BillPascoe.net

Memo to Rick Perry: Rules for Victory in a Debate

anonymous — Fri, 30 Sep 2011 12:09:00 CST

Your performance in the last two debates has fallen short of expectations.

Herewith, some thoughts on how to improve your performance in future debates.

Begin with a simple proposition: “Victory” in political debates is rarely achieved by the candidate who confines himself to concentrating on putting forth the most logical and compelling intellectual argument.

Victory is achieved, rather, by the candidate who does the best job of relating to the audience on an emotional level, making the audience feel as if he/she is the candidate who best understands their concerns and is most committed to working for their best interests. Victory is determined by an emotional response in the gut of the audience, rather than by an intellectual response in the mind of the audience. The heart, not the head, is the proper target.

This is not to suggest, however, that ideology plays no role in winning or losing debates; in fact, ideological contrasts, when used properly, can provide the winning contrast – but only when used to demonstrate an emotional connection, rather than intellectual or logical superiority. That is, ideological distinctions and contrasts should be used to demonstrate that one candidate “gets it,” or the other candidate is “out of touch” or “out of the mainstream,” rather than just being used to argue a position on an intellectual level.

This is the basis for the following Rules for Victory.

Of Balanced Budget Amendments: Which, and When?

anonymous — Fri, 30 Sep 2011 02:09:00 CST

House Republican leaders face two crucial choices in the coming days, as they prepare to bring to the floor a constitutional amendment requiring a balanced federal budget.

The first choice is simple – which, of the several versions offered, will they choose to bring to the floor?

The second choice is even simpler – when will they schedule the vote?

The choices are simple, but the choosing is complex. The right decisions could yield significant political victories in elections to come, and make easier the long-term effort to maximize individual liberty by reducing federal spending over the long term; the wrong decisions could allow Harry Reid to snatch victory from the jaws of defeat, and make decidedly more difficult the longer term effort to bring federal spending under control.

Let’s back up a bit.

In order to win the support of enough conservative members of the House GOP Conference to pass the debt ceiling extension two months ago, congressional leaders had to agree to insert a provision requiring, as a matter of law, that both chambers vote on a Balanced Budget Amendment sometime between October 1 and December 31.

But nowhere in the provision is mention made of which particular BBA will be voted on. Similarly, neither is there any provision requiring that each chamber vote on the same BBA. Finally, neither is there any provision indicating which body should take up the measure first.

Thus the need for some solid strategery.

Pennsylvania Republicans Playing with Fire

anonymous — Thu, 22 Sep 2011 00:09:00 CST

Pennsylvania Republicans are playing with fire.

To be more specific, Pennsylvania Republicans – led by state Senate Majority Leader Dominic Pileggi, with, according to recent news reports, the support of Gov. Tom Corbett – are considering a significant change to the method by which the state awards its Electoral votes.

Under a proposal currently before the state legislature, Pennsylvania would award two Electoral votes to the winner of the statewide popular vote, then would award one Electoral vote for each congressional district won by a candidate for President.

Let’s put that in context. In the 2008 contest, Democrat Barack Obama won the statewide vote by about 620,000 votes, and won nine of Pennsylvania’s congressional districts – the 1^st, 2^nd, 6^th, 7^th, 8^th, 13^th, and 15^th (all found in the Philadelphia media market); the 14^th (in the Pittsburgh market); and the 11^th (in the Northeast Pennsylvania market). Republican John McCain won the remaining 10 congressional districts.

So had this scheme been in place in 2008, Obama would have won just 11 of Pennsylvania’s Electoral votes, rather than all 21, and the remaining 10 Electoral votes would have gone to GOP nominee John McCain.

Given Obama’s statewide 54-44 percent victory over McCain, one can see how an 11-10 split, rather than 21-0, would appear attractive to Keystone State Republicans. It would, they would argue, have been “more fair.”

But let’s be honest: Partisans (of both parties) aren’t interested in “fairness,” they’re interested in an advantage. They only cite the “fairness” argument when it serves their partisan interest.

Their longer-range strategic thinking is simple: Pennsylvania hasn’t awarded an Electoral vote to a Republican presidential nominee since Ronald Reagan was President, and shifting to winner-by-congressional district would mean that future GOP presidential nominees would stand to split Pennsylvania’s vote and pick up at least a share of its Electoral College bounty.

