This is your intelligence community on potato vodka...

Moscow is all gaga over Russian professor, former KGB analyst and foreign policy "expert" Igor Panarin. But elsewhere, he is not generating headlines of the flattering variety by any means. His claim to fame: predicting the U.S.A. will cease to exist as of next year. Apparently, demographic and social trends will lead to civil war as wealthier states secede from the union. Then, the country will split along ethnic lines and foreign powers will move in to claim the smoldering remains. Here's how the process shakes out in this starry-eyed Kremlin fantasy:

Let's recap:

1) South Carolina, Tennessee and Kentucky join the EU, under the same central government as Vermont.
2) Kansas and Missouri (not to mention Colorado Springs) become part of Canada, but Washington does not.
3) Texans voluntarily submit to the will of Mexico City bureaucrats.
4) Utah and Arizona are annexed by China.

Not to mention Alaska and all its oil goes to Russia, who can't even handle the territory it already has. But wasn't this the purpose of the Kremlin's exercise in silly geopolitical daydreaming to begin with?

Now the punchlines virtually write themselves, but I'll make a couple more serious observations under the assumption that this theory is anything but laughable and let you all add the jokes.

First, there are certainly demographic divides within the US, but they are more than canceled out by the economic benefits of a strong central government and nearly nonexistent interstate economic barriers. Meaning unity hasn't been a serious problem for the country for some time now.

Second, any political collapse in the United States would undoubtedly be accompanied by economic collapse. This would cause an alarming rise in instability in all of the countries mentioned as potential colonizers, including and especially the already unstable Russia.

Third, any of the colonial alliances portrayed in that colorful map above would present serious strategic problems for Russia. Most notably, the American east would immediately be the largest nation in the EU and would certainly push the consortium towards a more hawkish stance on Russia's bullyish extortion of Europe regarding natural gas. Also, about the last thing Russia needs right now is a stronger China to threaten its hold on Siberia.

If you've read this far, please feel free to add your jokes in the comments.

President Obama unleashes the fightin' words

For a while, I was worried Obama was too conciliatory to accomplish the true progressive change America needs. That's why I didn't openly support him for most of 2007. And he certainly seemed to be excessively committed to bipartisanship at the expense of effectiveness in the earliest days of his administration.

But that seems to have changed dramatically in recent weeks. Check out the Weekly Address released today (using the Daily Kos version, which is in a more reliable format):



The key quote in my opinion:

"I realize that passing this budget won’t be easy. Because it represents real and dramatic change, it also represents a threat to the status quo in Washington....I know these steps won’t sit well with the special interests and lobbyists who are invested in the old way of doing business, and I know they’re gearing up for a fight as we speak. My message to them is this:

"So am I."

You can read the full speech text at the White House blog.

Why Judd Gregg? A Wacky Idea...

As half policy wonk and half progressive strategist, I have found it absolutely fascinating to try and figure out why the hell Barack Obama does half of the stuff he does. Like a master chess player, he seems to be consistently thinking a few steps ahead of the conventional wisdom, so some of his decisions make little sense unless you try to understand his ultimate goal.

The Judd Gregg pick as the new Commerce secretary is one such head-scratching move. Of course, there is the obvious play of trying to look bipartisan. Sure, we know Obama's made a concerted effort to do that, but Gregg is far from a natural choice when reaching across the aisle. He actually has quite a partisan record and is a renowned government-shrinking budget hawk. Like his former NH-Sen colleague John Sununu, Gregg has remained a relatively reliable Republican vote while his state has lurched hard to the left since 2004. For cryin' out loud, a few years ago Gregg even voted to eliminate the very Commerce Department he is now set to lead! A much better choice for this purpose would be Olympia Snowe or former Sen. Lincoln Chafee. So that probably isn't President Obama's ultimate motive.

Another obvious option is that Democrats want to pick up that all-important 60th senate seat. New Hampshire has a (at least nominally) Democratic governor who gets to appoint Gregg's successor, so it seems like a smart move, right? Well, not so fast. As you all know by now, Gregg made clear that unless Gov. Lynch picks another Republican to replace him, he will not take the cabinet position. So the pick turns out to be placeholder moderate Republican J. Bonnie Newman, who has never held public office. So much for picking up that extra seat (although it will create an open seat in 2010 that looks good for progressive Rep. Paul Hodes). While there is some modest benefit to Obama's political fortunes here, it's not a viable explanation for adding an anti-government Republican to his cabinet.

So here's my theory, which for the record I haven't heard anywhere else. Notice that Gregg voted in 1995 to eliminate the Commerce Department. Notice that the Obama Administration recently announced that the 2010 Census, traditionally under the jurisdiction of Commerce, will instead be reporting directly to the White House. Notice that President Obama has consistently talked about streamlining government and cutting out the waste. So with all this in mind, I believe that Obama picked Judd Gregg because he would be the best guy to dismantle the Commerce Department.

I mean, what does Commerce really do that couldn't be done in any other way?

