[4Tran]

As far as I'm concerned, one very amusing bit of news is that the Iranian government seems to be more worried by Obama's accomodating approach than by Bush's hard-line posture: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...1300852&s_pos=
The reason for this is most likely that the government would normally be able to blame their internal problems on American belligerence. When that belligerence fades, then it becomes a much weaker excuse.

Originally Posted by SeijiSensei

Gay marriage and abortion are not issues that the Federal government will deal with. The first is largely a state matter, and the second is governed by existing court decisions. I'd predict neither of these will come to a vote in Congress during the next four years. I'd bet the "Defense of Marriage Act" will continue to be Federal law in 2012.

Some types of gun restrictions seem much more plausible. Obama has already said he favors renewing the assault weapons ban, for instance. Still we're only likely to see regulation of the most egregious types of weapons, and perhaps some additional regulations like stricter oversight of sales at gun shows. There's no way the Democrats are going to be taking weapons out of the hands of licensed gun owners despite their fears.

The incoming administration has so many massive problems to tackle, I doubt that either of these issues are going to be particularly high priorities, especially since they will require the expenditure of political capital to pass any legislation on. I get the feeling that Obama would prefer to leave any weapons decisions to municipalities, so it's likely that DOMA and Don't Ask Don't Tell would be repealed first.

Instead of those issues, the priorities after inauguration are probably as follows:

1. the economy
2. reversing Bush's executive orders
3. the economy
4. refocus on foreign policy initiatives
5. the economy
6. addressing the Iraq and Afghanistan wars
7. the economy
8. new energy guidelines and programs
9. the economy
10. work on health care legislation
11. and did I mention the economy?

There is so much that has to be done that I don't know if there's any room for any extra stuff.

Originally Posted by SeijiSensei

Where I see Lieberman's vote mattering most is on filibusters of appointees, particularly nominees to the Supreme Court and other appellate courts like the various Courts of Appeal. Luckily he is pretty liberal on these types of issues despite his more conservative views on military and diplomatic issues. Some of these positions on social issues probably contradict his personal beliefs, especially on abortion which is anathema to most Orthodox Jews like Lieberman. If the Democrats need his vote to move forward the nominations of pro-choice jurists, he'll probably be there to provide it.

Two facets of filibusters that I don't think get enough discussion are that:
if the Republicans want to filibuster a bill then they still have to work up the political capital to do so. Any frivolous use of this power will further weaken their brand and make it all the more likely that certain senators will cast a wary eye on 2010. As for appointments, unless it's some sort of ridiculously politically divisive figure, I don't think that a filibuster is all that likely. Even Supreme Court appointments are likely to pass without much difficulty if qualified individuals are brought up.
a filibuster is unlikely to work on solely party lines. There are enough conservative Democratic senators (the Blue Dogs) that any bill that's seen as "extreme" will get quashed regardless of any majority.

Sure, Emmanuel will be cracking some heads if there's significant opposition to a bill that the administration really wants passed, but he's about as likely to do so whether it's a conservative Democrat or a centrist Republican, so a 60-seat majority isn't quite as important as it's made out to be.

Where Lieberman's retention of his chairmanship really plays is that it sends a fairly strong message: he owes his position to Obama, and Obama is going to expect some compensation. The same goes for the rest of Congress, so the administration is going to have a lot of authority for at least the first few months. I expect the first hundred days to be extremely eventful.

Originally Posted by Vexx

My only comment is that rather than "renew" the assault weapons ban --- they fix it first so it actually *does* what the title says. It was a piece of major junk law (much like, um, the PATRIOT Act and the DMCA .... I'm beginning to think these guys all failed basic writing and they don't read what they sign). The one thing it actually didn't outlaw was .... (ta-dum) assault weapons. A more apt title might have been "The Ugly Gun Ban".... which was pretty useless and stupid but allowed politicians to shout they had "saved the children" again...

Heh. For political reasons, most awful bills have really inappropriate names: witness No Child Left Behind (otherwise known as How to Ruin Public Education).