Too, a clear (if unremarked upon) advantage of moving to such a system would be to reduce the benefit of vote fraud. There’d be less need to manufacture 100,000 “extra” votes in Philadelphia, for instance, if the size of the statewide prize were reduced. And that could positively impact GOP hopes in other statewide races that take place at the same time as a presidential contest – say, for instance, the upcoming 2012 U.S. Senate contest between incumbent Democrat Bob Casey Jr. and whomever the GOP nominates.

Democrats, not surprisingly, are in high dudgeon. But because they are in the minority in the Pennsylvania legislature – they are down by 112-91 in the lower chamber, and by 30-20 in the upper – and because the GOP controls the Governorship, it really doesn’t matter much what Democrats in Pennsylvania have to say.

But what about Republicans? Is it possible that while the maneuver could produce short-term gains, it would produce longer-term losses? Could the Law of Unintended Consequences – the one law that cannot be repealed – wreak havoc down the road?

Ask some GOP members of the state’s congressional delegation, and you’ll get a resounding “Yes!”

"Prime Minister Netanyahu? It's the White House Calling."

anonymous — Thu, 15 Sep 2011 00:09:00 CST

Perhaps it’s a bit of a stretch to suggest that the tidal wave that broke in New York’s 9^th Congressional District last night actually washed up on the South Lawn of the White House, but … perhaps it’s not.

Democratic nominee David Weprin’s loss will, no doubt, be spun by the President’s allies as a function of a poorly run, gaffe prone campaign, and that Weprin ran a gaffe prone campaign, no doubt, is true; but it is also clearly true that the Jewish voters who make up approximately a third of the district’s vote used their votes to send a message to the White House regarding what they view as the President’s weakness toward Israel.

So while others draw large conclusions about next year’s races for control of the House from small data points, I’m going to draw even larger conclusions – or, at least, raise an even larger question.

To wit: When Democrats running an Orthodox Jew with a fantastic Democrat political pedigree in the fourth most heavily Jewish congressional district in the nation, where registered Democrats outnumber registered Republicans by almost 3-to-1, cannot hold a seat they’ve held since 1922, it seems fair at least to ask: What does this mean for Florida, the presidential Battleground State with the third-highest percentage of Jewish voters in the nation?

Reagan to McCain: No, John, on Libya You Are Wrong

anonymous — Wed, 29 Jun 2011 02:06:00 CST

Despite the best efforts of the few remaining loyalists of the Bushioisie, former President George W. Bush’s “freedom agenda” – and, more specifically, its willingness to put U.S. armed forces in harm’s way absent a clear threat to U.S. vital interests – is going the way of the dodo.

This became clear at last week’s GOP presidential debate in New Hampshire, when none of the candidates on stage spoke in universal terms about the felicity of American efforts at nation building. Instead, the assembled candidates took turns challenging the propriety of Barack Obama’s undeclared war in Libya, and raising larger questions about Obama’s support for nation building abroad.

Sadly, some members of the GOP establishment still haven’t gotten the message.

Appearing on Sunday’s “ABC This Week,” Sen. John McCain revealed how shockingly little he knows about the man who reshaped his party – and the world – Ronald Reagan.

“I wonder what Ronald Reagan would be saying today?” asked McCain, challenging what he termed the “isolationism” of leading members of the GOP for daring to question Obama’s Libya engagement.

McCain then went on to answer his own question:

“He would be saying that's not the Republican Party of the 20th century and now the 21st century. That is not the Republican Party that has been willing to stand up for freedom for people for all over the world, whether it be in Grenada, that Ronald Reagan had a quick operation about, or whether it be in our enduring commitment to countering the Soviet Union.”

About which, horse feathers.

On Taxes, Never Let the Urgent Overwhelm the Important

anonymous — Wed, 15 Dec 2010 16:12:00 CST

"Never let the urgent overwhelm the important."

That's one of the most important axioms on which sound political strategy is crafted.

But in looking at GOP acceptance of Barack Obama's tax "compromise" -- a compromise that really compromises nothing so much as their promise to stop the out-of-control spending on which they were elected -- one can see that GOP congressional leaders have failed to adhere to this fundamental axiom.

The premise driving (the admittedly tepid) GOP support for the Obama tax deal is simple -- either we swallow this deal now, or we get no deal at all. And if we get no deal at all, then everyone's taxes will go up on January 1, and the already-weak economy will go into a tail spin.

Admittedly, the prospect of a double-dip recession is a scary thought. But it requires that you accept the premise that it's this deal or no deal.

