour Customer Care
Renaissance Arts Hotel: Book at Official Site
RenaissanceHotels.com Distinctive style & attentive service. Book direct & save.
Renaissance Arts Hotel: Ideal stay. Fantastic rates.
Otel.com Don't waste time searching the best deal. What you’re looking for is here.
Renaissance Arts Hotel: Great Deals on Luxury Hotels
PerfectEscapes.com Five-star luxury for less. Our experts review each and every hotel
Renaissance Arts Hotel: Book Online & Save!
Gtahotels.com Official Site-Low Rate & No Extras Save up to 70% on hotel reservation
Renaissance Arts Hotel: Save on Hotel + Flight Packages
Expedia Book with Best Price Guarantee. Click or call now: 1-800-240-3403
Renaissance Arts Hotel: Great rooms, Great rates
Expedia.com Get the lowest price on hotels with our Best Price Guarantee
Le Richelieu In the French Quarter, New Orleans
Popularity index: #6 in New Orleans based on 178 sources
Le Richelieu In the French Quarter: Save up to 75% on your booking, no reservation fee!
Booking.com Save money, buy direct at low prices.
Le Richelieu In the French Quarter: Great Deals Available Now!
Hotels.com Asia Trust the Hotels Experts. 24 hour Customer Care
Le Richelieu In the French Quarter: Book Now - Pay Later!
Venere.com Best Prices & No Cancellation Fees! Hotels, Apartments, B&Bs and More!
Le Richelieu In the French Quarter: Ideal stay. Fantastic rates.
Otel.com Don't waste time searching the best deal. What you’re looking for is here.
Le Richelieu In the French Quarter: Book Online & Save!
Gtahotels.com Official Site-Low Rate & No Extras Save up to 70% on hotel reservation
Le Richelieu In the French Quarter: Save on Hotel + Flight Packages
Expedia Book with Best Price Guarantee. Click or call now: 1-800-240-3403
Le Richelieu In the French Quarter: Great rooms, Great rates
Expedia.com Get the lowest price on hotels with our Best Price Guarantee
Loews New Orleans Hotel, New Orleans
Popularity index: #7 in New Orleans based on 118 sources
Loews New Orleans Hotel: Hot Deals
HotelClub.com Book worldwide hotel reservations online.
Loews New Orleans Hotel: Great Deals Available Now!
Hotels.com Asia Trust the Hotels Experts. 24 hour Customer Care
Loews New Orleans Hotel: Great Deals on Luxury Hotels
PerfectEscapes.com Five-star luxury for less. Our experts review each and every hotel
Loews New Orleans Hotel: Save on Hotel + Flight Packages
Expedia Book with Best Price Guarantee. Click or call now: 1-800-240-3403
Loews New Orleans Hotel: Great rooms, Great rates
Expedia.com Get the lowest price on hotels with our Best Price Guarantee
Prince Conti Hotel, New Orleans
Popularity index: #8 in New Orleans based on 260 sources
Prince Conti Hotel: Save up to 75% on your booking
Booking.com Low rates, no booking fees ! Special internet offers
Prince Conti Hotel: Hot Deals
HotelClub.com Book worldwide hotel reservations online.
Prince Conti Hotel: Great Deals Available Now!
Hotels.com Asia Trust the Hotels Experts. 24 hour Customer Care
Prince Conti Hotel: Ideal stay. Fantastic rates.
Otel.com Don't waste time searching the best deal. What you’re looking for is here.
Prince Conti Hotel: Book Online & Save!
Gtahotels.com Official Site-Low Rate & No Extras Save up to 70% on hotel reservation
Prince Conti Hotel: Save on Hotel + Flight Packages
Expedia Book with Best Price Guarantee. Click or call now: 1-800-240-3403
Prince Conti Hotel: Great rooms, Great rates
Expedia.com Get the lowest price on hotels with our Best Price Guarantee
Homewood Suites New Orleans, New Orleans
Popularity index: #9 in New Orleans based on 100 sources
Homewood Suites New Orleans: Great Deals Available Now!
Hotels.com Asia Trust the Hotels Experts. 24 hour Customer Care
Homewood Suites New Orleans: Save on Hotel + Flight Packages
Expedia Book with Best Price Guarantee. Click or call now: 1-800-240-3403
Homewood Suites New Orleans: Great rooms, Great rates
Expedia.com Get the lowest price on hotels with our Best Price Guarantee
Wyndham Riverfront, New Orleans
Popularity index: #10 in New Orleans based on 66 sources
Wyndham Riverfront: Save up to 75% on your booking
Booking.com Low rates, no booking fees ! Special internet offers
Wyndham Riverfront: Great Deals Available Now!
Hotels.com Asia Trust the Hotels Experts. 24 hour Customer Care
Wyndham Riverfront: Book Now - Pay Later!
Venere.com Best Prices & No Cancellation Fees! Hotels, Apartments, B&Bs and More!
Wyndham Riverfront: Ideal stay. Fantastic rates.
Otel.com Don't waste time searching the best deal. What you’re looking for is here.
Wyndham Riverfront: Book Online & Save!
Gtahotels.com Official Site-Low Rate & No Extras Save up to 70% on hotel reservation
Wyndham Riverfront: Great rooms, Great rates
Expedia.com Get the lowest price on hotels with our Best Price Guarantee
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Read more about New Orleans travel!
TripAdvisor SmartDeals are the best deals on the best hotels in New Orleans. Visit our SmartDeals page.
TripAdvisor's Tourism page has the web's best articles on New Orleans travel.
Our New Orleans hotels page presents hotels ranked by popularity - read traveler reviews and guidebooks.
Looking for things to do in New Orleans? Try our Attractions page!
TripAdvisor's New Orleans restaurants page shows you the best local places to dine.
Visit our New Orleans forum page to ask questions and get advice about New Orleans travel. TripAdvisor forums let you ask questions and get advice - post in our New Orleans forum.
Our Maps, etc. page has maps and other travel information.
Visit our New Orleans discount hotels page for great savings on New Orleans hotels.
Looking for vacation packages to New Orleans? We've got deals including hotel and airfare.
Book a flight to New Orleans on our Flights page.
Who Leaked to The Guardian, and Why?
Earlier today The Guardian reported that it had spoken to “three people with knowledge of the discussion in Obama’s camp” who said the incoming administration would “abandon George Bush’s doctrine of isolating Hamas by establishing a channel to the Islamist organisation.”
The President-elect’s transition team has denied the report, but bloggers of all stripes have been furiously parsing the story. At Newser, Michael Wolff deconstructs it from the media-game angle:
So why should the Brits know this before we do?
Part of message tradecraft has always been to take your message first to the media outlet that will treat you best. You get your story spun with your best foot forward; plus, you get points for when you want to use this particular outlet to positively leak a message again; and, because someone else has already reported it, you’ve dulled the appetite of the other, less hospitable, outlets.
What is novel here is the idea of including foreign media as part of your primary leaking options. This has to do with both the Internet—on the Internet you hardly know if the Guardian isn’t the New York Times—and it has to do with the fact that in the US media for at least a generation there has been no deviation from the conventional wisdom about Israel and the shocked-shocked reaction when anybody tries to say anything different.
Wolff also speculates about the source of the leak:
A further curious element here, however, is that it might not be the Obama approach. It might be the Hillary gambit. It was, after all, the Guardian that first broke the story, just at the moment the American media (especially the Times) was debunking it, that she had clinched the secretary of state job.
What’s the Guardian’s angle here?
Today’s Guardian story also suggests another element of how the media game might now be played. If you make the Guardian an outlet for leaks, it becomes, suddenly, a significant part of the media algebra. Fox after all became part of the Bush administration’s right-wing strategy and official voice. The Guardian, its roots no less foreign than Rupert Murdoch’s Fox, has been trying to build an American beachhead for years. It could become the new, energetic, left-wing voice breaking the code of media conduct on the subject of Israel.
Comments (68)
E-mail this
Print
Share
Linkedin
Digg
Facebook
Mixx
new_york_times:http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/01/09/who-leaked-to-the-guardian-and-why/
Yahoo! Buzz
Permalink
January 8, 2009, 10:57 am — Updated: 11:43 pm -->
Why It’s O.K. for Obama to be Mum On Gaza
By Eric Etheridge
At Contentions, Commentary’s group blog, Michael Totten offers props to Obama for more or less keeping quiet on Gaza for now:
I don’t know what Obama really thinks about Israel’s war in Gaza, but I can guess.
Read more…
Comments (54)
E-mail this
Print
Share
Linkedin
Digg
Facebook
Mixx
new_york_times:http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/01/08/why-its-ok-for-obama-to-be-mum-on-gaza/
Yahoo! Buzz
Permalink
January 7, 2009, 4:38 pm — Updated: 11:52 pm -->
Missing the Forest for the Tweets
By Eric Etheridge
It’s a firmly established idea on the right that Obama and the Democrats have leapfrogged them in the use of the Internet, and that the Republicans must play catch-up. So on Monday, at the debate among the six candidates vying to lead the Republican National Committee, the contenders bragged about the number of their Facebook friends and Twitter followers just as quickly and easily as they did the number of guns they own.
