Pete Abel reports for The Moderate Voice that ‘Obama Transition Team Co-Chair John Podesta’s letter to the relevant committee chairs and ranking members (Sens. Rockefeller and Hutchison, Reps. Waxman and Barton) — requesting a delay in the scheduled transition from analog to digital broadcasting — strikes [him] as the ultimate CYA move.’
He explains that he works for a company that ‘has a stake in the transition.’ He continues:: ‘More than a year ago, one of my bosses and I were in DC chatting with one of the Democratic staffers on one of the Commerce committees. I don’t recall if it was House or Senate, but I do recall what the staffer expressly told us: Democratic leadership was in lock-step agreement that there would be no delay. The clearly implied reason was that the Democrats expected one of their own to be president in ‘09, and they wanted him/her to be in position to blame any transition problems on the prior Republican majority, including the aforementioned Rep. Barton, who was House Commerce Chair at the time the law in question was passed.’
This means that ‘Podesta’s letter is a CYA gesture, signaling that if Obama assigns blame, it’s going to be on the more immediate target, the Democratic Congress now in charge, for failing to act on the incoming administration’s plea for more time.’
It is interesting to me that politicians are so obsessed with playing politics that they cannot help themselves but to play these games; even when there is no need to.
This website uses IntenseDebate comments, but they are not currently loaded because either your browser doesn't support JavaScript, or they didn't load fast enough.
Comments are closed.
PoliGazette Comments Policy
PoliGazette encourages comments from all viewpoints, especially those that disagree.
Comments submitted must, however, adhere to the following standards. Comments that violate
these standards may be edited or deleted without notice at the sole discretion of the editors.
Commenters who repeatedly or egregiously violate these standards or who attempt to argue
publicly with editors regarding the comments policy may be banned from commenting further.
(1) Comments should address the substantive content of the post. Comments that repeatedly
or blatantly misrepresent the content of the post or of others' comments are not welcome. Comments that
respond to something other than which the contributor or commenter may have said are irrelevant and should
not be posted.
(2) Comments should avoid vulgarity as well as racial, ethnic, religious, or sexual bigotry.
(3) Comments should not personally attack the character, personal integrity, or professional
reputation of any PoliGazette contributor or of other commenters.
(4) Comments should reflect the contributions of the commenters themselves and should not
include extensive cut-and-paste reproductions of others' words except insofar as necessary to supplement
the commenter's own arguments. Link spam, trackback spam, and propaganda spam will be instantly deleted.
(5) Public figures are considered open to all substantive criticism of their policies and statements.
Comments that present objectively false factual information about public figures (i.e. "Obama is a Muslim") or
that attack public figures by attacking their families are not welcome. Comments that merely repeat
slogans for or against a candidate without engaging in substantive comment are not welcome.
Questions or challenges to these policies or their application should be directed to the editors
by email only.