In order to accept this premise -- and, consequently, one's view of the necessary and proper actions that flow from it -- one must, perforce, accept the premise that one of two things will be true in three weeks, when Republicans take control of the House in the 112th Congress and significantly strengthen their numbers in the Senate:

Either Barack Obama will veto a better deal ("better" meaning that the two-year extension of the current tax rates would become a permanent extension, for example, and that extension of unemployment benefits will be paid for, and that the Death Tax will be zeroed out entirely) ... or that Harry Reid (who will still, after all, control the Senate floor as Majority Leader) will not allow a better deal to pass the Senate.

So, do either of these premises stand up to scrutiny?

I think not.

Let's look at the second premise first.

If You Want To Be a Leader ... LEAD.

anonymous — Thu, 9 Dec 2010 12:12:00 CST

Question: What do Sarah Palin, Mitt Romney, Mike Huckabee, Newt Gingrich, Tim Pawlenty, Haley Barbour, Mitch Daniels, John Thune, and Rick Santorum have in common?

Answer: Apparently, all have been moved to a secure undisclosed location since the announcement Monday night of Barack Obama's so-called "compromise" tax deal. Not a peep has been heard from any Republican supposedly considering a run for the 2012 GOP presidential nomination. For more than sixty hours, they have remained silent.

Note to would-be leaders: The first one to go public in opposition to this "deal" is going to be on wall-to-wall cable TV, and -- given that Tea Party leaders have announced their opposition to the "deal" -- will earn major street cred with some voter groups that are going to have something to say about the 2012 nomination you seek.

In shorter, sweeter terms: If you want to be a leader ... lead.

Has Obama Baited a Trap ... for Republicans?

anonymous — Thu, 9 Dec 2010 09:12:00 CST

Could it be that Barack Obama has just baited a trap ... for Republicans?

While all the sturm und drang on his tax "compromise" so far seems to be coming from the Left, I can't help but wonder if this deal works far more to his benefit (and the Left's) than to conservatives'.

The key to understanding the deal from Obama's point of view, of course, is the prism of 2012, when he, presumably, runs for reelection.

Assuming the deal goes through as written, then one of two things will be true in 2012:

Either the economy will have recovered at least enough for him to claim a true Recovery Summer -- in which case he, as President, with the largest bully pulpit known to man and a compliant press corps still shilling for him, will get the lion's share of the credit ("Look! He changed the way Washington works! He reached across the aisle for the good of the country, and it worked!"), and will be well-positioned for a strong reelection effort;

Or ... the economy will not have recovered, in which case he will be in a position to make the argument that he, in the service of the common good, "did the right thing" by reaching across the aisle to compromise with the hostage-takers in the GOP leadership and "tried it their way" -- but "their way" didn't work. Which, again, would leave him in a stronger position for reelection ... with the added benefit that he would have done serious damage to the fundamental conservative principle that allowing more money to remain in the hands of the private sector is a surer path to economic growth than letting government direct its spending.

The key to the trap lies in the fact that the extension of the current tax rates for all is only temporary.

I have yet to find a single conservative economic voice willing to say that a two-year extension of the current rates will provide a significant supply-side effect to boost job creation.

But does the public understand the vagaries of supply-side economics well enough to understand that a mere two-year extension just isn't long enough to warrant the kind of major investment necessary to kick-start economic growth?

The betting here is, no, the public does not.

And the public's understanding will not be helped by the mainstream media -- themselves still no fans of the supply-side, because they are still no fans of Ronald Reagan -- which will run endless stories about how the "Bush tax cuts for the rich," even when continued, have failed to create jobs.

What's even more puzzling is that in exchange for a continuation of the status quo on income tax rates, Republicans conceded major ground on the death tax -- which, under the deal, rises from its current rate of zero percent to 35 percent -- and on an unpaid-for 13-month extension of unemployment benefits.

And because the total cost of the package is estimated to be $900 billion -- even larger than Obama's original stimulus package -- without any offsetting spending cuts, Republicans will have raised serious questions about their integrity in the minds of the Independents who just voted them back into office based largely on GOP promises that yes, they really got it, and they understand that the spending train has just got to stop.

Seems to me Obama gets the long end of the stick on this "compromise" no matter how it turns out, and conservatives the short end.

On Lame Ducks, Oscar Wilde, and Lawrence O'Donnell

anonymous — Tue, 9 Nov 2010 22:11:00 CST

Life, said the Irish playwright Oscar Wilde, imitates art.

But even Wilde would have been struck by the irony of the current liberal Democratic administration seeking to move an arms control treaty through a lame duck Senate still heavily controlled by its own partisans, rather than wait for consideration in the new, less Democrat-heavy Senate.