Former Ohio state Attorney General Ken Blackwell (7 guns, 4,000 friends on Facebook, 2,000 followers on Twitter: read his tweets) appeared to be in the lead if all three categories are combined. Close behind was Michigan state party chair Saul Anuzis (2 guns, 3,000 followers on Twitter: read his tweets).
But in focusing on the more familiar social aspects of Obama’s online efforts, the Republicans may be misunderstanding the exact nature of the Democrats’ new prowess. Read more…
Comments (15)
E-mail this
Print
Share
Linkedin
Digg
Facebook
Mixx
new_york_times:http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/01/07/missing-the-forest-for-the-tweets/
Yahoo! Buzz
Permalink
January 5, 2009, 9:37 am — Updated: 11:36 pm -->
Richardson Withdrawal: Well-Timed, Or a Little Late?
By Tobin Harshaw
Barack Obama promised to be a uniter, and his handling of Bill Richardson’s now-aborted appointment as Commerce secretary seems to have had that effect on the blogosphere, in the form of universal displeasure.
“With an almost audible sigh of relief barely two weeks before his inauguration Obama, in a printed statement that won’t provide archival video footage, said he accepted the resignation-before-actually-taking-office ‘with deep regret,’” reports the Los Angeles Times’s Andrew Malcolm. Read more…
Comments (38)
E-mail this
Print
Share
Linkedin
Digg
Facebook
Mixx
new_york_times:http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/01/05/richardson-withdrawal-well-timed-or-a-little-late/
Yahoo! Buzz
Permalink
December 24, 2008, 9:47 am — Updated: 11:29 pm -->
How They Handle Scandal
By Tobin Harshaw
While team Obama’s report on the Blagojevich affair was remarkably spare, Kenneth P. Vogel and Carrie Budoff Brown of the Politico think it provides a roadmap to how the next administration will handle scandals. Here are the “five rules” they have discerned: “Be transparent, to an extent”; “don’t let the news cycle dictate response”; “no freelancing”; “aides take hits to protect the boss”; and “shy away from even justified fights.” Read more…
Comments (69)
E-mail this
Print
Share
Linkedin
Digg
Facebook
Mixx
new_york_times:http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/12/24/how-they-handle-scandal/
Yahoo! Buzz
Permalink
December 23, 2008, 5:43 pm — Updated: 5:43 pm -->
Timed-Release
By Tobin Harshaw
Well, the big report from Obama uber-lawyer Greg Craig on the transition team’s interactions with Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevitch has landed, and you’ll be shocked to learn that it concludes that there are “no indication of inappropriate discussions with the Governor or anyone from his office about a ‘deal’ or a quid pro quo arrangement.”
NBC’s Mark Murray and Chuck Todd think they have an explanation for the timing of the release, late on the afternoon on a day many people have set about their holiday business: “Perhaps the most interesting news from the Blagojevich report just released by Obama’s transition office is that Obama — as well as Rahm Emanuel and Valerie Jarrett — had interviews in the past week with US attorney Patrick Fitzgerald’s office. We later learned that Obama was accompanied by his personal attorney, Bob Bauer.This seems to explain why the Obama team waited until this week to release its report, and why Fitzgerald wanted them to wait.”
Jennifer Rubin at Commentary, however, can only roll her eyes:
I’m not sure whether it’s the 4:30pm timing or the fact that Rahm Emanuel is in Africa that’s my favorite part of the Obama team’s Blago internal review “drop and run” scenario. Really, as others note, the MSM is so placid the Obama team probably could have gotten away with releasing it outside the holiday rush and even answering some questions. But this approach only adds to the “transparency in name only” phenomenon and will irritate a few of the more conscientious reporters. (We note that we already have gone from “no” contacts to “no inappropriate contacts with Blago” with many, many questions remaining.)
The reality is that Patrick Fitzgerald has the tapes. So they’ll get played one way or another unless Blago and all the culprits decide to plead to all the charges Fiztgerald can dream up (meaning everything gets swept under the rug). But that seems highly unlikely.
Meanwhile, this hide-the-ball from the media routine does suggest that, like so much of the Obama administration-to-be (e.g. foreign policy, tax cuts), there is much more continuity with the Bush team than many could have imagined. But in deference to the Bush administration officials, at least they had the nerve to go before the press day after day and take the pointed questions — even on non-holiday weeks.
“The whole scenario comes off a little shady, so why release the report this way if there’s nothing untoward in it?” asks Mary Katharine Ham at the Weekly Standard.
“It will necessarily get less coverage than it would otherwise get, but most of that coverage will question the Obama transition’s handling of the report and rehash Obama’s bumpy response to the breaking of the scandal, in addition to examining the actual contents of the report. Neither the national press nor the American people are much in the mood to find out that their new, fresh pres-elect was involved in any of this (and most evidence suggests he wasn’t, directly), so a fairly clean report would have been greeted with a fairly generous reception, no matter the timing of its release. Releasing it in this fashion casts doubt on the conclusions of the report, Team Obama’s competence, and his reputation as a transparent reformer. Why do that instead of letting Obama spend a couple minutes with the press corps last week, charming them into friendly write-ups about the report?”
Or perhaps he feels things are just a bit sunnier in Hawaii ….
Comments (23)
E-mail this
Print
Share
Linkedin
Digg
Facebook
Mixx
new_york_times:http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/12/23/timed-release/
Yahoo! Buzz
Permalink
December 18, 2008, 9:55 am — Updated: 9:55 am -->
Invocation Frustration
By Chris Suellentrop
If you had “before the inauguration” in your blog betting pool for the date when Andrew Sullivan would turn on Barack Obama, well, you haven’t won yet, but your chances are looking pretty good. Sullivan is unhappy with Obama’s decision to let Rick Warren give the invocation at his inauguration.
“Warren is a man who believes my marriage removes his freedom of speech and cannot say that authorizing torture is a moral failing,” Sullivan writes on his blog for The Atlantic. “Shrewd politics, but if anyone is under any illusion that Obama is interested in advancing gay equality, they should probably sober up now.”
At his new blog for The New Republic, Damon Linker – the author of “The Theocons” and a former editor of First Things – says he understands Sullivan’s disappointment but adds that the choice of Warren is “exceedingly shrewd.” Linker writes:
Warren is beloved by mainstream evangelicals, who have helped him to sell millions of books extolling a fairly anodyne form of American Protestantism. (Pat Robertson or Jerry Falwell he is not.) It is in Obama’s interest (and the Democrats’) to peel as many moderate evangelicals away from the GOP as he can. Giving Warren such a prominent (but purely symbolic) place in the inauguration is a politically cost-free way of furthering this partisan agenda.
Comments (250)
E-mail this
Print
Share
Linkedin
Digg
Facebook
Mixx
new_york_times:http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/12/18/invocation-frustration/
Yahoo! Buzz
Permalink
December 17, 2008, 9:42 am — Updated: 9:42 am -->
Really High Hopes
By Chris Suellentrop
Are African Americans expecting too much of Barack Obama? Emanuel Cleaver, a Democratic representative from Missouri who was also the first black mayor of Kansas City, Mo., writes on the op-ed page of The Washington Post that “Obama will be the first black president, not the black president first.” But part of Obama’s challenge will be to manage “the extravagant expectations of African Americans and other minority groups,” Cleaver says. He writes:
I know something about what Obama faces. In 1991, I was elected Kansas City’s first black mayor. I and more than 400 other African American mayors who served during the most diverse period in the political history of America’s large cities experienced a similar, and understandable, unreasonableness from brothers and sisters who saw in our election an opportunity at last to get a slice of the American pie. Obama will fall short of fulfilling the considerable hopes and dreams of the minorities who supported him, just as we could not fulfill those of ours.
Comments (28)
E-mail this
Print
Share
Linkedin
Digg
Facebook
Mixx
new_york_times:http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/12/17/really-high-hopes/
Yahoo! Buzz
Permalink
December 12, 2008, 7:04 pm — Updated: 7:25 pm -->
Pragmatism, Viewed Pragmatically
By Tobin Harshaw
Any number of leftists have reflexively complained about the pragmatic approach Barack Obama has taken in his transition rhetoric and cabinet appointments. The Nation’s Christopher Hayes, on the other hand, has given the issue a great deal of thought. “Fair enough,” writes. “We get it. He’s a pragmatist. But just what does that mean?”
Hayes continues:
It can’t simply be that he’s comfortable with compromise, willing to maneuver in the world as it is. That goes without saying. The man was just elected president of the United States. Head-in-the-clouds idealists do not, as a rule, come to control the American nuclear arsenal …
In the wake of the 9/11 attacks, “pragmatists” of all stripes–Alan Dershowitz, Richard Posner–lined up to offer tips and strategies on how best to implement a practical and effective torture regime; but ideologues said no torture, no exceptions. Same goes for the Iraq War, which many “pragmatic” lawmakers–Hillary Clinton, Arlen Specter–voted for and which ideologues across the political spectrum, from Ron Paul to Bernie Sanders, opposed. Of course, by any reckoning, the war didn’t work. That is, it failed to be a practical, nonideological improvement to the nation’s security. This, despite the fact that so many willed themselves to believe that the benefits would clearly outweigh the costs. Principle is often pragmatism’s guardian. Particularly at times of crisis, when a polity succumbs to collective madness or delusion, it is only the obstinate ideologues who refuse to go along. Expediency may be a virtue in virtuous times, but it’s a vice in vicious ones.