• Bureau of Industry and Security - move to Dept. of Homeland Security
• Bureau of Economic Analysis - spin off into independent agency like BLS, or incorporate into Treasury
  
• Economic Development Administration & Minority Business Development Agency - move to HUD
  
• Int'l Trade Administration - move to Dept. of State
  
• Nat'l Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration - move to Interior or a new Dept. of Science & Technology
  
• Nat'l Telecom & Information Administration - spin off into independent agency, move to Dept. of Interior or to a new Dept. of Science & Technology
  
• Patent & Trademark Office - spin off into independent agency
  
• Nat'l Institute of Standards & Technology - move into Dept. of Education or move to new Dept. of Science & Technology
  
• National Technical Information Service - spin off into independent agency or move to new Dept. of Science & Technology

Is this a feasible idea, or am I just high on cold medicine? Anyone who works in the Commerce Department, please feel free to flame away in the comments.

Where's That Forest Again? I Can't See Through All These Trees...

From today's Roll Call($):

President Barack Obama drove to Capitol Hill on Tuesday for meetings with House and Senate Republicans, but his bipartisan outreach appeared to hit a speed bump. Still, the reason may have more to do with philosophical differences than partisan politics or “the old ways of Washington.”

Well gee whillikers, perhaps philosophical differences directly cause partisan politics?! But...but...that Darrell Issa is so nice to my Roll Call reporter friends at the cocktail parties. He couldn't possibly really believe all the bat$#!+ crazy stuff he says on the House floor!

Sometimes, the purveyors of Beltway conventional wisdom drive me to wonder if they even try to make logical sense.

The Wonders of Technology

If you're bored at work or something, here's a great way to kill the time. Check out this amazing panoramic photo of the inauguration making its way around the intertubes.

If you zoom in right behind President Obama, you'll see that Justice Clarence Thomas is fast asleep. Classic....and so symbolic!

Another Example of Change

What a day yesterday was in Washington! I hope all of you were able to fully appreciate the mayhem and exhilaration that enveloped the city and the nation on this historic day.

I just moseyed on over to the new WhiteHouse.gov, and the changes from the Bush Admin could not be starker. For example, you can download the official White House blog feed for your RSS reader.

While I'm here, I'll also post the Obama's first proclamation:

NATIONAL DAY OF RENEWAL AND RECONCILIATION, 2009

- - - - - - -

BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

A PROCLAMATION

As I take the sacred oath of the highest office in the land, I am humbled by the responsibility placed upon my shoulders, renewed by the courage and decency of the American people, and fortified by my faith in an awesome God.

We are in the midst of a season of trial. Our Nation is being tested, and our people know great uncertainty. Yet the story of America is one of renewal in the face of adversity, reconciliation in a time of discord, and we know that there is a purpose for everything under heaven.

On this Inauguration Day, we are reminded that we are heirs to over two centuries of American democracy, and that this legacy is not simply a birthright -- it is a glorious burden. Now it falls to us to come together as a people to carry it forward once more.

So in the words of President Abraham Lincoln, let us remember that: "The mystic chords of memory, stretching from every battlefield and patriot grave to every living heart and hearthstone all over this broad land, will yet swell the chorus of the Union, when again touched, as surely they will be, by the better angels of our nature."

NOW, THEREFORE, I, BARACK OBAMA, President of the United States of America, by the authority vested in me by the Constitution and laws of the United States, do hereby proclaim January 20, 2009, a National Day of Renewal and Reconciliation, and call upon all of our citizens to serve one another and the common purpose of remaking this Nation for our new century.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this twentieth day of January, in the year of our Lord two thousand nine, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and thirty-third.

Be Careful What You Wish For...

In my previous post a few weeks ago, I made the case that Republicans seeking to redeem their public image and act in an important minority oversight role should be trying to challenge the nomination of Treasury designate Tim Geithner rather than Attorney General designate Eric Holder. I'm quite happy to see that despite Arlen Specter's hypocritical bluster (probably meant more to help stave off a 2010 primary challenge than out of any higher principles), Holder is virtually guaranteed to be confirmed. Yet I didn't imagine that Geithner might indeed end up being the controversial and embattled high-profile cabinet appointment.

Now I'm still not thrilled with Geithner, and his intimate ties to the failed leadership of Wall Street in the era of excess and subsequent bailouts are troublesome. I would've much rather seen a Paul Krugman, Joseph Stiglitz or even a Jason Furman type in the post. But you really can't credibly argue he's not qualified for the job in a strict resume sense. And I can't say with any great confidence that Geithner isn't the best guy to restore confidence in financial markets, because he certainly knows what he's doing.

So I'm quite ambivalent over the developing controversies that may, but probably will not derail Mr. Geithner's nomination. If we are to trust President Obama (I'm preemptively dropping the "elect" a day in advance), we should want his Treasury pick to be confirmed since he has placed a lot of faith in the man. Unfortunately for me, I'm a skeptical New Yorker - not so quick to trust a favored authority figure. While I honestly couldn't care less about the undocumented immigrant housekeeper (in NYC it's actually hard to find a non-undocumented immigrant housekeeper), I think Geithner's tax troubles are a very serious concern considering the scandal encompass an area directly within Treasury's jurisdiction. If the man in charge of the IRS is seen as a miserly tax cheat who works on behalf of elite Wall Street interests and is staunchly supported by Mr. Obama, it will be that much harder for #44 to make a convincing case that we need to pay more taxes in the name of the common good.

I really hope I'm wrong.