From the NYTimes:

Mr. Obama on his first day in office imposed perhaps the toughest ethics rules of any president in modern times, and since then he and his advisers have been trying to explain why they do not cover this case or that case. “This is a big problem for Obama, especially because it was such a major, major promise,” said Melanie Sloan, executive director of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington. “He harped on it, time after time, and he created a sense of expectation around the country. This is exactly why people are skeptical of politicians, because change we can believe in is not the same thing as business as usual.”

(Emphasis supplied.) The Times story continues:

It's official. Eric Holder is our Attorney General, having been confirmed by a vote of 75 to 21. All 21 were Republicans.

As I wrote earlier today, I'm not expecting much positive change in our criminal justice system. But, if there are any, I'll be glad to report on them and thank both President Obama and Attorney General Holder.

The New York Times today reported on the huge shift that will take place in the Justice Department under President Obama. He will be breaking with the policies of the Bush Administration.

I sat down to read it anxious to get to the part about our unfair crack-powder cocaine sentencing laws, over-reliance on long prison sentences and need for alternative sentences in the federal system, and ending raids on medical marijuana patients and providers in states that had legalized it.

There were none. Law Prof Doug Berman of Sentencing Law and Policy has the same disappointed reaction as me. Of course, I never expected any as I wrote throughout the course of the primaries. But now that change is here, my hopes went up just like everyone else's. And I'm still hopeful there will be some relief.

I had to pick a topic yesterday for my talk at the NORML Aspen Legal Conference in June. (Link not available yet, here's the one for 2008.) I chose, "High Hopes and Modest Expectations: Drug Law Reform under President Obama and a Democratic Congress." Looks like that was a good choice.

Change we can believe in?:

Individually, each charge -- with the exception, perhaps of the until-recently-unpaid taxes on the InterMedia car and driver -- might be seen as not much more than business as usual for a former Congressional leader who has slipped through Washington's revolving door to offer his contacts and expertise to private interests. But cumulatively, they paint a picture of a Washington insider who, at best, has grown negligent about tracking the various forms of compensation he's receiving.

(Emphasis supplied.) So the new Obama slogan will be "Business as usual we can believe in?" Again, I never much cared about all this, but I did detest the sanctimonious BS that got flung around regarding all the "change" we would see.

Speaking for me only

A daily kos diarist, citing Politico, says Baucus To Blame For Slow Daschle Confirmation.

From where I sit, this is one of the few things I can laud Max Baucus (D-MT) for doing. Good work Baucus. Keep it up.

Speaking for me only

The rumors are becoming strong that Sen. Judd Gregg (R-NH) will be the next Secretary of Commerce. The really interesting part of this story is who would replace Gregg. May I suggest that in our post-partisan unity schtick world, a caretaker appointment of Warrent Rudman, as rumored here, would be a brilliant post partisan unity schtick choice.

Rudman would be the equivalent of a vote for cloture on just about every piece of legislation (which means he is part of that whole "60 votes" thing). Heck, you could get his vote a few times to boot. He'll spend two years wailing about "entitlements," but Broder & Co. will love having Rudman around to define "the Center." But the thing is he would be a caretaker (no reelection run for him), so who really cares? This is supposed to be the type of 11 dimensional chess we have been promised that Obama will deliver -- meaningless "reachout" that does not compromise a progressive agenda. We'll see if it is what we get.

Speaking for me only

I've never cared for Tom Daschle, on substance or politics, but I know so little about health care that I have hesitated to discuss whether Daschle is a good choice for HHS. But in light of this news, why in heaven's name should President Obama lift a finger for a guy who basically did not tell him the truth:

President Obama’s choice for health secretary, Tom Daschle, was aware as early as last June that he might have to pay back taxes for the use of a car and driver provided by a private equity firm, but did not inform the Obama transition team until weeks after Mr. Obama named him to the health secretary’s post, senior administration officials said Saturday.

(Emphasis supplied.) In my view, that should disqualify him from holding a post in the Obama Administration. But the President is more forgiving apparently -- the Times reports that "Mr. Obama is standing by his nominee." That seems nuts to me.

Speaking for me only

Samantha Power has a long and distinguished record as an advocate against genocide. In addition, Power is a very sharp foreign policy thinker. She has just been named to a position in the National Security Council. It is unfortunate that this is the title of the news story reporting her naming:

Professor who slammed Clinton will be Obama aide

I became familiar with Ms. Power when she was a supporter of (as was I) and an advisor to General Wes Clark during Clark's 2004 presidential run. Her thinking and instincts were excellent in my opinion. I hope that soon she can transcend the caricature as the "professor who slammed Clinton." It was obviously a terrible thing to have done but there is much more to Ms. Power than that. It is a disservice to Ms. Power that that unfortunate incident is what she is known for. Hopefully, her accomplishments in the Obama Administration will lead to treating that incident as the trivial event it was.

Speaking for me only

Via Digby. Once you open the door, the Blue Dogs run right through it:

[Ben] Nelson (D-NE], a moderate Democrat, is famous for gathering lawmakers from both sides of the aisle in a so-called "Gang of 14" to avert a shutdown of the Senate over judicial nominations. He is seeking a similar bipartisan effort to improve the stimulus bill. . . . Susan Collins, R-Maine, a moderate who was a member of the original "Gang" and a close friend of Nelson's from their time on the Senate Armed Services Committee, got an invite, as has Sen. Bob Corker, R-Tenn., Nelson's energy compromise group colleague. On the Democratic side, Nelson has reached out to Sen. Claire McCaskill, D-Mo., a strong ally of President Obama, as well as Sen. Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn., and freshman Sen. Mark Warner, D-Va.

Good luck with the unity thing President Obama.

Speaking for me only

The bad news continues:

The economy shrank at a 3.8 percent pace at the end of 2008, the worst showing in a quarter-century, as the deepening recession forced consumers and businesses to throttle back spending. The new figure, released Friday by the Commerce Department, showed the economy sinking at a much faster clip in the October-December period than the 0.5 percent decline logged in prior quarter.

This information makes clear that the stimulus plan proposed by the Obama Administration is simply inadequate for the crisis we face. Unlike in other recessions, the instruments of monetary policy are not available. As the NYTimes reports (and as Krugman has been explaining for months now (google liquidity trap + Krugman)), Fed rates are already at virtual zero. We need a huge fiscal stimulus in excess of a trillion dollars. The Obama plan is entirely too timid. In my opinion, it will fail.

Speaking for me only

The NYTimes story on the refusal of a military commissions judge to abide by President Obama's executive order halting all military commissions proceedings raises the level of importance of this situation. Indeed, the article raises some very worrisome possibilities:

[S]ome critics of the military commission system said the decision appeared to express the views of military officers who would like to complicate the Obama administration’s efforts to close Guantánamo and, possibly, abandon the military commission system.

Anthony D. Romero, the executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union, who has praised President Obama’s early actions on Guantánamo, said the ruling in the Nashiri case had raised questions about whether the Pentagon would resist the administration’s efforts.

[(Emphasis supplied.) More . . .]

Women's health advocates were dismayed this week to see the removal of family-planning aid from Congress' economic recovery bill after a push by Republicans to politicize a generally cut-and-dry issue of Medicaid waivers. (Time has some good background here.) But the dismay may not last long. A source present at today's White House signing ceremony for the Lilly Ledbetter bill tells me that President Obama gave assurances that the family planning aid would be done soon -- perhaps as soon as next week, when the House is set to take up a spending bill that would keep the government funded until October.