There’s another problem with the fetishization of the pragmatic, which is the brute fact that, at some level, ideology is inescapable. Obama may have told Steve Kroft that he’s solely interested in “what works,” but what constitutes “working” is not self-evident and, indeed, is impossible to detach from some worldview and set of principles. Alan Greenspan, of all people, made this point deftly while testifying before Henry Waxman’s House Oversight Committee. Waxman asked Greenspan, “Do you feel that your ideology pushed you to make decisions that you wish you had not made?” To which Greenspan responded, “Well, remember that what an ideology is, is a conceptual framework with the way people deal with reality. Everyone has one. You have to–to exist, you need an ideology. The question is whether it is accurate or not.”
I apologize for the long excerpt, but I think the whole thing’s worth a read — in its own right and also to get a grasp on the flowering of intelligent thought it has initiated on the right. For example, here’s Daniel Larison at the American Conservative, taking issue with the contemporary definition of political pragmatism:
Think of it another way: a man of political principles is concerned with using both the right means for the right ends and is willing to let experience inform his assumptions, while the ideologue is indifferent to the means used and willfully ignorant of experience that challenges his assumptions. Any opposition between pragmatism and ideology also seems to me to be misleading from the beginning because what passes for “pragmatism” in government represents adherence to a particular reigning ideology. There might conceivably be some genuine empirically-oriented, sane pragmatism that does not fit this definition, but this is not the pragmatism the political class invokes and it is not the one we are discussing. When a given politician announces his interest in “what works,” we might reasonably interpret this as a statement that he does not intend to overturn established consensus and accepts the constraints and assumptions of the reigning ideology, which broadly speaking means state capitalism at home and hegemonism abroad.
The Atlantic’s Ross Douthat looks at how pragmatism can be used in party unification:
The big question for progressives, I tend to think, isn’t whether Barack Obama ends up draping the language of non-ideological “experimentation” around a succession of proposals that would shift American policy distinctly leftward and make John Dewey smile: He’s already done that. It’s whether the policy shifts he embraces will go far enough to reconcile progressives to the fact that a “non-ideological” liberalism, in our era as in the earlier liberal ascendancy, requires an ideological Left as its foil. In practice, this means that Obama will probably often end up defining himself against progressivism, rhetorically, even when he’s embracing progressive ideas. (See his campaign’s extremely effective health-care ads for an example of how this works in practice.) The President-elect’s ability to hold his coalition together, then, may depend in no small part on whether the Democratic Party’s left wing feels that it’s getting enough out of his Presidency in practice to justify playing the bad guy in the narrative Obama will be selling to the country as a whole, in which post-partisan “whatever works” pragmatism triumphs over ideologues of the left and right alike.
And Douthat’s “Grand New Party” co-author, Reihan Salaam, writing at the American Scene, appreciates Hayes’s point but isn’t sure we have enough evidence to judge the case.
Of course, Obama established his foreign policy bona fides in part by emphasizing that he does not oppose all ways — only “dumb” wars. Which is to say, Obama has no ideological objections to an aggressive foreign policy, one that would involve striking deep into Pakistan if the circumstances demanded it, or taking military action against an intransigent Iran. This could all be political posturing. If it’s not, I think it lends credence to Sunstein’s thesis.
We can all agree, however, that the answer to this question is basically unknowable. Even if Obama has a very long presidency full of consequential decisions, I’m pretty sure we’ll still be debating this question.
So, we’ve got that to look forward to …
Comments (46)
E-mail this
Print
Share
Linkedin
Digg
Facebook
Mixx
new_york_times:http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/12/12/pragmatism-viewed-pragmatically/
Yahoo! Buzz
Permalink
December 11, 2008, 9:23 am — Updated: 10:48 am -->
No Intelligence Re-Design?
By Tobin Harshaw
More stasis we can believe in? “The House Intelligence Committee’s top Democrat said Tuesday he has recommended that President-elect Barack Obama keep the country’s current national intelligence director and CIA chief in place for some time to ensure continuity in U.S. intelligence programs during the transition to a new administration,” reports Congress Daily’s Chris Strom (free link here).
“Intelligence Chairman Silvestre Reyes, D-Texas, said he also recommended to Obama’s transition team that some parts of the CIA’s controversial alternative interrogation program should be allowed to continue. He declined to say what he specifically recommended, however.”
Salon’s Glenn Greenwald has the predictable outrage:
Here’s what is most amazing about this. While virtually all of the Bush agenda over the last eight years ended up being deeply unpopular and profoundly discredited, it was his foreign policy and intelligence programs (torture, rendition, illegal surveillance, war) which caused the most intense opposition, at least among Democratic voters. That is a large part of why Democrats just won their second straight national election promising to oppose Bush’s policies and to implement “change.” It was the policies implemented and overseen by Bush’s Pentagon, CIA and “homeland security” apparatus that caused the most disgrace. “Continuity” in those areas would be nothing less than a patent betrayal of everything Democrats, over the last two years, told the citizenry they intended to do.
And yet, having watched Obama already announce that he is retaining Bush’s Defense Secretary, here we have the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee also urging that Obama keep, for “at least” six months, Bush’s handpicked Director of National Intelligence (whom Democrats excoriated during the FISA debates for manipulating and, as even Reyes himself noted, outright lying to them) and Bush’s handpicked CIA Director (who was, as Obama himself said, the “architect and chief defender” of Bush’s illegal NSA spying programs). Even worse, Reyes is publicly urging that Obama maintain, rather than overhaul, “some parts of the CIA’s controversial alternative interrogation program” — or else we’ll all be slaughtered by the Terrorists.
Town Hall’s Carol Platt Liebau has the predictable plaudits:
Obviously, what Reyes suggests would be good for US national security, and that should be President-elect Obama’s primary consideration. Even so, as the linked piece notes, retaining these men would be controversial with the left, where both are hated — McConnell, for his outspoken support for some kinds of wiretapping of suspected terrorists and Hayden both for having initiated that program and for having supported the CIA detainee interrogation program. (Needless to say, those policies may well have helped protect the US from another terrorist strike over the last seven and a half years).
It took some guts on Reyes’ part to make the suggestion. But it also suggests a certain duplicity on the part of at least some Democrats over the last seven years. They stood by and declined to defend Bush administration policies (presumably for political gain) even though now it sounds as though they are willing to have them continue for some time. In other words, it seems a lot like it wasn’t necessarily that anything was so wrong with the people or the policies — except that they came from a Republican president’s administration.
But Jack Balkin at Balkinization, citing Reyes’s comments and reports that Team Obama is having trouble finding anyone to take the C.I.A. job, focuses on human nature and global parallels:
Reading these two examples, it struck me that they have much in common with the problems of any number of countries transitioning to democracy from a long record of human rights abuses. These examples show how difficult it is for a country that has violated human rights in the past to stop.
On the one hand, many of the people who are qualified for government posts are complicit in the old regime. On the other hand, holdovers from the old regime are pretty comfortable with existing practices, and see no need to make many changes.
It is appalling to think that eight years of the Bush Administration have compromised a good chunk of its country’s intelligence and military experts, as well as politicians from both parties. The past Administration has addicted us to torture, and now we are behaving like a drug addict, denying we have a problem, fearful of a life without the drug, and desperate to avoid the pains of withdrawal.
Comments (29)
E-mail this
Print
Share
Linkedin
Digg
Facebook
Mixx
new_york_times:http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/12/11/no-intelligence-re-design/
Yahoo! Buzz
Permalink
December 5, 2008, 9:00 am — Updated: 9:00 am -->
Pyramid Scheme?
By Tobin Harshaw
Yesterday The Times’s Helene Cooper had the scoop that Barack Obama is thinking of giving a speech from a major Muslim capital in his first 100 days in office.
Ben Smith of the Politico makes an educated guess:
Barack Obama told a group of donors in California early last year that his first international trip would be to Muslim Indonesia, a supporter who was present recalled today.
Obama promised during the campaign to convene a Muslim summit, and the New York Times speculated today on where he would deliver a major, early address to a Muslim audience, settling on Egypt as the likeliest.
The Obama donor, Los Angeles real estate executive Ted Leary, recalled that Obama spoke of his plan to donors at a February 20, 2007 breakfast fundraiser at the Beverly Wilshire Hotel, soon after announcing his run for president.
“Obama told the 20 or so of us at breakfast that ‘his first trip as President would be to Indonesia - the world’s most populous Muslim country,’” Leary recalled.