What's ironic about that, you ask? On its own, nothing much -- except that it is, virtually verbatim, the plot of "The Lame Duck Congress," the sixth episode of Season Two of "The West Wing," every liberal politico's favorite television drama.

That episode aired exactly ten years ago this week -- on November 8, 2000, to be exact -- and a quick review of its plot reveals the irony.

In "Lame Duck," President Jed Bartlet's high command plots to bring up for ratification in a lame duck session a comprehensive nuclear test ban treaty the Senate had previously failed to ratify. The high command's thinking is simple: Senators who previously had feared to vote for ratification out of concern that it would put them cross-ways with their constituents are now -- having been defeated for reelection -- free to "vote their consciences" without fear of electoral repercussions. You can't kill a man twice, after all.

But as the high command scurries to implement its oh-so-clever strategy and expand what it believes is its firm legislative base, it encounters resistance, and then learns that it has problems in its own backyard -- a previous supporter of the treaty ratification has now become an opponent.

A meeting with the Senator who's been leading the fight for treaty ratification reveals the identity of the opponent -- why, the dastardly turncoat is none other than the treaty's lead sponsor!

The Leninist Strategy To Repeal Obamacare

anonymous — Wed, 20 Oct 2010 00:10:00 CST

From the, admittedly, cart-before-the-horse file:

What to do about repealing Obamacare?

Specifically, what should be the strategy employed by Republicans next year -- following the wave election that will return them to control of the House of Representatives and, possibly, the Senate -- in re: living up to their promises to repeal the government takeover of healthcare enacted earlier this year?

There are two main schools of thought, and each has its advantages and disadvantages.

The first school of thought says that if you want to repeal the whole bill, you repeal the whole bill. No ifs, ands, or buts. The whole schebang.

As a corollary, any effort to repeal the individual constituent parts of Obamacare -- to the extent they may be successful -- will only leave the remaining bits of Obamacare less distasteful and, therefore, more difficult to repeal down the road.

This is classic revolutionary thinking -- as Lenin put it, "the worse, the better." The longer the citizenry has to live under Obamacare, the greater will be the distaste for it. So don't make it easier to swallow, allow it to go down like castor oil without sugar.

The second school of thought says if you want to repeal the whole bill, you can certainly try with a comprehensive bill, but you must recognize that you may have to do it one piece at a time -- as the old saw says, you eat an elephant one bite at a time.

So moving a comprehensive repeal bill through the Congress to the President's desk is a key part of the second strategy, but only a part; after the certain failure of the comprehensive repeal bill, suggests the second strategy, bills repealing the individual constituent parts of Obamacare should be moved to the floor. Moreover, because Congress has the power of the purse, refusing to fund Obamacare can and should be a part of the strategy.

Of course, neither strategy will work entirely in the 112th Congress, because even if comprehensive or piecemeal repeal could be maneuvered through the Senate, either or both would meet a certain death at the hands of the Obama veto pen.

So the simple fact is, in order to repeal Obamacare fully, one would have to create a new mandate for repeal in an election where a President willing and wanting to sign repeal legislation can be elected. And that won't happen for at least another two years.

To the advantages and disadvantages:

Mourning in America

anonymous — Wed, 22 Sep 2010 02:09:00 CST

Ronald Reagan proved that strong, principled leadership -- based on a belief in the traditional American values of individual liberty and limited government -- could lead a nation out of tough economic times and into a boom that lasted for more than two decades.

That was the thinking that underlay "Better, Prouder, Stronger," the centerpiece advertisement of the fabled "Morning in America" ad series that so brilliantly captured the zeitgeist of the Reagan era.

What made Reagan such a great leader was that he believed in the American people. He knew that if only the government would get out of the way, the people would do the rest.

"No crisis is beyond the capacity of our people to solve; no challenge too great," he said. And he believed it.

Health Care: The Missing Issue

anonymous — Fri, 27 Aug 2010 00:08:00 CST

Republicans, it is said, never muff a chance to muff a chance.

As regards the state of play with the healthcare issue as we approach the 2010 mid-term elections, a skeptic could be forgiven for believing that that adage still rings true.

Given a political gift by their opponents in the form of an unpopular 2,300-page bill that was rammed through the Congress -- with nary a single Republican vote -- in a manner that laid bare for the world to see the ugliest form of legislative log-rolling and deal-making in our lifetimes, Republicans have, so far, failed to make healthcare one of the essential points of contrast between themselves and their opponents.