Most the reaction has been from the right. Michael Goldfarb at the Weekly Standard’s Blog feels there’s only one good candidate:
If one believes that there is some potential benefit to such a speech, and I’m skeptical but open to the possibility, is there a more compelling location for that speech to take place than in Baghdad? Who cares if it validates the war in Iraq? Obama is to be the President of the United States — and he’s already validated the war by packing his administration with those who supported it. In any event, doesn’t Obama now share President Bush’s objectives for Iraq, if not the same strategy for getting there. A speech in Baghdad would be a chance to make bipartisan this country’s commitment to a stable and democratic Iraq. It would be a chance for Obama to assure those Iraqis who were hostile to President Bush and those who fear a new approach. And most of all, if Obama believes that his words may win hearts and minds, a speech in Baghdad could have the effect of saving American lives by further reducing the strain in relations between U.S. forces and the Iraqi people.
Meanwhile, Abe Greenwald at Commentary thinks that no matter where it occurs, the speech is a bad idea:
The global problems generating from within the Muslim world today are so odious and so obviously self-inflicted that any honest speech on the matter would offend and enrage Muslims the world over. At the same time, because of these very problems, a softball speech about Islam’s current role in global affairs would look like cowardly capitulation. If Obama splits the difference and mixes lukewarm praise with lukewarm condemnation, the stunt will be seen rightly as meaningless.
Obama gives great speeches, and this has encouraged an unwarranted faith in the utility of the medium. No matter how dazzling, oratory is the least effective weapon in the counterterrorism arsenal. If anything, a foreign policy speech aimed at resolving the conflict between the West and radical Islam would give enemies hope that the U.S. is shifting to a less proactive stance, and returning to the more symbolic approach of the pre-Bush days.
Comments (26)
E-mail this
Print
Share
Linkedin
Digg
Facebook
Mixx
new_york_times:http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/12/05/pyramid-scheme/
Yahoo! Buzz
Permalink
November 26, 2008, 9:08 am — Updated: 9:08 am -->
Meet the New Boss …
By Tobin Harshaw
Stasis we can believe in? “President-elect Barack Obama has decided to keep Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates in his post, a show of bipartisan continuity in a time of war that will be the first time a Pentagon chief has been carried over from a president of a different party,” reports The Times. “Mr. Obama was expected to appoint Gen. James L. Jones, a retired Marine commandant and NATO supreme commander, as his national security adviser.”
The conservative pundit Max Boot, writing at Commentary, is pleased as punch at Obama’s foreign-policy team:
The only outright leftist in the bunch is Susan Rice, and she is being shunted aside to a post where the premium is on rhetoric, not action. She will presumably be called upon to explain and defend policies formulated by the senior national security team which includes two men who are not Democrats — Gates and Jones — and one woman who is on the rightward side of the Democratic Party when it comes to national security issues (and paid a price for it in the primaries).
As someone who was skeptical of Obama’s moderate posturing during the campaign, I have to admit that I am gobsmacked by these appointments, most of which could just as easily have come from a President McCain. (Jim Jones is an old friend of McCain’s, and McCain almost certainly would have asked Gates to stay on as well.) This all but puts an end to the 16-month timetable for withdrawal from Iraq, the unconditional summits with dictators, and other foolishness that once emanated from the Obama campaign. His appointments suggest that, if anything, his administration will have a Reapolitiker, rather than a liberal, bent, although Clinton and Steinberg at State should be powerful voices for “neo-liberalism” which is not so different in many respects from “neo-conservativism”. Both, for instance, support humanitarian interventions in places like Darfur and Bosnia.
Combined with the moderation of the economic team that Obama has just named, I would say his administration already far exceeds expectations, and he hasn’t even taken office yet.
At TalkLeft, Big Tent Democrat is a bit worried by the symbolism: ” 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.”
While Chris Bowers at OpenLeft is plainly in distress:
If there was one message that Obama ran on loudly, clearly, and indisputably, it is that he was going to bring “change” to Washington, D.C. If Gates were kept on as Secretary of Defense, it apparently would also mean that all of his top advisors would also stay on, and that it all happened because long-time D.C. operatives said it should. Keeping the same guy and all of his advisors at the behest of old establishment types is about as far from change as possible.
Secretary of Defense is the big enchilada. Arguably, due to the vast percentage of federal spending it receives, it is more important than all other cabinet secretaries combined. The President may be Commander in Chief, but it is the Secretary of Defense who is decides how most federal revenue is spent. We need change in the Department of Defense, and keeping Gates along with his entire team of advisors and assistants doesn’t fit the bill.
Greg Sargent at TPM, however, thinks all this conciliation on Obama’s part is the laying of a clever trap:
This is probably too obvious to point out, but the game here is that Obama is working to frame G.O.P. obstructionism in advance. By simultaneously claiming a mandate while approaching Republicans with “humility” and a request for their help, Obama is boxing out Republican opponents in advance, laying the groundwork to cast them as partisan and hostile to the people’s will.
That’s why it’s still lost on yours truly why people are seeing Obama as “centrist” based on his bipartisan gestures and tone or his “pragmatic” staff pickes. This stuff is just about positioning in advance, and the real tell will lie in his actual policies.
Comments (37)
E-mail this
Print
Share
Linkedin
Digg
Facebook
Mixx
new_york_times:http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/11/26/meet-the-new-boss/
Yahoo! Buzz
Permalink
November 24, 2008, 2:16 pm — Updated: 2:17 pm -->
Trickle-Down Optimism
By Tobin Harshaw
“Excellent choice.”
The “choice” in question is Barack Obama’s tapping of the University of California, Berkeley professor Christina Romer to be head of the Council of Economic Advisors.
So who’s the quote from? Is it (A) Greg Mankiw, friend of free markets who held the job under president Bush or (b) Brad DeLong, former Clinton administration treasury official and hero of the left-wing-osphere? Answer: both. (See here and here.)
So, other than Obama apparently making good on his promise to span partisan divides, why are we all so happy? The Politico’s Mike Allen has the backgrounder:
Romer and her husband David Romer, also a Berkeley economist, were both campaign economics advisers to Obama.
In March, National Journal had this précis on the couple: “As professors at the University of California (Berkeley), they are well-known macroeconomists — experts on the workings of the U.S. economy — who jointly hold one of six spots on the academic committee of economists that decides when recessions begin and end. They are both steeped in the history of the country’s economy and have recently produced a series of papers looking at the causes and effects of most of the major changes in tax policy in the last 100 years.
“At the same time that Obama is calling for higher income taxes on people making $250,000 or more, the Romers have found that tax increases are generally bad for economic growth and that they primarily discourage investment — the supply-side argument that conservatives use to justify tax cuts for the rich. On the other hand, the Romers have shredded the conservative premise that tax cuts eventually force spending reductions (‘starving the beast’). Instead, they concluded that tax reductions lead only to one thing — offsetting tax increases to recover lost revenue.”
As does Real Time Economics (with more from Professor Mankiw):
One Obama adviser said Ms. Romer wasn’t known for being confrontational and might have a difficult time dealing with Larry Summers, who will be the president’s top economic adviser and can be intellectually intimidating. The Council of Economic Advisers, on its own, has little political power. Its influence in any administration depends greatly on the persuasive powers and personality of its chairman.
But others, like Harvard economics professor and longtime personal friend Gregory Mankiw, say that Ms. Romer is an excellent public speaker and would likely work well with Mr. Summers and Timothy Geithner, who will be Treasury secretary. “I would guess over many issues they would come together,” said Mr. Mankiw, who was chair of President Bush’s council of economic advisers from 2003-05. “I think the Obama administration has so far put together a very impressive economic team.”
So, everybody happy? Not Melissa McEwean at Shakesville, a blog traditionally known less for its economic incisiveness than for its epithet-laced feminism.
“The tonedeafness, it burns,” she writes about the choices of Summers and Romer and of Ellen Moran of Emily’s List as communications honcho. “I’m a little concerned by the appearance (if not an explicit strategy) of choosing Romer (as part of the economic team) and/or Moran (as a public feminist) to counterbalance choosing Summers. It doesn’t work that way. And, apart from anything else, as Shaker rrp has wisely pointed out, choosing Summers also ’signals a return to the fiscal policies that helped cause the credit meltdown.’ Not good. On multiple levels.”
Comments (19)
E-mail this
Print
Share
Linkedin
Digg
Facebook
Mixx
new_york_times:http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/11/24/trickle-down-optimism/
Yahoo! Buzz
Permalink
November 21, 2008, 12:21 pm — Updated: 12:21 pm -->
America’s Next Top Economist (Cont.)
By Chris Suellentrop
Arnold Kling of EconLog rises to the defense of Princeton’s Cecilia Rouse, whose name has been floated as a potential chairwoman of the Council of Economic Advisers in the Obama administration — an idea that “flabbergasted” the Atlantic’s Megan McArdle, who prefers Austan Goolsbee of the University of Chicago. Kling writes:
Megan knows Prof. Goolsbee better than I do, but my instinct about him is that he may lack a talent for the lateral relationship-building that is necessary to be effective in non-academic organizations.
Ms. Rouse appears to have dedicated much of her scholarly work to studying the returns to schooling. Not surprisingly (were you expecting Obama to name a Charles Murray disciple?), her research supports the proposition that the apparent returns to schooling are not due to ability alone, and that schooling itself has a significant return across all ability levels.
I see no reason to doubt her qualifications for CEA chair.
Add a comment
E-mail this
Print
Share
Linkedin
Digg
Facebook
Mixx
new_york_times:http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/11/21/americas-next-top-economist-cont/
Yahoo! Buzz
Permalink
November 21, 2008, 9:50 am — Updated: 1:15 pm -->
America’s Next Top Economist
By Chris Suellentrop
The Atlantic’s Megan McArdle is discouraged by a National Journal report that Austan Goolsbee, the University of Chicago economist and adviser to Barack Obama, is not a slam dunk to be appointed the chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers in the Obama administration. Here’s the report, by Alexis Simendinger for the Lost in Transition blog for National Journal and Government Executive magazines:
Chicago economist Austan Goolsbee — once the chief economic adviser to candidate Barack Obama — may be less of a shoo-in to chair Obama’s White House Council of Economic Advisers than his admirers once imagined.
The Obama transition team is interviewing to find a woman, perhaps a minority woman, to fill the CEA chair — a Senate-confirmed position. Informed sources suggest the candidates on the CEA list now include Princeton University economics and public affairs professor Cecilia Elena Rouse, whose specialty is labor economics. The hunt for a woman, explained several sources close to the transition deliberations, is aimed at broadening the white-male cast of the White House team assembled to date (the current tally of announced picks is 3 women, 9 men).
Goolsbee, a respected University of Chicago professor, remains in contention for other administration posts, the sources added.
McArdle, writing at her eponymous blog for The Atlantic, dubs herself “flabbergasted.” She writes, “Needless to say, given that Obama’s sterling choice of highest-caliber economic advisors was one of my main reason for supporting him, my regret is mounting faster than ever.” She also says:
More to the point, the worst financial crisis in seventy years is really not the time to see if you can brighten up the CEA offices with a nice, decorative matched set of X chromosomes. Goolsbee has been advising Obama since the beginning; presumably, this is some sort of testimony to the esteem in which Obama holds his competence. Throwing him overboard now makes this look like less of a “plus factor” and more like Obama is much less concerned with competence than painting a pretty picture for voters. Given the stakes, that’s more than a little irresponsible.
(The National Journal report, however, suggests that Goolsbee has been on the outs with Obama for some time: “Goolsbee became embroiled this year in a minor controversy about Obama’s views on trade. After notes from a meeting between Goolsbee and a Canadian government official became public in Canada — suggesting that Obama’s chief economic adviser had winked that his candidate’s trade-pact critiques were less about policy convictions than political maneuvering — the media had a field day. Obama denied the accounts and defended Goolsbee. But by early June, at the start of the general election, he added another policy adviser — centrist economist Jason Furman, from the Brookings Institution — to his team, and Furman assumed the task of communicating many of Obama’s policy views.”)
Tyler CowanCowen, the George Mason economist who blogs at Marginal Revolution, is considerably less worried by this development than McArdle is. “This could be either good or bad news; in any case the goal is to maximize his influence,” Cowan writes of Goolsbee.
And Brad DeLong, the Berkeley economist and former Treasury official under Bill Clinton, was blogging yesterday as if the job was still Goolsbee’s.
The President-elect’s transition team has denied the report, but bloggers of all stripes have been furiously parsing the story. At Newser, Michael Wolff deconstructs it from the media-game angle:
So why should the Brits know this before we do?
Part of message tradecraft has always been to take your message first to the media outlet that will treat you best. You get your story spun with your best foot forward; plus, you get points for when you want to use this particular outlet to positively leak a message again; and, because someone else has already reported it, you’ve dulled the appetite of the other, less hospitable, outlets.
What is novel here is the idea of including foreign media as part of your primary leaking options. This has to do with both the Internet—on the Internet you hardly know if the Guardian isn’t the New York Times—and it has to do with the fact that in the US media for at least a generation there has been no deviation from the conventional wisdom about Israel and the shocked-shocked reaction when anybody tries to say anything different.
Wolff also speculates about the source of the leak:
A further curious element here, however, is that it might not be the Obama approach. It might be the Hillary gambit. It was, after all, the Guardian that first broke the story, just at the moment the American media (especially the Times) was debunking it, that she had clinched the secretary of state job.
What’s the Guardian’s angle here?
Today’s Guardian story also suggests another element of how the media game might now be played. If you make the Guardian an outlet for leaks, it becomes, suddenly, a significant part of the media algebra. Fox after all became part of the Bush administration’s right-wing strategy and official voice. The Guardian, its roots no less foreign than Rupert Murdoch’s Fox, has been trying to build an American beachhead for years. It could become the new, energetic, left-wing voice breaking the code of media conduct on the subject of Israel.
Comments (68)
E-mail this
Share
Digg
Mixx
new_york_times:http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/01/09/who-leaked-to-the-guardian-and-why/
Yahoo! Buzz
Permalink
January 8, 2009, 10:57 am — Updated: 11:43 pm -->
Why It’s O.K. for Obama to be Mum On Gaza
By Eric Etheridge
At Contentions, Commentary’s group blog, Michael Totten offers props to Obama for more or less keeping quiet on Gaza for now:
I don’t know what Obama really thinks about Israel’s war in Gaza, but I can guess.
Read more…
Comments (54)
E-mail this
Share
Digg
Mixx
new_york_times:http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/01/08/why-its-ok-for-obama-to-be-mum-on-gaza/
Yahoo! Buzz
Permalink
January 7, 2009, 4:38 pm — Updated: 11:52 pm -->
Missing the Forest for the Tweets
By Eric Etheridge
It’s a firmly established idea on the right that Obama and the Democrats have leapfrogged them in the use of the Internet, and that the Republicans must play catch-up. So on Monday, at the debate among the six candidates vying to lead the Republican National Committee, the contenders bragged about the number of their Facebook friends and Twitter followers just as quickly and easily as they did the number of guns they own.
Former Ohio state Attorney General Ken Blackwell (7 guns, 4,000 friends on Facebook, 2,000 followers on Twitter: read his tweets) appeared to be in the lead if all three categories are combined. Close behind was Michigan state party chair Saul Anuzis (2 guns, 3,000 followers on Twitter: read his tweets).
But in focusing on the more familiar social aspects of Obama’s online efforts, the Republicans may be misunderstanding the exact nature of the Democrats’ new prowess. Read more…
Comments (15)
E-mail this
Share
Digg
Mixx
new_york_times:http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/01/07/missing-the-forest-for-the-tweets/
Yahoo! Buzz
Permalink
January 5, 2009, 9:37 am — Updated: 11:36 pm -->
Richardson Withdrawal: Well-Timed, Or a Little Late?
By Tobin Harshaw
Barack Obama promised to be a uniter, and his handling of Bill Richardson’s now-aborted appointment as Commerce secretary seems to have had that effect on the blogosphere, in the form of universal displeasure.
“With an almost audible sigh of relief barely two weeks before his inauguration Obama, in a printed statement that won’t provide archival video footage, said he accepted the resignation-before-actually-taking-office ‘with deep regret,’” reports the Los Angeles Times’s Andrew Malcolm. Read more…
Comments (38)
E-mail this
Share
Digg
Mixx
new_york_times:http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/01/05/richardson-withdrawal-well-timed-or-a-little-late/
Yahoo! Buzz
Permalink
December 24, 2008, 9:47 am — Updated: 11:29 pm -->
How They Handle Scandal
By Tobin Harshaw
While team Obama’s report on the Blagojevich affair was remarkably spare, Kenneth P. Vogel and Carrie Budoff Brown of the Politico think it provides a roadmap to how the next administration will handle scandals. Here are the “five rules” they have discerned: “Be transparent, to an extent”; “don’t let the news cycle dictate response”; “no freelancing”; “aides take hits to protect the boss”; and “shy away from even justified fights.” Read more…
Comments (69)
E-mail this
Share
Digg
Mixx
new_york_times:http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/12/24/how-they-handle-scandal/
Yahoo! Buzz
Permalink
December 23, 2008, 5:43 pm — Updated: 5:43 pm -->
Timed-Release
By Tobin Harshaw
Well, the big report from Obama uber-lawyer Greg Craig on the transition team’s interactions with Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevitch has landed, and you’ll be shocked to learn that it concludes that there are “no indication of inappropriate discussions with the Governor or anyone from his office about a ‘deal’ or a quid pro quo arrangement.”
NBC’s Mark Murray and Chuck Todd think they have an explanation for the timing of the release, late on the afternoon on a day many people have set about their holiday business: “Perhaps the most interesting news from the Blagojevich report just released by Obama’s transition office is that Obama — as well as Rahm Emanuel and Valerie Jarrett — had interviews in the past week with US attorney Patrick Fitzgerald’s office. We later learned that Obama was accompanied by his personal attorney, Bob Bauer.This seems to explain why the Obama team waited until this week to release its report, and why Fitzgerald wanted them to wait.”