Oh, to be sure, individual GOP campaigns here and there have aired advertisements contrasting GOP challengers with Democratic incumbents who voted for the bill; but to the extent most of these campaigns bring up the healthcare issue, it is in the form of a passing jab at "ObamaCare," often combined with a comment about the ugly process used to pass it, and not a deeper argument about what's actually in the bill.

On the whole, the GOP has yet to succeed in making the issue one of the key points of contrast in the electorate’s decision-making issue matrix.

If left unchanged, this could be a costly missed opportunity, for at least three reasons:

First, because the public has taken a position opposed to ObamaCare, and those strongly opposed to it significantly outnumber those strongly favoring it. Moreover, in most polling data we’ve seen so far, it appears clear that a significant number of voters view a candidate’s stand on healthcare as a voting-level marker, as a proxy for deeper values-level core beliefs – so failing to use a Democratic candidate’s support for ObamaCare against him is a weapon left holstered.

Second, because of the form "reform" has taken under ObamaCare, healthcare is now a significant test of what kind of nation America will be -- one which respects its Constitution and its tradition of individual liberty and established limits on government authority, or one which does not? If you care about the policy agenda itself -- and not just which team wins or loses -- healthcare is a crucial issue.

Third, because if Republicans fail properly to use health care as an issue in the fall campaigns, it will rob them of the ability to claim a mandate for repeal next year should they recapture one or both Houses of Congress this year. And absent a clear and compelling "we ran against them on ObamaCare, and the voters gave us back the keys to the joint" argument, the media will only allow Republicans to claim opposition to the Democrats' failures on the economy as the reason for their electoral success.

And that would be a damn shame.

Let’s review.

Is Barney Skladany Really the ONLY Lobbyist Brave Enough To Stand Up To Harry Reid?

anonymous — Mon, 9 Aug 2010 13:08:00 CST

Meet Barney Skladany.

Skladany has been one of Washington's top lobbyists for decades.

First in the Washington office of a Fortune 50 company, and then as a partner in Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP, Skladany has focused his work in public policy and government relations for more than three decades.

Unlike most of the lobbyists in Washington, Skladany wears his principles and his values on his sleeve.

He is a proud and unapologetic conservative's conservative -- a Ronald Reagan conservative, a Jack Kemp conservative.

And, based on this piece published last week in Politico, it is clear that he is also one of the bravest men in town -- he had the courage to be the only registered lobbyist publicly to donate money to Nevada Republican Senate nominee Sharron Angle.

Vitter. Primary. Over.

anonymous — Wed, 21 Jul 2010 15:07:00 CST

People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.

And candidates who attack an opponent's perceived vulnerability in a given issue area are wise to check first to make sure they have no vulnerabilities in that same area.

Just ask Chet Traylor, the retired Louisiana state Supreme Court Justice whose last-minute entry into the GOP primary for the U.S. Senate seat currently held by David Vitter roiled what had theretofore been expected to be a smooth sail to renomination.

Obama Plays for History

anonymous — Tue, 20 Jul 2010 09:07:00 CST

Has it occurred to anyone else that Barack Obama's view of history -- shaped by his upbringing and his pre-White House career -- is so different from those who came before him that his view of playing for the history books may be totally divorced from the Conventional Wisdom?

The CW view can be found best expressed in Tom Clancy's "Clear and Present Danger," when CIA Deputy Director Robert Ritter explains to Jack Ryan that first-term President Bennett "wants what every first-term President wants -- a second term."

In fact, the consensus view among scholars surveyed in 16 different polls between 1948 and 2010 is that winning two presidential elections is the sine qua non of "greatness."

George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, Thomas Jefferson, Theodore Roosevelt, and Franklin Roosevelt -- the consensus list of the top five, according to those surveys -- came from different parts of the country, faced entirely different challenges, viewed their powers and prerogatives differently, and varied widely in their ideologies and partisan affiliations. Their one common denominator is that each was elected twice.

Of course, winning two elections is not the only prerequisite for "greatness" -- George W. Bush, after all, won two presidential elections, as did Richard Nixon. Historians and presidential scholars rank Nixon in the bottom quartile, and it's doubtful that Bush will rank much higher.

For everyone else on the list, winning the approval of the electorate after having spent four years in the White House seems to be a determinative factor in the eventual ranking of a President.

But what if Obama has decided, in the words of Gene Roddenberry, to boldly go where no man has gone before -- to try to make it onto the list without benefit of reelection?

Is it possible that he has decided his best shot at the history books is to bet everything on a single term?

And if so, what implications does that have for both policy and politics?