Jennifer Rubin at Commentary, however, can only roll her eyes:
I’m not sure whether it’s the 4:30pm timing or the fact that Rahm Emanuel is in Africa that’s my favorite part of the Obama team’s Blago internal review “drop and run” scenario. Really, as others note, the MSM is so placid the Obama team probably could have gotten away with releasing it outside the holiday rush and even answering some questions. But this approach only adds to the “transparency in name only” phenomenon and will irritate a few of the more conscientious reporters. (We note that we already have gone from “no” contacts to “no inappropriate contacts with Blago” with many, many questions remaining.)
The reality is that Patrick Fitzgerald has the tapes. So they’ll get played one way or another unless Blago and all the culprits decide to plead to all the charges Fiztgerald can dream up (meaning everything gets swept under the rug). But that seems highly unlikely.
Meanwhile, this hide-the-ball from the media routine does suggest that, like so much of the Obama administration-to-be (e.g. foreign policy, tax cuts), there is much more continuity with the Bush team than many could have imagined. But in deference to the Bush administration officials, at least they had the nerve to go before the press day after day and take the pointed questions — even on non-holiday weeks.
“The whole scenario comes off a little shady, so why release the report this way if there’s nothing untoward in it?” asks Mary Katharine Ham at the Weekly Standard.
“It will necessarily get less coverage than it would otherwise get, but most of that coverage will question the Obama transition’s handling of the report and rehash Obama’s bumpy response to the breaking of the scandal, in addition to examining the actual contents of the report. Neither the national press nor the American people are much in the mood to find out that their new, fresh pres-elect was involved in any of this (and most evidence suggests he wasn’t, directly), so a fairly clean report would have been greeted with a fairly generous reception, no matter the timing of its release. Releasing it in this fashion casts doubt on the conclusions of the report, Team Obama’s competence, and his reputation as a transparent reformer. Why do that instead of letting Obama spend a couple minutes with the press corps last week, charming them into friendly write-ups about the report?”
Or perhaps he feels things are just a bit sunnier in Hawaii ….
Comments (23)
E-mail this
Share
Digg
Mixx
new_york_times:http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/12/23/timed-release/
Yahoo! Buzz
Permalink
December 18, 2008, 9:55 am — Updated: 9:55 am -->
Invocation Frustration
By Chris Suellentrop
If you had “before the inauguration” in your blog betting pool for the date when Andrew Sullivan would turn on Barack Obama, well, you haven’t won yet, but your chances are looking pretty good. Sullivan is unhappy with Obama’s decision to let Rick Warren give the invocation at his inauguration.
“Warren is a man who believes my marriage removes his freedom of speech and cannot say that authorizing torture is a moral failing,” Sullivan writes on his blog for The Atlantic. “Shrewd politics, but if anyone is under any illusion that Obama is interested in advancing gay equality, they should probably sober up now.”
At his new blog for The New Republic, Damon Linker – the author of “The Theocons” and a former editor of First Things – says he understands Sullivan’s disappointment but adds that the choice of Warren is “exceedingly shrewd.” Linker writes:
Warren is beloved by mainstream evangelicals, who have helped him to sell millions of books extolling a fairly anodyne form of American Protestantism. (Pat Robertson or Jerry Falwell he is not.) It is in Obama’s interest (and the Democrats’) to peel as many moderate evangelicals away from the GOP as he can. Giving Warren such a prominent (but purely symbolic) place in the inauguration is a politically cost-free way of furthering this partisan agenda.
Comments (250)
E-mail this
Share
Digg
Mixx
new_york_times:http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/12/18/invocation-frustration/
Yahoo! Buzz
Permalink
December 17, 2008, 9:42 am — Updated: 9:42 am -->
Really High Hopes
By Chris Suellentrop
Are African Americans expecting too much of Barack Obama? Emanuel Cleaver, a Democratic representative from Missouri who was also the first black mayor of Kansas City, Mo., writes on the op-ed page of The Washington Post that “Obama will be the first black president, not the black president first.” But part of Obama’s challenge will be to manage “the extravagant expectations of African Americans and other minority groups,” Cleaver says. He writes:
I know something about what Obama faces. In 1991, I was elected Kansas City’s first black mayor. I and more than 400 other African American mayors who served during the most diverse period in the political history of America’s large cities experienced a similar, and understandable, unreasonableness from brothers and sisters who saw in our election an opportunity at last to get a slice of the American pie. Obama will fall short of fulfilling the considerable hopes and dreams of the minorities who supported him, just as we could not fulfill those of ours.
Comments (28)
E-mail this
Share
Digg
Mixx
new_york_times:http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/12/17/really-high-hopes/
Yahoo! Buzz
Permalink
December 12, 2008, 7:04 pm — Updated: 7:25 pm -->
Pragmatism, Viewed Pragmatically
By Tobin Harshaw
Any number of leftists have reflexively complained about the pragmatic approach Barack Obama has taken in his transition rhetoric and cabinet appointments. The Nation’s Christopher Hayes, on the other hand, has given the issue a great deal of thought. “Fair enough,” writes. “We get it. He’s a pragmatist. But just what does that mean?”
Hayes continues:
It can’t simply be that he’s comfortable with compromise, willing to maneuver in the world as it is. That goes without saying. The man was just elected president of the United States. Head-in-the-clouds idealists do not, as a rule, come to control the American nuclear arsenal …
In the wake of the 9/11 attacks, “pragmatists” of all stripes–Alan Dershowitz, Richard Posner–lined up to offer tips and strategies on how best to implement a practical and effective torture regime; but ideologues said no torture, no exceptions. Same goes for the Iraq War, which many “pragmatic” lawmakers–Hillary Clinton, Arlen Specter–voted for and which ideologues across the political spectrum, from Ron Paul to Bernie Sanders, opposed. Of course, by any reckoning, the war didn’t work. That is, it failed to be a practical, nonideological improvement to the nation’s security. This, despite the fact that so many willed themselves to believe that the benefits would clearly outweigh the costs. Principle is often pragmatism’s guardian. Particularly at times of crisis, when a polity succumbs to collective madness or delusion, it is only the obstinate ideologues who refuse to go along. Expediency may be a virtue in virtuous times, but it’s a vice in vicious ones.
There’s another problem with the fetishization of the pragmatic, which is the brute fact that, at some level, ideology is inescapable. Obama may have told Steve Kroft that he’s solely interested in “what works,” but what constitutes “working” is not self-evident and, indeed, is impossible to detach from some worldview and set of principles. Alan Greenspan, of all people, made this point deftly while testifying before Henry Waxman’s House Oversight Committee. Waxman asked Greenspan, “Do you feel that your ideology pushed you to make decisions that you wish you had not made?” To which Greenspan responded, “Well, remember that what an ideology is, is a conceptual framework with the way people deal with reality. Everyone has one. You have to–to exist, you need an ideology. The question is whether it is accurate or not.”
I apologize for the long excerpt, but I think the whole thing’s worth a read — in its own right and also to get a grasp on the flowering of intelligent thought it has initiated on the right. For example, here’s Daniel Larison at the American Conservative, taking issue with the contemporary definition of political pragmatism:
Think of it another way: a man of political principles is concerned with using both the right means for the right ends and is willing to let experience inform his assumptions, while the ideologue is indifferent to the means used and willfully ignorant of experience that challenges his assumptions. Any opposition between pragmatism and ideology also seems to me to be misleading from the beginning because what passes for “pragmatism” in government represents adherence to a particular reigning ideology. There might conceivably be some genuine empirically-oriented, sane pragmatism that does not fit this definition, but this is not the pragmatism the political class invokes and it is not the one we are discussing. When a given politician announces his interest in “what works,” we might reasonably interpret this as a statement that he does not intend to overturn established consensus and accepts the constraints and assumptions of the reigning ideology, which broadly speaking means state capitalism at home and hegemonism abroad.
The Atlantic’s Ross Douthat looks at how pragmatism can be used in party unification:
The big question for progressives, I tend to think, isn’t whether Barack Obama ends up draping the language of non-ideological “experimentation” around a succession of proposals that would shift American policy distinctly leftward and make John Dewey smile: He’s already done that. It’s whether the policy shifts he embraces will go far enough to reconcile progressives to the fact that a “non-ideological” liberalism, in our era as in the earlier liberal ascendancy, requires an ideological Left as its foil. In practice, this means that Obama will probably often end up defining himself against progressivism, rhetorically, even when he’s embracing progressive ideas. (See his campaign’s extremely effective health-care ads for an example of how this works in practice.) The President-elect’s ability to hold his coalition together, then, may depend in no small part on whether the Democratic Party’s left wing feels that it’s getting enough out of his Presidency in practice to justify playing the bad guy in the narrative Obama will be selling to the country as a whole, in which post-partisan “whatever works” pragmatism triumphs over ideologues of the left and right alike.
And Douthat’s “Grand New Party” co-author, Reihan Salaam, writing at the American Scene, appreciates Hayes’s point but isn’t sure we have enough evidence to judge the case.
Of course, Obama established his foreign policy bona fides in part by emphasizing that he does not oppose all ways — only “dumb” wars. Which is to say, Obama has no ideological objections to an aggressive foreign policy, one that would involve striking deep into Pakistan if the circumstances demanded it, or taking military action against an intransigent Iran. This could all be political posturing. If it’s not, I think it lends credence to Sunstein’s thesis.
We can all agree, however, that the answer to this question is basically unknowable. Even if Obama has a very long presidency full of consequential decisions, I’m pretty sure we’ll still be debating this question.
So, we’ve got that to look forward to …
Comments (46)
E-mail this
Share
Digg
Mixx
new_york_times:http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/12/12/pragmatism-viewed-pragmatically/
Yahoo! Buzz
Permalink
December 11, 2008, 9:23 am — Updated: 10:48 am -->
No Intelligence Re-Design?
By Tobin Harshaw
More stasis we can believe in? “The House Intelligence Committee’s top Democrat said Tuesday he has recommended that President-elect Barack Obama keep the country’s current national intelligence director and CIA chief in place for some time to ensure continuity in U.S. intelligence programs during the transition to a new administration,” reports Congress Daily’s Chris Strom (free link here).
“Intelligence Chairman Silvestre Reyes, D-Texas, said he also recommended to Obama’s transition team that some parts of the CIA’s controversial alternative interrogation program should be allowed to continue. He declined to say what he specifically recommended, however.”
Salon’s Glenn Greenwald has the predictable outrage:
Here’s what is most amazing about this. While virtually all of the Bush agenda over the last eight years ended up being deeply unpopular and profoundly discredited, it was his foreign policy and intelligence programs (torture, rendition, illegal surveillance, war) which caused the most intense opposition, at least among Democratic voters. That is a large part of why Democrats just won their second straight national election promising to oppose Bush’s policies and to implement “change.” It was the policies implemented and overseen by Bush’s Pentagon, CIA and “homeland security” apparatus that caused the most disgrace. “Continuity” in those areas would be nothing less than a patent betrayal of everything Democrats, over the last two years, told the citizenry they intended to do.
And yet, having watched Obama already announce that he is retaining Bush’s Defense Secretary, here we have the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee also urging that Obama keep, for “at least” six months, Bush’s handpicked Director of National Intelligence (whom Democrats excoriated during the FISA debates for manipulating and, as even Reyes himself noted, outright lying to them) and Bush’s handpicked CIA Director (who was, as Obama himself said, the “architect and chief defender” of Bush’s illegal NSA spying programs). Even worse, Reyes is publicly urging that Obama maintain, rather than overhaul, “some parts of the CIA’s controversial alternative interrogation program” — or else we’ll all be slaughtered by the Terrorists.
Town Hall’s Carol Platt Liebau has the predictable plaudits:
Obviously, what Reyes suggests would be good for US national security, and that should be President-elect Obama’s primary consideration. Even so, as the linked piece notes, retaining these men would be controversial with the left, where both are hated — McConnell, for his outspoken support for some kinds of wiretapping of suspected terrorists and Hayden both for having initiated that program and for having supported the CIA detainee interrogation program. (Needless to say, those policies may well have helped protect the US from another terrorist strike over the last seven and a half years).
It took some guts on Reyes’ part to make the suggestion. But it also suggests a certain duplicity on the part of at least some Democrats over the last seven years. They stood by and declined to defend Bush administration policies (presumably for political gain) even though now it sounds as though they are willing to have them continue for some time. In other words, it seems a lot like it wasn’t necessarily that anything was so wrong with the people or the policies — except that they came from a Republican president’s administration.
But Jack Balkin at Balkinization, citing Reyes’s comments and reports that Team Obama is having trouble finding anyone to take the C.I.A. job, focuses on human nature and global parallels:
Reading these two examples, it struck me that they have much in common with the problems of any number of countries transitioning to democracy from a long record of human rights abuses. These examples show how difficult it is for a country that has violated human rights in the past to stop.
On the one hand, many of the people who are qualified for government posts are complicit in the old regime. On the other hand, holdovers from the old regime are pretty comfortable with existing practices, and see no need to make many changes.
It is appalling to think that eight years of the Bush Administration have compromised a good chunk of its country’s intelligence and military experts, as well as politicians from both parties. The past Administration has addicted us to torture, and now we are behaving like a drug addict, denying we have a problem, fearful of a life without the drug, and desperate to avoid the pains of withdrawal.
Comments (29)
E-mail this
Share
Digg
Mixx
new_york_times:http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/12/11/no-intelligence-re-design/
Yahoo! Buzz
Permalink
December 5, 2008, 9:00 am — Updated: 9:00 am -->
Pyramid Scheme?
By Tobin Harshaw
Yesterday The Times’s Helene Cooper had the scoop that Barack Obama is thinking of giving a speech from a major Muslim capital in his first 100 days in office.
Ben Smith of the Politico makes an educated guess:
Barack Obama told a group of donors in California early last year that his first international trip would be to Muslim Indonesia, a supporter who was present recalled today.
Obama promised during the campaign to convene a Muslim summit, and the New York Times speculated today on where he would deliver a major, early address to a Muslim audience, settling on Egypt as the likeliest.
The Obama donor, Los Angeles real estate executive Ted Leary, recalled that Obama spoke of his plan to donors at a February 20, 2007 breakfast fundraiser at the Beverly Wilshire Hotel, soon after announcing his run for president.
“Obama told the 20 or so of us at breakfast that ‘his first trip as President would be to Indonesia - the world’s most populous Muslim country,’” Leary recalled.
Most the reaction has been from the right. Michael Goldfarb at the Weekly Standard’s Blog feels there’s only one good candidate:
If one believes that there is some potential benefit to such a speech, and I’m skeptical but open to the possibility, is there a more compelling location for that speech to take place than in Baghdad? Who cares if it validates the war in Iraq? Obama is to be the President of the United States — and he’s already validated the war by packing his administration with those who supported it. In any event, doesn’t Obama now share President Bush’s objectives for Iraq, if not the same strategy for getting there. A speech in Baghdad would be a chance to make bipartisan this country’s commitment to a stable and democratic Iraq. It would be a chance for Obama to assure those Iraqis who were hostile to President Bush and those who fear a new approach. And most of all, if Obama believes that his words may win hearts and minds, a speech in Baghdad could have the effect of saving American lives by further reducing the strain in relations between U.S. forces and the Iraqi people.
Meanwhile, Abe Greenwald at Commentary thinks that no matter where it occurs, the speech is a bad idea:
The global problems generating from within the Muslim world today are so odious and so obviously self-inflicted that any honest speech on the matter would offend and enrage Muslims the world over. At the same time, because of these very problems, a softball speech about Islam’s current role in global affairs would look like cowardly capitulation. If Obama splits the difference and mixes lukewarm praise with lukewarm condemnation, the stunt will be seen rightly as meaningless.
Obama gives great speeches, and this has encouraged an unwarranted faith in the utility of the medium. No matter how dazzling, oratory is the least effective weapon in the counterterrorism arsenal. If anything, a foreign policy speech aimed at resolving the conflict between the West and radical Islam would give enemies hope that the U.S. is shifting to a less proactive stance, and returning to the more symbolic approach of the pre-Bush days.
Comments (26)
E-mail this
Share
Digg
Mixx
new_york_times:http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/12/05/pyramid-scheme/
Yahoo! Buzz
Permalink
November 26, 2008, 9:08 am — Updated: 9:08 am -->
Meet the New Boss …
By Tobin Harshaw
Stasis we can believe in? “President-elect Barack Obama has decided to keep Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates in his post, a show of bipartisan continuity in a time of war that will be the first time a Pentagon chief has been carried over from a president of a different party,” reports The Times. “Mr. Obama was expected to appoint Gen. James L. Jones, a retired Marine commandant and NATO supreme commander, as his national security adviser.”
The conservative pundit Max Boot, writing at Commentary, is pleased as punch at Obama’s foreign-policy team:
The only outright leftist in the bunch is Susan Rice, and she is being shunted aside to a post where the premium is on rhetoric, not action. She will presumably be called upon to explain and defend policies formulated by the senior national security team which includes two men who are not Democrats — Gates and Jones — and one woman who is on the rightward side of the Democratic Party when it comes to national security issues (and paid a price for it in the primaries).
As someone who was skeptical of Obama’s moderate posturing during the campaign, I have to admit that I am gobsmacked by these appointments, most of which could just as easily have come from a President McCain. (Jim Jones is an old friend of McCain’s, and McCain almost certainly would have asked Gates to stay on as well.) This all but puts an end to the 16-month timetable for withdrawal from Iraq, the unconditional summits with dictators, and other foolishness that once emanated from the Obama campaign. His appointments suggest that, if anything, his administration will have a Reapolitiker, rather than a liberal, bent, although Clinton and Steinberg at State should be powerful voices for “neo-liberalism” which is not so different in many respects from “neo-conservativism”. Both, for instance, support humanitarian interventions in places like Darfur and Bosnia.
Combined with the moderation of the economic team that Obama has just named, I would say his administration already far exceeds expectations, and he hasn’t even taken office yet.
At TalkLeft, Big Tent Democrat is a bit worried by the symbolism: ” 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.”
While Chris Bowers at OpenLeft is plainly in distress:
If there was one message that Obama ran on loudly, clearly, and indisputably, it is that he was going to bring “change” to Washington, D.C. If Gates were kept on as Secretary of Defense, it apparently would also mean that all of his top advisors would also stay on, and that it all happened because long-time D.C. operatives said it should. Keeping the same guy and all of his advisors at the behest of old establishment types is about as far from change as possible.
Secretary of Defense is the big enchilada. Arguably, due to the vast percentage of federal spending it receives, it is more important than all other cabinet secretaries combined. The President may be Commander in Chief, but it is the Secretary of Defense who is decides how most federal revenue is spent. We need change in the Department of Defense, and keeping Gates along with his entire team of advisors and assistants doesn’t fit the bill.
Greg Sargent at TPM, however, thinks all this conciliation on Obama’s part is the laying of a clever trap:
This is probably too obvious to point out, but the game here is that Obama is working to frame G.O.P. obstructionism in advance. By simultaneously claiming a mandate while approaching Republicans with “humility” and a request for their help, Obama is boxing out Republican opponents in advance, laying the groundwork to cast them as partisan and hostile to the people’s will.
That’s why it’s still lost on yours truly why people are seeing Obama as “centrist” based on his bipartisan gestures and tone or his “pragmatic” staff pickes. This stuff is just about positioning in advance, and the real tell will lie in his actual policies.
Comments (37)
E-mail this
Share
Digg
Mixx
new_york_times:http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/11/26/meet-the-new-boss/
Yahoo! Buzz
Permalink
November 24, 2008, 2:16 pm — Updated: 2:17 pm -->
Trickle-Down Optimism
By Tobin Harshaw
“Excellent choice.”
The “choice” in question is Barack Obama’s tapping of the University of California, Berkeley professor Christina Romer to be head of the Council of Economic Advisors.
So who’s the quote from? Is it (A) Greg Mankiw, friend of free markets who held the job under president Bush or (b) Brad DeLong, former Clinton administration treasury official and hero of the left-wing-osphere? Answer: both. (See here and here.)
So, other than Obama apparently making good on his promise to span partisan divides, why are we all so happy? The Politico’s Mike Allen has the backgrounder:
Romer and her husband David Romer, also a Berkeley economist, were both campaign economics advisers to Obama.
In March, National Journal had this précis on the couple: “As professors at the University of California (Berkeley), they are well-known macroeconomists — experts on the workings of the U.S. economy — who jointly hold one of six spots on the academic committee of economists that decides when recessions begin and end. They are both steeped in the history of the country’s economy and have recently produced a series of papers looking at the causes and effects of most of the major changes in tax policy in the last 100 years.
“At the same time that Obama is calling for higher income taxes on people making $250,000 or more, the Romers have found that tax increases are generally bad for economic growth and that they primarily discourage investment — the supply-side argument that conservatives use to justify tax cuts for the rich. On the other hand, the Romers have shredded the conservative premise that tax cuts eventually force spending reductions (‘starving the beast’). Instead, they concluded that tax reductions lead only to one thing — offsetting tax increases to recover lost revenue.”
As does Real Time Economics (with more from Professor Mankiw):
One Obama adviser said Ms. Romer wasn’t known for being confrontational and might have a difficult time dealing with Larry Summers, who will be the president’s top economic adviser and can be intellectually intimidating. The Council of Economic Advisers, on its own, has little political power. Its influence in any administration depends greatly on the persuasive powers and personality of its chairman.
But others, like Harvard economics professor and longtime personal friend Gregory Mankiw, say that Ms. Romer is an excellent public speaker and would likely work well with Mr. Summers and Timothy Geithner, who will be Treasury secretary. “I would guess over many issues they would come together,” said Mr. Mankiw, who was chair of President Bush’s council of economic advisers from 2003-05. “I think the Obama administration has so far put together a very impressive economic team.”
So, everybody happy? Not Melissa McEwean at Shakesville, a blog traditionally known less for its economic incisiveness than for its epithet-laced feminism.
“The tonedeafness, it burns,” she writes about the choices of Summers and Romer and of Ellen Moran of Emily’s List as communications honcho. “I’m a little concerned by the appearance (if not an explicit strategy) of choosing Romer (as part of the economic team) and/or Moran (as a public feminist) to counterbalance choosing Summers. It doesn’t work that way. And, apart from anything else, as Shaker rrp has wisely pointed out, choosing Summers also ’signals a return to the fiscal policies that helped cause the credit meltdown.’ Not good. On multiple levels.”
Comments (19)
E-mail this
Share
Digg
Mixx
new_york_times:http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/11/24/trickle-down-optimism/
Yahoo! Buzz
Permalink
November 21, 2008, 12:21 pm — Updated: 12:21 pm -->
America’s Next Top Economist (Cont.)
By Chris Suellentrop
Arnold Kling of EconLog rises to the defense of Princeton’s Cecilia Rouse, whose name has been floated as a potential chairwoman of the Council of Economic Advisers in the Obama administration — an idea that “flabbergasted” the Atlantic’s Megan McArdle, who prefers Austan Goolsbee of the University of Chicago. Kling writes:
Megan knows Prof. Goolsbee better than I do, but my instinct about him is that he may lack a talent for the lateral relationship-building that is necessary to be effective in non-academic organizations.
Ms. Rouse appears to have dedicated much of her scholarly work to studying the returns to schooling. Not surprisingly (were you expecting Obama to name a Charles Murray disciple?), her research supports the proposition that the apparent returns to schooling are not due to ability alone, and that schooling itself has a significant return across all ability levels.
I see no reason to doubt her qualifications for CEA chair.
Add a comment
E-mail this
Share
Digg
Mixx
new_york_times:http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/11/21/americas-next-top-economist-cont/
Yahoo! Buzz
Permalink
November 21, 2008, 9:50 am — Updated: 1:15 pm -->
America’s Next Top Economist
By Chris Suellentrop
The Atlantic’s Megan McArdle is discouraged by a National Journal report that Austan Goolsbee, the University of Chicago economist and adviser to Barack Obama, is not a slam dunk to be appointed the chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers in the Obama administration. Here’s the report, by Alexis Simendinger for the Lost in Transition blog for National Journal and Government Executive magazines:
Chicago economist Austan Goolsbee — once the chief economic adviser to candidate Barack Obama — may be less of a shoo-in to chair Obama’s White House Council of Economic Advisers than his admirers once imagined.
The Obama transition team is interviewing to find a woman, perhaps a minority woman, to fill the CEA chair — a Senate-confirmed position. Informed sources suggest the candidates on the CEA list now include Princeton University economics and public affairs professor Cecilia Elena Rouse, whose specialty is labor economics. The hunt for a woman, explained several sources close to the transition deliberations, is aimed at broadening the white-male cast of the White House team assembled to date (the current tally of announced picks is 3 women, 9 men).
Goolsbee, a respected University of Chicago professor, remains in contention for other administration posts, the sources added.
McArdle, writing at her eponymous blog for The Atlantic, dubs herself “flabbergasted.” She writes, “Needless to say, given that Obama’s sterling choice of highest-caliber economic advisors was one of my main reason for supporting him, my regret is mounting faster than ever.” She also says:
More to the point, the worst financial crisis in seventy years is really not the time to see if you can brighten up the CEA offices with a nice, decorative matched set of X chromosomes. Goolsbee has been advising Obama since the beginning; presumably, this is some sort of testimony to the esteem in which Obama holds his competence. Throwing him overboard now makes this look like less of a “plus factor” and more like Obama is much less concerned with competence than painting a pretty picture for voters. Given the stakes, that’s more than a little irresponsible.
(The National Journal report, however, suggests that Goolsbee has been on the outs with Obama for some time: “Goolsbee became embroiled this year in a minor controversy about Obama’s views on trade. After notes from a meeting between Goolsbee and a Canadian government official became public in Canada — suggesting that Obama’s chief economic adviser had winked that his candidate’s trade-pact critiques were less about policy convictions than political maneuvering — the media had a field day. Obama denied the accounts and defended Goolsbee. But by early June, at the start of the general election, he added another policy adviser — centrist economist Jason Furman, from the Brookings Institution — to his team, and Furman assumed the task of communicating many of Obama’s policy views.”)
Tyler CowanCowen, the George Mason economist who blogs at Marginal Revolution, is considerably less worried by this development than McArdle is. “This could be either good or bad news; in any case the goal is to maximize his influence,” Cowan writes of Goolsbee.
And Brad DeLong, the Berkeley economist and former Treasury official under Bill Clinton, was blogging yesterday as if the job was still Goolsbee’s.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)